This is one of those opening variations where the name for it depends on the source you are looking it up from. The name I chose is the one that lichess.org uses. If you look this up using the Chess.com openings explorer, then the name is Modern Defense: Pterodactyl, Quiet Line. Interestingly enough they have removed the ECO codes from the opening names on the new version of Chess.com, which means that I have no longer any use for it... It was a very useful tool for me in the past and now it is completely useless. I even made a bug report of it, to which I got a quite quick reply to and the person who replied seemed to agree with my point, but because that person was not the one who can make such chances, only to pass the information to someone who can change it, it has not changed to the useful tool that it was yet. I am starting to think it never will. When I use the analysis board at lichess.org, it can detect the name of the opening, whether or not the moves are made in the theoretical order. That is a feature I like a lot. However, I do not think there is a way to check the theoretical move order anywhere at lichess. If there is and you know how to find it, please leave a comment. It is probably the only complaint that I can think of about the site, because for a site that offers you all of its features for free, is really awesome. The theoretical move order is 1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 4.e3.
Now for the game below. I am going to take a look at some of the key moments of the game and then you may look through the whole game using the game viewer provided by Chess.com. The position below is taken after my opponent castled on move 13. Usually castling is a good thing, but sometimes it is a very bad move, like it was in this game. Actually there have been many times in my games where playing either O-O or O-O-O has been a bad move and you may see examples of that in some of the games that I have already shared. The best option for my opponent would have been to play 13.c5 and not allow me to take on c4. After 13.c5 my bishop on e6 would have been a bad piece.
Taking on c4 with the d-pawn was the only way of taking advantage of the mistake of my opponent. My 13th move dxc4 was replied with 14.Nxc4, which could have been the losing move if not for my horrible reply 14...Qc7. The correct move was 14...Bxc4, which I did not play because I wanted to keep my bishop pair. I should have realised that the bishop on e6 is not at all a good piece and trading it to the more active knight would have been a good idea. These days I am not as afraid to give up the bishop pair if the position requires it. I still prefer to have the bishop pair over the pair of knights though. Moving my queen to c7 was just too passive. However, I still was on the better side of things after my 14th move, but only slightly. The next position of interest is after White's 17th move f5.
The idea behind the move 17.f5 is to open some lines for the rook and for the dark-squared bishop. The problem was that the move does not tactically work and I could have won a pawn by taking on d4. In the line that you can see in notation, White can't take the bishop on c4 on move 21 due to Qb6+. I did not see that possibility during the game, but my response to 17.f5 was also clearly favorable for me. Then after 20.Qe1 we reached this next position. I went for the right idea in the wrong way. I played 20...Qb6 in order to put more pressure towards the pawn on d4. The problem with the move I chose is that Nc2 is possible and my opponent may be able fight for a draw. Had I played Be4, it would have still accomplished putting more pressure towards the pawn on d4, but it would have also prevented the move Nc2 defending the pawn.
My opponent did not go for the right defense and made a huge blunder instead with the move 21.Rf4, which is a good candidate for a losing move, but it turned out later in the game that I had to make things a lot harder for me than they should have been. Everything went quite well for me until we reached the position below. This position is taken after my opponent played 30.Qg5. There was a lot of things to think about and I decided to offer a trade of queens by playing Qf6. It is a rather desperate looking move to try and make the game easier for me to play. Unfortunately 30...Qf6 handed over the advantage to my opponent and then it was me who tried to even things up.
My opponent played 31.Qc5, threatening both my knight and rook at the same time, both pieces were undefended. There was no good way to defend against the threats, but I tried my best and played 31...Nc6. Had my opponent just played 32.Qxc6, I would have been on my way to a loss. However, my opponent played 32.d5 instead, turning the tables for the last time during this game. Until Monday, my fellow chess enthusiasts!
No comments:
Post a Comment