Some more games

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
Nicky Chorley
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Contact:

Some more games

Post by Nicky Chorley » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:26 pm

I'm quite pleased with both of these.



I should really have taken on a6 and then brought the knight to e6. I thought I was in time trouble here, but I had an extra hour :oops:.



We were due to play a league game for Metropolitan, but our opponents didn't turn up, so we played this game. I ended up losing on time, but it was thoroughly enjoyable :D. I think I should have played g4 after she'd played Rg5. Also, I looked over the game a bit with a work colleague (who's around 180, I think) and he suggested instead of 15. b4, I could have gone Bg5 and then tried to aim for a knight on f5 (via h4). Also, instead of 14. Nbxd4, there might have been Nfxd4 but maybe Black has Qh4 (my colleague suggested that).

Enjoy!

JustinHadi

Re: Some more games

Post by JustinHadi » Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:29 pm

It's good that you play for a club with an established ladder tournament. Quite beneficial when starting out in league chess.

David Blower
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Some more games

Post by David Blower » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:05 pm

In the first game, you have already pointed out that you should have took on a6, and with both of your rooks and your queen attacking the a6 square I agree. I would say as well in the first game your knight was on an excellent e6 square. (This is usually the case when knights go onto a square diagionally in front of the pawn.) It can't be attacked by any pawns (the d and f pawns are already at least level with it) there are no knights, and the dark squared bishop is not going to take a knight on a white square. I don't think I would have took the bishop on g7.

Post Reply