Move sequences are automatically highlighted and made clickable. If the previous move number appears earlier in the comment, the sequence continues from that move. Otherwise, it's treated as a variation from the main line. This can be error-prone with multiple sequences in one comment, so please use the Preview button to check your work before posting.
To force a sequence to be treated as a main line variation, precede it with a vertical bar
(|). The copy variation button (⧉) includes this bar automatically.
For more complex discussions, you can name a sequence by adding the name in square
brackets at the end, e.g. 15.p9 [a]. Later in the same comment, or in
any following comment, you can branch off that variation by wrapping the name in vertical
bars, like this:|a| 16.o13
The variation name must start with
a letter, contain only letters, numbers, and dashes (-), and is case-sensitive.
Comments use UTF-8 encoding, so you can include emojis 😉, non-English characters, and other Unicode symbols.
You can also use HTML entities like — for an em-dash (—) or → for a right arrow (→).
For safety reasons, most HTML tags are stripped, except:
<b>, <i>, <u> — bold, italic, underline<em>, <strong> — emphasis, strong text<s>, <strike> — <sup>, <sub> — superscript, subscript<blockquote> — indented quotes
<code> — fixed-width font<pre> — multi-line preformatted text
<br> — forces a line break
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.