Peter Lalic chess database

Use this section to advertise yourself or your products.

What do you think about the database?

The games are high quality and instructive.
3
13%
The games are patzerish; I could learn more from GMs.
1
4%
I couldn't be bothered to open it.
6
25%
I looked through all the annotations; they were useful.
1
4%
Why should I look at somebody else's games?
0
No votes
I enjoy learning from the commentary of others.
2
8%
The commentary was good; variations, evaluations, text, etc.
2
8%
The guy doesn't know how to analyse games.
0
No votes
I prefer the YouTube version; entertaining with awesome music!
2
8%
Studying the games with ChessBase is easier and more flexible.
4
17%
It needs improvement (please reply with your thoughts, thanks).
0
No votes
Keep up the good work, and keep your updates posted.
3
13%
 
Total votes: 24

James Pratt
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:10 pm

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by James Pratt » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:17 pm

The move 1.e4 e6 2.d3 b5! was played in Keene-Basman, Bognor Regis 1967.

It also got an airing at Montreal 1979, you can digout the reference.

Peter, have you been reading your Nimzowitsch? All Frenchmen must ..

Peter Lalic

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Peter Lalic » Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:41 pm

James Pratt wrote:All Frenchmen must
Thanks, James. I'll look up some of those 2...b5 games. Yeah, I've seen game analyses and extracts from "My System" in book and video form. But admittedly I haven't read the whole thing through; I've got to do that some time. :)

Peter Lalic

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Peter Lalic » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:12 am

Sorry, I've made a huge mistake (there are many others, of course) in the database...
Game 122 should be Mehendale, K - Lalic, P 0-1.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2794
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:01 am

I don't see anything wrong with Nf3/b3, it is not noticeably more boring than 1.d4 (which only gets exciting if black plays something interesting), and you don't need to learn much theory, understanding the positions is the important thing. You should play openings which make you feel comfortable. It is all a matter of taste of course.

The time you save on learning opening theory is much better used on understanding endings!
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

Peter Rhodes
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:53 pm

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Peter Rhodes » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:15 pm

Thankyou Peter,

I enjoyed going through your games.
Chess Amateur.

Peter Lalic

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Peter Lalic » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:20 pm

Peter Rhodes wrote:Thankyou Peter,

I enjoyed going through your games.
Thank YOU;
it's comments like this that make me feel that the commentated games are worth it. :D
Good luck with your chess!

Peter Lalic

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Peter Lalic » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:31 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:I don't see anything wrong with Nf3/b3, it is not noticeably more boring than 1.d4 (which only gets exciting if black plays something interesting), and you don't need to learn much theory, understanding the positions is the important thing. You should play openings which make you feel comfortable. It is all a matter of taste of course.

The time you save on learning opening theory is much better used on understanding endings!
I completely agree with you, Kevin. :)
> Both d4 and b3 can lead to strategic and tactical struggles alike (depending partly on Black's set-up).
> I've saved a lot of time; there are no precise opening traps to learn, and the only knowledge I have is based on whole games I've seen. For example, Larsen's games are instructive more in the way that b3 LEADS to certain structures / dynamisms. The understanding of the queenside fianchetto opening actually lies in the middlegame, where a player learns how hypermodernism either succeeds or fails. Of course, b3 can also be used in combination with a central domination.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3224
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:57 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:I don't see anything wrong with Nf3/b3, it is not noticeably more boring than 1.d4 (which only gets exciting if black plays something interesting)
Kevin,

I can't think where you got this word, "boring," from, as I certainly didn't use it. I referred to Nf3/b3 systems as, "insipid," which I'm sure is reasonably accurate; they lack bite. I disagree, too, with your assertion that it is only Black who gets the chance to make things "interesting" after 1. d4. I assume that you mean "sharp". A very strange assertion, that one. Not everyone who plays 1. d4 is lusting after an Exchange Slav or a Colle so-called Attack. White has lots of aggressive systems to choose from, should he wish to, after either 1... d5 or 1... Nf6.

Personally, I find it useful to try to find something of interest in any position, or otherwise the danger is, that I will just fall asleep and drift into a lost. Bad habit to get into, that one of finding positions boring.
Kevin Thurlow wrote:The time you save on learning opening theory is much better used on understanding endings!
My point was that it is better to learn critical systems when you are young. When you are older it is so much harder - and you may well regret the effort you put into learning dross.

Regards,
Paul McKeown.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:37 pm

(I'm the person who voted for the youtube version: I think all chessgames should be presented in this way.)

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2794
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:49 am

"I can't think where you got this word, "boring," from, as I certainly didn't use it. I referred to Nf3/b3 systems as, "insipid," which I'm sure is reasonably accurate; they lack bite. I disagree, too, with your assertion that it is only Black who gets the chance to make things "interesting" after 1. d4. I assume that you mean "sharp". A very strange assertion, that one. Not everyone who plays 1. d4 is lusting after an Exchange Slav or a Colle so-called Attack. White has lots of aggressive systems to choose from, should he wish to, after either 1... d5 or 1... Nf6.

Personally, I find it useful to try to find something of interest in any position, or otherwise the danger is, that I will just fall asleep and drift into a lost. Bad habit to get into, that one of finding positions boring.


Kevin Thurlow wrote:
The time you save on learning opening theory is much better used on understanding endings!


My point was that it is better to learn critical systems when you are young. When you are older it is so much harder - and you may well regret the effort you put into learning dross."

Hi Paul

"Insipid" means "lacking vigour or interest," so "insipid" and "boring" are not fundamentally antonymous! I quite agree that interesting (or even exciting) positions can result whatever opening you play. My father played the Nf3/b3 system for many years and scored some crushing victories. I have been playing 1.c4 (which frequently transposes to d4 systems of course) for over 30 years, and interesting things do happen. So I wasn't saying 1.d4 is terminally dull.
I agree it is easier to learn opening theory when you're younger, and of course you can win games with superior opening knowledge, but it is very important to understand endings, especially as you have to play them so quickly these days...
And if you play a system a lot, you develop your own "theory" (in a "understanding positions sense") when your opponent may not really know what's going on. That is a lot more interesting than playing 30 moves as published in the latest New in Chess.
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

Peter Rhodes
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:53 pm

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Peter Rhodes » Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:11 am

I played Nf3 for a while. I enjoyed the fact that many of my opponents were in unfamiliar territory fairly quickly and that my plans were consistent from game to game. If my opponent neglected to acknowledge the strength of the g2-bishop or reacted aggressively I could often win an early pawn, or more.

I'm not a strong player by any measure, my playing strength was around 140 in new money, but I would often take fairly easy wins against anyone up to 130. The problem was that I ran into a rut when I played opponents around my own strength where I was getting so many draws. It was demoralising because I really could not find a way to get past the draws. I think I had a run of around 7 draws intermixed with a couple of losses which really knocked my confidence.

A chess colleague went through my games and advised I switch to e4 where I have found new enjoyment from chess.


I'm stuck between the conflicting ideas behind playing Nf3.

I truly believe that you can play Nf3 for life and that you can learn a system without having to learn all the variations associated with 1.e4 or 1.d4. I think there are GMs who specialise in this kind of play.

On the other hand, and thinking about my own experiences, it seems that this style of play causes you to neglect a big chunk of chess experience which may (?) be essential.


That's my own experiences of Nf3 !

Good luck Peter.
Chess Amateur.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3224
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:31 am

Kevin,

I agree with you that endgames are important; mostly the Shereshevsky (or Barden) stuff about generally how to go about endgames, but, of course, some theoretical endgames are needed off pat as well. I guess there is just SOOOO much to learn, if you want to play chess well and I suppose also that that is one reason that I don't!

Regards,
Paul.

Peter Lalic

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Peter Lalic » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:52 pm

Peter Rhodes wrote:On the other hand, and thinking about my own experiences, it seems that this style of play causes you to neglect a big chunk of chess experience which may (?) be essential.
Thanks, Peter. This has really opened my eyes... :D
you know, I have heard about how 1.e4 is major step in chess understanding - blowing some concepts out of the water, and unleashing a completely different kind of game from the sometimes too systematic systems.
I bet that some day I will just flip to the other side of the spectrum...maybe partly thanks to your reply...wow... :shock:

Maxim Devereaux
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:08 pm

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Maxim Devereaux » Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:05 pm

I haven't looked at the games, but I thought I'd mention that I had a period of playing 1.Nf3 and 2.b3 myself, not in every game, but in a fair few, mainly in weekend Opens and games that I wouldn't have a chance to prepare for, and wanted to avoid any opening preparation people might have lined up for me.

I've attached my own database of 1.Nf3 and 2.b3 games to this post. Most weren't played in FIDE rated events, but weekenders and league matches, and haven't seen the light of day before.

A fair number of these are games I was expected to win, and probably easily, but still, results of +22 =6, and particularly the number of relatively short wins, gives a good recommendation for occasionally eschewing "book" play, and forcing yourself and your opponent to rely on your own wits from early on.

The games against Kitson, Smallbone and Turner particularly, I think, show how a relatively innocuous looking opening can suddenly turn anything but!
Attachments

[The extension zip has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7221
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Peter Lalic chess database

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:09 pm

Maxim Devereaux wrote:I haven't looked at the games, but I thought I'd mention that I had a period of playing 1.Nf3 and 2.b3 myself, not in every game, but in a fair few, mainly in weekend Opens and games that I wouldn't have a chance to prepare for, and wanted to avoid any opening preparation people might have lined up for me.

I've attached my own database of 1.Nf3 and 2.b3 games to this post. Most weren't played in FIDE rated events, but weekenders and league matches, and haven't seen the light of day before.

A fair number of these are games I was expected to win, and probably easily, but still, results of +22 =6, and particularly the number of relatively short wins, gives a good recommendation for occasionally eschewing "book" play, and forcing yourself and your opponent to rely on your own wits from early on.

The games against Kitson, Smallbone and Turner particularly, I think, show how a relatively innocuous looking opening can suddenly turn anything but!
What, no YouTube version? I think the vote at the top of the page is still open. Will there be a new vote for your database? :)

Post Reply