When I started playing chess I mainly played 1.e4 as is typical, but when I entered my first tournament I decided to play 1.d4 and adopt a Colle type structure based around an e3-e4 break move. A month later I started playing chess on ICC and from that point on played 1.c4, mainly with the idea of avoiding opening theory and leaving opponents unsure of exactly what to do. In my most recent tournament I switched to 1.Nf3 2.b3 3.Bb2 for an ultra flexible set-up, and I've used this set up several times on ICC since returning. As black I learned the Queens Gambit declined, the French and Caro-Kann.
As I mentioned in an earlier entry I was very impressed by the style of play of the only child in the recent tournament, and looking back at some of my early 2008 games I can see myself playing strong moves which I might shrink from now. I think I have become too obsessed with getting a 'solid' structure and my openings lack force or purpose. Playing through an elegant Capablanca game recently reinforced on me that perhaps I've lost my way a little. Am I still improving? My standard rating on ICC doesn't seem to be increasing particularly.
I have decided to force myself to change my approach and try to make every move energetic, principled and purposeful, with an emphasis on piece activity rather than structure. I have switched to a 1.e4 2.Nf3 3.Bc4/b5 approach, and answer 1.e4 with 1.e5 as black - although I don't know the theory at all yet.
I have played 5 games like this so far, and they have been a lot of fun - much more so than my old approach. The result has been 3 wins and 2 losses, but with no immediate significant net rating change (in some ways this is quite encouraging, as I had thought my rating might drop quite a lot in trying something new). The games have been a lot more tactical and exciting, with interesting inbalances rather than equality. They have also repeatedly showed real weaknesses in my ability to recognise or assess certain threats and opposing tactics, but this is also good as each game comes with more obvious learning opportunities.
In the above position I am playing as white and have made some fairly aggressive and ambitious choices. One advantage of a stucture emphasising piece activity is that when you do make tactical errors there are freqeuntly defensive resources available. In this game I missed a knight fork tactic but thanks to the strength of my position had a good reply. See below.
11.Rxf2 ...Qxf2 12. Nd5! ...Nc6? 13.Be3, and black resigns.
In the above position I have just played 23...b4. Played continued 24.Ne2 ...Rxc1 25.Nxc1 ...Qc5 26.Nd3 ...Qc3 27. h4. A very interesting and complex game, which I went on to lose in short order.
Above shows a different game, and in the position I am lost (although I wasn't sure of this at the time). It does however show the nature of the positions that can come up quite early on if you adopt an aggresive approach... the games certainly tend to end with less moves played.
In the above position as black I became fixated on the 'threat' of f4-f5, and in overestimating the trouble this would cause (in reality ...g6-g5 would be a good reply) felt compelled to trade down into an endgame where I was worse but hoped to draw. I played the endgame well and actually managed to win thanks to inaccuracies by my opponent, but this is a good example of me damaging my own position thanks to a mis-assessment of threats.
No comments:
Post a Comment