On
2023-02-26 at 16:15,
Cosimo Cardellicchio
said:
The game that the Bot suggests is indeed a different game. As far as this game is concerned, I remember well 5.j10. I thought that I am monotonous first with my swapping unusual openings and then with my Achilles (4:1) defence. It appears as I choose always the same moves, and this 5.j10 could be a trap against my monotony. In fact, I did not find an adequate defence in the upper part of the board. Thus, I tried to find something in the lower part. I was intrigued by the fact that 6.j13 was first a Pan defence and then is 4-steps away both from f7 and p9. This 4-steps distance is a strategic theme that I learnt by studying Little Golem's masters and that I have recently applied at the beginning of the games.
After 7.n10 I realised that, while I was thinking about a 4-steps route, White had built it between j10 and q13, and then he had fixed it with n10. At this stage, I chose the second Achilles Defence with p17. In this case, it was not my monotony, because I recollect a 2016 game between me and Steven (Little Golem - 1780346), in which I built a fork with two Achilles defences. For the sake of precision, in that game, I was able to squander the lead, and to lose that game, but I still believe that the idea is good. In this case, the crux is n13.
On
2023-02-26 at 16:16,
Cosimo Cardellicchio
said:
I did not understand 9.k16. This move requires an immediate reply to cut it from j10 and n10. But my cutting with 10.l12 (and I believe that it works with 10.l14 too) is very dangerous for White, because it is only one step away from the crucial n13, the fulcrum of the fork.
On
2023-02-26 at 16:17,
Cosimo Cardellicchio
said:
The game that the Bot suggests is indeed a different game. As far as this game is concerned, I remember well 5.j10. I thought that I am monotonous first with my swapping unusual openings and then with my Achilles (4:1) defence. It appears as I choose always the same moves, and this 5.j10 could be a trap against my monotony. In fact, I did not find an adequate defence in the upper part of the board. Thus, I tried to find something in the lower part. I was intrigued by the fact that 6.j13 was first a Pan defence and then is 4-steps away both from f7 and p9. This 4-steps distance is a strategic theme that I learnt by studying Little Golem's masters and that I have recently applied at the beginning of the games.
After 7.n10 I realised that, while I was thinking about a 4-steps route, White had built it between j10 and q13, and then he had fixed it with n10. At this stage, I chose the second Achilles Defence with p17. In this case, it was not my monotony, because I recollect a 2016 game between me and Steven (Little Golem - 1780346), in which I built a fork with two Achilles defences. For the sake of precision, in that game, I was able to squander the lead, and to lose that game, but I still believe that the idea is good. In this case, the crux is n13.
On
2023-02-26 at 16:18,
Cosimo Cardellicchio
said:
The game that the Bot suggests is indeed a different game. As far as this game is concerned, I remember well 5.j10. I thought that I am monotonous first with my swapping unusual openings and then with my Achilles (4:1) defence. It appears as I choose always the same moves, and this 5.j10 could be a trap against my monotony. In fact, I did not find an adequate defence in the upper part of the board. Thus, I tried to find something in the lower part. I was intrigued by the fact that 6.j13 was first a Pan defence and then is 4-steps away both from f7 and p9. This 4-steps distance is a strategic theme that I learnt by studying Little Golem's masters and that I have recently applied at the beginning of the games.
After 7.n10 I realised that, while I was thinking about a 4-steps route, White had built it between j10 and q13, and then he had fixed it with n10. At this stage, I chose the second Achilles Defence with p17. In this case, it was not my monotony, because I recollect a 2016 game between me and Steven (Little Golem - 1780346), in which I built a fork with two Achilles defences. For the sake of precision, in that game, I was able to squander the lead, and to lose that game, but I still believe that the idea is good. In this case, the crux is n13.
I did not understand 9.k16. This move requires an immediate reply to cut it from j10 and n10. But my cutting with 10.l12 (and I believe that it works with 10.l14 too) is very dangerous for White, because it is only one step away from the crucial n13, the fulcrum of the fork.
I was worried with 19.s9, because a similar situation (Pan/Achilles) occurred to me in the Mind Sport Olympiad of the 2013 when I played (badly) against Jan Haugland. If I would have chosen again the Achilles Defence (26.r5), the Prometheus attack (27.q7) follows. In the analysis of Andreas Kleinhans (around 1989-90), this lead is favourable for the attacker after 28.o6; 29.n6; 30.m5. However, I recollected two 2020 games of mine (2155893 against Zandor and 2152345 against Mtbikesman), that I was able to lose one after the other with the same mistake. I learnt from these two games that Kleinhans' analysis is wrong or, at least, incomplete. The correct sequence is 28. o6; 29.n6; 30.n4 and the situation is now favourable for the defender. I chose the third Achille defence of the game and I was not monotonous.
On
2023-02-26 at 17:03,
Cosimo Cardellicchio
said:
Sorry for the misplacement of the same comments, but I was not underttanding hot to do it
49. I2 50. M13 51. M14 52. I18 53. O8 54. N15 55. N6 56. L6 57. O4 58. Q3 59. P2 60. Q11 61. S12 62. V10 63. W9 64. T10 65. R12
After 7.n10 I realised that, while I was thinking about a 4-steps route, White had built it between j10 and q13, and then he had fixed it with n10. At this stage, I chose the second Achilles Defence with p17. In this case, it was not my monotony, because I recollect a 2016 game between me and Steven (Little Golem - 1780346), in which I built a fork with two Achilles defences. For the sake of precision, in that game, I was able to squander the lead, and to lose that game, but I still believe that the idea is good. In this case, the crux is n13.
After 7.n10 I realised that, while I was thinking about a 4-steps route, White had built it between j10 and q13, and then he had fixed it with n10. At this stage, I chose the second Achilles Defence with p17. In this case, it was not my monotony, because I recollect a 2016 game between me and Steven (Little Golem - 1780346), in which I built a fork with two Achilles defences. For the sake of precision, in that game, I was able to squander the lead, and to lose that game, but I still believe that the idea is good. In this case, the crux is n13.
After 7.n10 I realised that, while I was thinking about a 4-steps route, White had built it between j10 and q13, and then he had fixed it with n10. At this stage, I chose the second Achilles Defence with p17. In this case, it was not my monotony, because I recollect a 2016 game between me and Steven (Little Golem - 1780346), in which I built a fork with two Achilles defences. For the sake of precision, in that game, I was able to squander the lead, and to lose that game, but I still believe that the idea is good. In this case, the crux is n13.
I did not understand 9.k16. This move requires an immediate reply to cut it from j10 and n10. But my cutting with 10.l12 (and I believe that it works with 10.l14 too) is very dangerous for White, because it is only one step away from the crucial n13, the fulcrum of the fork.
I was worried with 19.s9, because a similar situation (Pan/Achilles) occurred to me in the Mind Sport Olympiad of the 2013 when I played (badly) against Jan Haugland. If I would have chosen again the Achilles Defence (26.r5), the Prometheus attack (27.q7) follows. In the analysis of Andreas Kleinhans (around 1989-90), this lead is favourable for the attacker after 28.o6; 29.n6; 30.m5.
However, I recollected two 2020 games of mine (2155893 against Zandor and 2152345 against Mtbikesman), that I was able to lose one after the other with the same mistake. I learnt from these two games that Kleinhans' analysis is wrong or, at least, incomplete. The correct sequence is 28. o6; 29.n6; 30.n4 and the situation is now favourable for the defender. I chose the third Achille defence of the game and I was not monotonous.