English Chess Forum

Correction for Soheil. The heading should be "Where did I GO wrong ? "

Barry Sandercock wrote:Correction for Soheil. The heading should be "Where did I GO wrong ? "

Yeah, thanks. Please correct it.

Jonathan Rogers wrote:I agree, and would add another thing which is frequently overlooked: keep the two bishops! Two bishops are generally much stronger v bishop and knight than is one bishop against one knight. (Of course there are exceptions but this does not look like one of them).

But the two Bishops are good even in closed positions like this? I cannnot easily find good places for them. You have to eventually exchange this static element, isn't it?

This isn't a closed position; probably semi-open. Two bishops are almost always best, save perhaps in defending cramped positions or in positions where a pawn chain dominates the board and there are few or no pawn breaks available. Again. the position in question is not that exceptional.

Save for the exceptions, it is important to understand how, even in positions where bishops do not yet have much scope, given time they invariably do find useful things to do. John Watson is perhaps the leading author on this subject.

[Event "Shiraz Cup 2016"] [Site "Shiraz"] [Date "28.4.2016"] [Round "2"] [White "Houshdaran, Soheil"] [Black "Shayesteh Fard, Abbas"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B30"] [WhiteElo "1800"] [BlackElo "1792"] [Opening "Sicilian defence"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. g3 d6 4. Bg2 Bg4 5. O-O g6 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 Bg7 8. Nc3 Nd4 9. Qd3 Nf6 10. e5 dxe5 11. Bxb7 Rb8 12. Bg2 O-O 13. b3 Qa5 14. Ne2 c4 15. bxc4 e4 16. Qxd4 Nh5 17. Qxe4 Bxa1 18. d4 Qxa2 19. Bh6 Rfc8 20. g4 Ng7 21. Qe5 Ne6 22. Bd5 Qa5 23. c5 Bxd4 24. Nxd4 Qc7 25. Qxc7 Nxc7 26. Bb3 a5 27. Nc6 Rxb3 28. Nxe7+ Kh8 29. cxb3 Rb8 30. Bf4 Rb7 31. Be5+ f6 32. Bxf6# 1-0

Where did I go wrong?The guy was almost winning!

9.Qd3 looks wrong; your queen is doing nothing there and you block the natural development of your bishop. 9.Qd1 is probably better.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:9.Qd3 looks wrong; your queen is doing nothing there and you block the natural development of your bishop. 9.Qd1 is probably better.

I wanted to stop ...b5

Please suggest improvements. During the game I made many decisions which I think maybe were wrong. I weakened my king (14...h6) for a 2-Bishop advanyage, and I opened the position let the White Bishop in (22...Nd4)
[Event "Shiraz Cup 2016"] [Site "Shiraz"] [Date "29.4.2016"] [Round "5"] [White "Safari Eskandari"] [Black "Houshdaran, Soheil"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2074"] [BlackElo "1800"] 1. c4 g6 2. g3 f5 3. d4 c5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bg2 cxd4 6. Nxd4 Qb6 7. Nb3 Qb4+ 8. N1d2 Nf6 9. O-O O-O 10. a3 Qb6 11. Nf3 Qc7 12. c5 e5 13. Bg5 Nc6 14. Rc1 h6 15. Bxf6 Rxf6 16. e4 f4 17. Nbd2 d6 18. b4 dxc5 19. Rxc5 fxg3 20. hxg3 Qe7 21. Qc2 Bg4 22. b5 Nd4 23. Nxd4 exd4 24. e5 Rf7 25. Bd5 Be6 26. Qxg6 Bxd5 27. Rxd5 Qxa3 28. Ne4 Qf3 29. Nf6+ Kf8 30. Nd7+ Kg8 31. Rxd4 Rc8 32. e6 Re7 33. Rf4 Qb3 34. Nf6+ 1-0

Soheil, I'm a patzer but even I can see that move 7 is a waste of tempo. You are either thinking too much with the information you have from reading and translating and getting confused or not thinking at all about how to apply what you read. In your previous game when you played Qd3 you reacted to a threat, and chess will contain moments where the opponent gets a move, by compromising your own development. I suspect some of your decision making suffers from a lack of confidence in your ability.

About the Qd3 in the round 2 game, I thought that the Bishop will need two tempi to be developed anyway, not attending the harmony between pieces and pawns.

The guy was winning again.
Also hard to figure out how to improve my position.


Here's the game:
[Event "Shiraz Cup 2016"] [Site "Shiraz"] [Date "30.4.2016"] [Round "6"] [White "Houshdaran, Soheil"] [Black "Kardani, Ali"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B29"] [WhiteElo "1800"] [BlackElo "1489"] [Opening "Sicilian: Nimzovich-Rubinstein variation"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. g3 e6 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. O-O d6 7. exd6 Bxd6 8. d4 cxd4 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. c4 Ne7 12. Nc3 Qc7 13. Qc2 Bb7 14. Ne4 Be5 15. Nc5 Rfd8 16. Bg5 Rd6 17. Nd3 Rd7 18. Nxe5 Qxe5 19. Bf4 Qa5 20. Rad1 Rad8 21. Bd2 Rxd2 22. Qb3 Rxd1 23. Rxd1 Rxd1+ 24. Qxd1 Qc7 25. b4 g6 26. Qd4 Bc8 27. Qc5 Qd7 28. h4 h5 29. Kh2 Kh7 30. Be4 Kg8 31. a4 Kg7 32. b5 cxb5 33. axb5 Nf5 34. Qe5+ Kg8 35. Qb8 Nd6 36. Bd3 Nf5 37. Be4 Nd6 38. Bc6 Qd8 39. c5 Nf5 40. b6 axb6 41. cxb6 Ne7 42. b7 Kg7 43. Qa8 Kh7 44. b8=Q Nxc6 45. Qxc6 Kg7 46. Qc3+ Kh7 47. Qbxc8 Qxc8 48. Qxc8 Kg7 49. Kg2 f5 50. Qxe6 Kh7 51. Qf7+ Kh8 52. Qe7 f4 53. Kf3 fxg3 54. fxg3 g5 55. hxg5 h4 56. g6 h3 57. Qh7# 1-0

Also, after the game my opponent asked what was his mistake. What should I have told him?

Abject apologies are normal after that sort of swindle

What swindle?

The winning a totally lost game one!

Swindle doesn't always have to refer to a specific short term trick - it can be something like this where someone contrives to lose a position where they were utterly winning.

MartinCarpenter wrote:Swindle doesn't always have to refer to a specific short term trick - it can be something like this where someone contrives to lose a position where they were utterly winning.

I think most people would understand a successful swindle to be playing for a trap that the opponent falls in to. Soheil's game is not a swindle. His opponent just played so badly from a clearly winning position that he eventually lost it.