♡ 117 ( +1 | -1 ) Game For AnalysisHi guys... I played a tournament game last weekend that was sort of interesting. (i hope! :)) My opponent is a much stronger player. I played a Dutch Defense against him with the Black pieces. there may be a few small blunders on my part in the middle game, and we both made bigger ones in the endgame. but the endgame is pretty interesting and instructive, i think. (not necessarily because the best moves were played, but just the position itself and the type of moves that are required.) anyway, here's the game.
This is probably a mistake, since it leaves e6 vulnerable to attack by white's knight on the next move, and at that point i'm nearly forced to move my knight to b6... where it doesn't really come into play very much. At first i thought i might have to move it to b8 to avoid attack by pawns, but i decided b6 would be better.
♡ 192 ( +1 | -1 ) I love the Dutch. I used to use it a lot, but now I don't use it against 1.d4 (prefering to use it against 1.c4, or 1.Nf3, or various other moves that don't allow some of the annoying anti-Dutch lines that I don't want to face). One of my first games here was a Dutch (well, it began 1. d4 f5, but then my opponent timed out, most likely because he was that afraid of it and not because he left this site).
So, let's see how this game went. 8...Nbd7. I think your comments are right. Maybe 8...Qe8 would have been better? As in -> www.chessgames.com or -> www.chessgames.com and I'm sure there's others. When I played the Stonewall set-up in blitz, I would find that I would often accidentally allow Nxe6, forking my queen and rook. But in the end, I think I ended up better. With a stonewall, knights are more powerful than rooks. I probably just got lucky, but in blitz at least, those knights do pretty good work, and the rooks have no idea what to do.
There's got to have been something better from around moves 16-21 or so, but I'm not sure what yet. Makes this post not so useful...
29. Bd4 walks right into your clever trap. I think 29. Ba3 would have been better, and then 29...Rxg2+ 30. Kf1! not falling for it this time either.
Then, it looks great for you. Bishop pair with a lot of freedom. 1 piece for 3 pawns, but I think the pawns aren't well placed enough to do damage. Maybe 34...Bb4 35. Bb6 Ke6 With an eventual Bc5 to control the a-pawn's queening square. I don't know, it just looks to me that black should be able to control enough, though I may be wrong.
Really I just wanted to show my support for the opening, and comment on the 29th move. Past that it's all just rambling.
♡ 157 ( +1 | -1 ) Thanks, premium_steve......a very entertaining, and, yes, I agree, instructive game. My comments here are a 'first pass' mainly looking at the ending. Could you have saved it? But first, 7...Nbd7 doesn't look too good to begin with, but I quite liked the position you got subsequently. Maybe 14...d5 needs to be looked at more closely, though. The alacrity with which the WN leapt into the vacant e5 square suggests that ought to have been averted if possible. I did like your 'trap' that got you back into the game. You indeed had the worse of it after that big series of exchanges in the centre beginning at move 18. But the crucial position seems to be at move 36.Bc5: b
36...Bd8 was worth considering. Since bishop exchanges look just about forced, you might as well do it your way! If then 37.Bb6 Bxb6 38.axb6 Bb7 it isn't easy for White to break through. By oscillating between e6 and e7 the BK covers the dark square approaches into his position, whilst the B covers the light squares. Unfortunately there doesn't seem any way to convert this into any kind of winning plan. Any other 36th move, and the dark square bishops come off, bringing the WK into Black's position. White can instead play (after 36...Bd8) 37.a6 Ba5, whereupon the question is whether BK's dark-square bishop can achieve anything behind enemy lines. Note that all the rest of Black's men are on light squares, and the a-pawn's queening square is the same hue. White doesn't have a lot of available targets! Cheers, Ion