TL Chess Match - Page 12

sorry yes you are right, my apologies. I haven't considered 5 a3. he may play it .... he may not.... so well let's see.

it's my mistake to underestimate this move from him (as well as others also mentioned). my thought process is given the nature of the match I don't think he'll try anything fancy till we're ending the early game phase.

What's the point of going 5...Bb4? From what I see, all this does is provoke 6.a3 as a response, making our next move 6...Be7. Or is forcing 6.a3 actually the goal?

I'm not sure what to think of 5...Bxf3. While we do screw up his position, I'm not exactly thrilled about exchanging a fianchettoed bishop, especially if his light colored bishop is still in play. Movement of the knight on f6 is also restricted. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I vote for 5...Bf8-b4.

Reasoning: this move actively develops our kingside, allowing us to castle more quickly than white can, actually giving us a slight developmental advantage piece wise, vs. his space advantage and slight initiative. This move limits his central mobility, while not committing ourselves to anything too much - we still had not moved the d-pawn, thus retaining the ability to play the breaking move d5 in one movement, potentially saving a tempo. Further, the b8 knight still has its full range of developmental options.

Now, for those wondering about 6. a3 Be7 is a simple transposition to the Petrosian line, which is in no way detrimental to us. It does win him a half tempi, in sofar as he gets the a3 move for free if instead we had played Be7 directly, but it also gives us scope for counterplay on the weekend b3 (say, Nc8-d4-b3 for example) square later in the game via knight play, or even as a positional weakness in a king and pawn endgame. Its a tiny detail not really worth any major consideration, but I just want to illustrate its not ALL bad.

Finally, I am REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY against the bishop exchange, 5...Bxf3. Its a terrible move that offends my classical sensibilities. Why?
1) we exchange a well positioned bishop with immense latent power for a currently limited knight, ceding the bishop pair for no reason. While this opening does lead to interesting knight play, that is only a possiblity, while the bishops are always valuable. There is no sense in giving away any edge this early.
2) The doubled pawns ARE NOT an issue for white in this pawn strucuture. It adds additional protection to his kingside, limiting our own counterplay, and actually giving him a lever for assaulting our kingside via f-file pawn sacrifice. Even if it is never utilized offensively, it will still be traded off in the endgame, to no real detriment. Furthermore, this opens the e-file for pressure from his rooks.
3) The exchange of our light squae bishop stars to give him nagging play on our own light squares. Notably, this will accelerate his ability to play d5, which we cannot allow. It is an even exchange without benefit at the moment, but should it be allowed to gain momentum, and should he then be able to play d5-d6, its all over. We want to keep as much control over the central d5 and e4 squares as possible, while we can, so as to limit his ability to gain space and then momentum for an attack. I should mention that e4-e5 is also a threat if we are not careful.

Id like to see us play ...Bb4, then aim to play either ...d6 or ...d5 as appopriate, castling soon after. With a safe classical position, we can then look at various methods of generating action in the centre, either via the standard ...c5 pawn lever (which is why I dont really want to play the knight to c6 if we can help it, I would rather wait and move him to d7, reinforcing our own counter-centre, and the crucial knight on f6) or through the more ambitious ...f5.

Im going to go and look up some classical Korchnoi games from this position, so as to find some methods for attacking. Ill be back.