

1. *
1. Nf3 g6


2. e4 *
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7
> Difficult decision here, sharp lines are definitely not what i want to play considering the challenge-conditions...
, was more looking to the Kramnik-approach and the 1...Nf6 you usually play here.
I try to keep opponents guessing,

> I try to keep opponents guessing,
I expected 2....Bg7

3. d4 *
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6
Gee, I am already way down in both games according to engines,

But I better start playing better moves, or you won't have much to think about.

> I know you are limiting yourself as far as engine thinking and doing more manual thinking. I always try to do that, but not quite to that extent.
I'm currently just following the green moves in my little analysis-book, think engines aren't very useful in such fianchetto-openings... they think white is especially good, but truth is black's dark bishop can immediately turn the table when white plays an inaccuracy.
4. Nc3 *
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6

And of course, use all the time you need. I will be slowing down soon myself.
> And of course, use all the time you need.
Thanks for your understanding. Think i will investigate in 8 different moves.
> Well, we are now in a Pirc position which I am very comfortable with,
It's all I played for years, but I'm sure you knew that.
Well, the Pirc seems to be lowest common opening-denominator we could agree on


5. Be3 *
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0

6. Be2 *
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6
Always been partial to this line, the engines don't like it though.
> Always been partial to this line, the engines don't like it though.
I think it is a natural development-move in this position.
7. Qd2 *
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7 8. h3 b5
I think I'm ok so far, we'll see...

> I think I'm ok so far, we'll see...
Yes, your 7...Nbd7 is surprisingly pretty good - i obviously had just a quick look on it and investigated my analysis time more in your other alternatives...
9. a3 *
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7 8. h3 b5 9. a3 Qc7
This one I am happy with so far...
> This one I am happy with so far...
When i remember correctly then such c6&b5-systems are in spirit of the "Tiger's approach", but guess you know this book already - or at least Matt does (as Tiger also likes to play 4...a6).

10. Bh6 *
Anton vs Scott
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7 8. h3 b5 9. a3 Qc7 10. Bh6 a5
> Starting to get tough now.
Well, its just natural that my challenge-approach oversees a lot of things -especially as i'm playing too fast


11. h4 *
> so let's see whether you complicate matters.
I just trying to hold on, let alone complicate matters,

> I just trying to hold on

> most likely O-O in this position is objectively better, but with the challenge-approach it would be difficult for me to find the right combinations of positional squeezing the position (if there is anything to squeeze at all), so i moved this one pretty into the unknown - just to keep the spirit of the plan.
Actually, I agree with you. Through the years the h4 attack on the KID or Pirc set-up has always been a strong way to go about the attack. The engines like castling better, but they would.
Already this shows your human influence.
Sending an "if" move. Of course your move leaves the square of g4 for me, the chance to get more pieces on the kingside to defend. I wanted
to continue with queenside expansion, but it is what it is.
Anton vs Scott
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7 8. h3 b5 9. a3 Qc7 10. Bh6 a5 11. h4 Bxh6 12. if Qxh6 Ng4



>> most likely O-O in this position is objectively better
> Actually, I agree with you. Through the years the h4 attack on the KID or Pirc set-up has always been a strong way to go about the attack. The engines like castling better, but they would.
Yes, king-attacks always attract my fantasy. In case of castling king-side i most likely should have done this way earlier, maybe putting in a positional a4 to stop your march on the queenside and leaving out h3 for it as Be2 was in place... think that would be ppipper's style.

> I wanted to continue with queenside expansion, but it is what it is.
Lets wait and see, the advanced pawns may be pretty useful in the endgames to come... one never knows.
> Already this shows your human influence.
Thank you, i'm enjoying games and communication with you very much. Enjoy analysing!
12. Qxh6 Ng4 13. Qg5 *
> Thank you, i'm enjoying games and communication with you very much.
I likewise. I wrote this now because I need to start looking hard and hopefully adding a little human touch of my own to the games.

I would welcome other wbccc'ers, especially Nelson,

> maybe putting in a positional a4 to stop your march on the queenside
I didn't look at the game very deep, but you are right here. There is no rush to open up all the lines in the other flank, so it seems a very nice no-risk strategy. Such a4 moves they also play interesting roles in a future endgames when b pawns still exist and they are behind...


1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7 8. h3 b5 9. a3 Qc7 10. Bh6 a5 11. h4 Bxh6 12. Qxf6 Ng4 13. Qg5 Ndf6

14. h5 *




> Will post my 13. Qd2-analysis tree in two or three moves...
I looked at that a little deeper, and I am kinda glad you didn't play it. It's not a big difference, but I think 13. Qd2 was the better move.
Anton vs Scott
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7 8. h3 b5 9. a3 Qc7 10. Bh6 a5 11. h4 Bxh6 12. Qxf6 Ng4 13. Qg5 Ndf6 14. h5 e5
Btw, I liked that article you found on Dagh and Co. I played in the first freestyle which was won by Zacks. A lot of the names in the article were very familiar.
Like Flying Saucers, Cato the Younger etc. It's nice to know who they were. What about flying fatman? Is he the same as flying saucers?
> What about flying fatman? Is he the same as flying saucers?
Generally I was behind the flyingfatman userid (my daughter chose the name from an episode of "The Simpsons"). However, Dagh did play on flyingfatman a couple of times, this game for instance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090901378.html
That was all Dagh. I was meant to be assisting him remotely but my datacentre got struck by lightning (seriously!), so he flew solo.


Also, nice article!
> I looked at that a little deeper, and I am kinda glad you didn't play it. It's not a big difference, but I think 13. Qd2 was the better move.

> Btw, I liked that article you found on Dagh and Co. I played in the first freestyle which was won by Zacks.
Nice to hear Scott, i was just curious about who is "Dagh" - therefore i googled "Dagh correspondence chess" and found it.

1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7 8. h3 b5 9. a3 Qc7 10. Bh6 a5 11. h4 Bxh6 12. Qxf6 Ng4 13. Qg5 Ndf6 14. h5 e5 15. h6 Nh5
Now the games will be getting interesting,

> Now the games will be getting interesting,
I don't think so, 15...Nh5 leads now to a longer draw-down line which sweeps the complexities out of the game, positions that arise feel pretty dead...



16. Nh2 *
> I don't think so, 15...Nh5 leads now to a longer draw-down line which sweeps the complexities out of the game.
Like Eros says, first Black has to equalize. 15. ...Nh5 was the only move I could find that helps achieve that goal.
Anton vs Scott
1. Nf3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be3 0-0 6. Be2 c6 7. Qd2 Nbd7 8. h3 b5 9. a3 Qc7 10. Bh6 a5 11. h4 Bxh6 12. Qxf6 Ng4 13. Qg5 Ndf6 14. h5 e5 15. h6 Nh5 16. Nh2 f6
> Like Eros says, first Black has to equalize.
Absolutely, you have to control risks - and when its an only option you have to go that way, i have no different approach in the other game... its just that white shouldn't allow black equalize, but thats more easily said than done.

17. Qd2 *


Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill