However it turned out my play wasn't that great, and I managed to fight my way into equal last. It was a learning experience for me, and the lessons I learnt then did stick with me.
The following game is a good example. My opening theory was pretty shallow, and so I made it up as I went along. Of course it was mainly short term threats, and at some point I played a very crude Ng5, with the idea of forking on f7. Even when my opponent played Rf8, I took on f7, thinking there was no harm in it (2 pieces = R+P according to what I learnt). Then I got smashed. So badly in fact, that the game was published in the Canberra Times the next day (which did at least allow Paul Dunn to dig it up from their archives earlier this week).
Having been beaten so badly I felt I needed to take something away from the game. The lessons I took were
- Two pieces are better than R+P in most situations
- Moves like h3 in the opening are just a waste of time
- BxN is almost never an equal exchange
Press,Shaun - Austin,David [C50]
AUS jr ch Canberra (7.14), 24.01.1983
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. h3 d6 6. Nc3 Bd7 7. Ng5 Rf8 8. Nxf7 Rxf7 9. Bxf7+ Kxf7 10. d3 Kg8 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bxf6 Qxf6 13. Nd5 Qg6 14. Qf3 Rf8 15. Qe2 Bxh3 16. Ne3 Nd4 17. Qd1 Bxg2 18. Nxg2 Nf3+ 0-1
1 comment:
Of course you leave out of the post and your opponent was probably the most naturally gifted junior of his generation in ACT chess. You could have played better and you still would have been smashed.
Post a Comment