Total Pageviews

18 Jul 2014

A10 English Opening: Anglo-Dutch Defense

A10 English Opening: Anglo-Dutch Defense

Even if this game doesn't have the usual move order of the Stonewall Dutch, it does end up in a same position as it would after the usual move order 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 c6 5. Bg2 d5 6. 0-0. But it does miss the last move in that line 6...Bd6, so it must be classified under a different opening. I do have examples of the Leningrad Dutch aswell, those in the usual move order but they have not yet been analysed so it will take some time to post even one of them. Until next time my fellow chess enthusiasts. Improved and updated analysis added January 5th 2015.

Game number two. This was played on the second round of a tournament that was played at Helsinki close to ten years ago. After two rounds I had two losses, so a terrible start for the tournament, but catastropfic start was just around the corner. All the four losses I suffered in this tournament were from the first four rounds and all of my opponents were higher rated than me on those rounds. Then again they were only rated 1800+, so I should not have lost all of them, because the rating difference was not that great. My only win in this tournament came against a lower rated player, who ended up being the last one in group B.

Game number three. The game below was played on the first round of a tournament that was held at Salo in 2006. Losing was really common thing for me in 2006 and this continued my horrible results during that year. I do not have the exact statistics for the year 2006, but I think that I lost 60 to 80 percent of all the over the board games that I played that year. My losing percentage in this tournament was 80, only my fourth round win brought some solace to me.

Game number four. The game below was played on the third round of a weekend tournament that was held at Hämeenlinna in 2008. This was my second win in this tournament and after three rounds I had 2 points, because I had lost my second round game. The game below went on featuring only small mistakes up to move 15, but the two small mistakes by my opponent 14...Bd7 and 15...gxf5 enabled me to get a clear advantage after my opponent's 15th move. In that position my pieces are more active than the ones that my opponent controls and especially both of my bishops have more scope than their counterparts. With my 17th move I made a judgement error and played b6. It seems like a tempting move for me to play even now, to be honest. The drawback is that after the reply axb6, I have just helped my opponent to activate his rook on a8. The pressure I had on the b-file after Rxb6 should not have been a good enough reason to play b6 in the first place because the pawn on b7 is not actually all that weak at the moment and had my opponent played 18...Bc8, I would not have had all that much play left on the b-file. The trade of the b-pawn to the a-pawn only accompished the weakening of my a-pawn and the activation of my opponent's a-rook, so my whole idea was flawed. Lars played the extremely passive Rb8 instead of the much superior move Bc8 and that reenabled my chances to fight for the advantage. I was able to keep the advantage on my side for the rest of the game, even though I played the inaccurate move 20.Qb2, which made the position go from a clearly advantageous to only slightly advantageous for me. It did not really matter because Lars made a huge blunder on his next move that basically lost the game for him or I should say it should have been the losing move, but I made some bad moves that enabled my opponent to get some play. Even with my bad moves, the advantage was on my side for the rest of the game.

No comments:

Post a Comment