Most of the game i dont understand....
move 38? why Black just didn't move king to f 2 to escape, but they sac queen
Move 18 was pretty scary but a good choice i might have not do this sacrifice in this sitution for exemple maybe kd4 would have been better but very good game and gg you got the dub.
Nice game! The endgame is just a true pleasure !
Btw this my favorite of the whole year :
Btw this my favorite of the whole year :
@CSKA_Moscou said in #5:
> Nice game! The endgame is just a true pleasure !
>
> Btw this my favorite of the whole year :
wow Nice, I love Attacking too in Games, Your Style seemed like very Attacking
> Nice game! The endgame is just a true pleasure !
>
> Btw this my favorite of the whole year :
wow Nice, I love Attacking too in Games, Your Style seemed like very Attacking
@aVague said in #6:
> wow Nice, I love Attacking too in Games, Your Style seemed like very Attacking
I had a lot of fun analyzing and sharing it. However, I am closer to the ideas of Botvinnik and Karpov: having the initiative at the opening, taking positional and material micro-advantages and setting traps for the opponent. so I'm more on the counter, even if I'm still taking too many risks. I have a little trouble with sacrifices if there are no positional "arguments" to justify it, so despite my admiration for Tal, I find his sacrifices insanely but brilliants. so I'm more of a d4 and structure player, and I have little theoretical knowledge about Ruy Lopez compared to d4.
> wow Nice, I love Attacking too in Games, Your Style seemed like very Attacking
I had a lot of fun analyzing and sharing it. However, I am closer to the ideas of Botvinnik and Karpov: having the initiative at the opening, taking positional and material micro-advantages and setting traps for the opponent. so I'm more on the counter, even if I'm still taking too many risks. I have a little trouble with sacrifices if there are no positional "arguments" to justify it, so despite my admiration for Tal, I find his sacrifices insanely but brilliants. so I'm more of a d4 and structure player, and I have little theoretical knowledge about Ruy Lopez compared to d4.
@CSKA_Moscou said in #7:
> I had a lot of fun analyzing and sharing it. However, I am closer to the ideas of Botvinnik and Karpov: having the initiative at the opening, taking positional and material micro-advantages and setting traps for the opponent. so I'm more on the counter, even if I'm still taking too many risks. I have a little trouble with sacrifices if there are no positional "arguments" to justify it, so despite my admiration for Tal, I find his sacrifices insanely but brilliants. so I'm more of a d4 and structure player, and I have little theoretical knowledge about Ruy Lopez compared to d4.
oh I play d4 always, I m Positional Attacking Player, so I agressivy fight for Space itself, choosing it as a target( not only tactics and figures)
> I had a lot of fun analyzing and sharing it. However, I am closer to the ideas of Botvinnik and Karpov: having the initiative at the opening, taking positional and material micro-advantages and setting traps for the opponent. so I'm more on the counter, even if I'm still taking too many risks. I have a little trouble with sacrifices if there are no positional "arguments" to justify it, so despite my admiration for Tal, I find his sacrifices insanely but brilliants. so I'm more of a d4 and structure player, and I have little theoretical knowledge about Ruy Lopez compared to d4.
oh I play d4 always, I m Positional Attacking Player, so I agressivy fight for Space itself, choosing it as a target( not only tactics and figures)
@aVague said in #8:
> oh I play d4 always, I m Positional Attacking Player, so I agressivy fight for Space itself, choosing it as a target( not only tactics and figures)
I try to vary the openings depending on the mode. I am very inspired by the style of @/serg_01 and his precision in midgame and endgame and also by @/lance5500. I rarely play e4 because I want to have initiative in the opening. I have played the London system for a long time and it is an opening that I use regularly for the purpose of a surprise opening against opponents that I have already faced a lot. the placement of the bishop is good and the c3 pawn is an interesting solid and defensive resource.
> oh I play d4 always, I m Positional Attacking Player, so I agressivy fight for Space itself, choosing it as a target( not only tactics and figures)
I try to vary the openings depending on the mode. I am very inspired by the style of @/serg_01 and his precision in midgame and endgame and also by @/lance5500. I rarely play e4 because I want to have initiative in the opening. I have played the London system for a long time and it is an opening that I use regularly for the purpose of a surprise opening against opponents that I have already faced a lot. the placement of the bishop is good and the c3 pawn is an interesting solid and defensive resource.
@CSKA_Moscou said in #9:
> I try to vary the openings depending on the mode. I am very inspired by the style of @/serg_01 and his precision in midgame and endgame and also by @/lance5500. I rarely play e4 because I want to have initiative in the opening. I have played the London system for a long time and it is an opening that I use regularly for the purpose of a surprise opening against opponents that I have already faced a lot. the placement of the bishop is good and the c3 pawn is an interesting solid and defensive resource.
I don't like e4, and almost haven't played it, because it makes position more unstable for white, and their combinative ability cuts due this opening I thing, d4 creates soft beginning( London and other) where white are more stable and save and development is convinient, a c3 a played very often before (as a Beginning move), because it has interesting positional Abilities to go not common branches , but try some original attack and it's also can be pretty stable in most cases( but there are exeptions , that s why further I ve started play d4)
> I try to vary the openings depending on the mode. I am very inspired by the style of @/serg_01 and his precision in midgame and endgame and also by @/lance5500. I rarely play e4 because I want to have initiative in the opening. I have played the London system for a long time and it is an opening that I use regularly for the purpose of a surprise opening against opponents that I have already faced a lot. the placement of the bishop is good and the c3 pawn is an interesting solid and defensive resource.
I don't like e4, and almost haven't played it, because it makes position more unstable for white, and their combinative ability cuts due this opening I thing, d4 creates soft beginning( London and other) where white are more stable and save and development is convinient, a c3 a played very often before (as a Beginning move), because it has interesting positional Abilities to go not common branches , but try some original attack and it's also can be pretty stable in most cases( but there are exeptions , that s why further I ve started play d4)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.