A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home!
Sort:
I like Malaysia. Good job anyway!
Nice game! It's worthy spend some time analyzing positions considered discredited and try understand why they receive that evaluation.
Wow! thrilling!
8. ... b4 is book and off the e-pawn.
9. ... I go with castling and expect Nf6 to become Nf8
14. ... BxBe3 works for me.
17. Bxf7+ ?! everybody knows black does not need pawns around the king in the Najdorf.
18. ... What about Qd7 and losing rook and h-pawn for the knight.
I guess ... Ne5 is stronger but it gives up the off chance of a smothered mate (pawns get in the way)
21. Rae1 ?! Cool white wants to lose.
21. ... Bxg2+ hard to resist so you have to chant bishop pair.
22. ... Bd4 yeah Qh8# would have hurt.
23. ... BxNc3 I would have thought and game over.
24. ... I thought about Qe5 but Qh4 is better than tricks.
28. IM Sznapik vs Ljangov, wow!
+++
23. ... BxNc3 24. RxRf7+ QxRf7 25. QxQf7+ KxQf7 26. bxBc3 Rd2 27. Rg1 Rxc2 28. a3 Rxc3
I'd like to say:
1) Congratulations on a nice game blueemu - and thanks for showing it in annotated detail for us.
2) What matches the adventure in this game? ... A James Bond reference to match of course!
3) I feel like I am watching history here. Your 28...Kc5!! is a nice improvement - and yes I think it deserves a double exclaim 
DeirdreSkye wrote:
So you played 27 moves theory and 5 moves on your own!
Well done man! Huge accomplishment!
Refuting established theory in this line? Yeah, I felt like I'd accomplished something.
Thanks for the kind remarks, peeps.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I have bad news for you. Established theory is refuted in real tournaments. Unless you think theoreticians and GMs are following your on line games(and I won't be surprised if you do).
But one thing I don't understand. You analysed the game like you were actually playing it when the only thing you did was repeating moves someone else played. None of the decisions was yours so comments like "Counter-attack! My King will see to his own defense." rather show you try to show off or you are delusional. Next time maybe follow a Kasparov's game , present it as yours , add some fancy comments in the moves like you played them, play 5 different moves and be proud about it.
To take your points in order:
If you define "established theory" as only "only in real tournaments", then your remarks are irrefutable. Circular, but irrefutable.
I'll put it this way:
The line that I played for Black (after Bxe3+) has been tried in Master games, always with bad results for Black. In the free online 365-chess database, there is not a single win for Black in that line. Not one... so no, I wasn't just parroting someone else's game. The IM Sznapik game that I quoted was NOT a win for Black... quite the contrary, Black somehow salvaged a draw out of a clearly lost ending.
The line that I played was discredited decades ago, but my improvement completely reverses the picture. Now that the game is over, get your Stockfish and follow the Sznapik game out to White's move 28, then play my new move 28. ... Kc5 (which of course is not in the database) and evaluate the position.
Stockfish at depth 22 gives me over +1000 centipawns. More than a Queen. The idea is new, it is sound, and it is mine, not a move copied from a Master game. Your charge of plagiarism is without foundation. And since I'm the first person to play this and win, that gives me a certain measure of proprietary interest in moves leading up to the winning position. So don't expect me to change my style of annotation.
In this line the move 9. Qf3 is what almost everybody plays over 9. f4. Well about 5 to 1 anyway
https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=40&n=5279253&ms=e4.c5.Nf3.d6.d4.cxd4.Nxd4.Nf6.Nc3.a6.Bc4.e6.Bb3.b5.O-O.Be7.f4.Bb7.e5.dxe5.fxe5.Bc5.Be3.Nc6.exf6.Bxd4.fxg7.Bxe3.Kh1.Rg8.Bxe6.Rxg7.Bxf7.Rxf7.Qh5.Ne5.Qxe5.Qe7.Qh5
@blueemu
23. ... BxNc3 24. RxRf7+ QxRf7 25. QxQf7+ KxQf7 26. bxBc3 Rd2 27. Rg1 Rxc2 28. a3 Rxc3
which I have added to:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1155089
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Can you explain me what's the point on commenting moves that someone else played and you just immitated?
Of course! Now I understand! That's why annotated collections of games never give any comments on any of the moves until the players have reached move 30 or so, and leave the book! It's because if they explained the purpose of the moves, DierdreSkye would accuse them first of plagiarism, then of being delusional! Now it makes sense!
You used to be more than just another Troll, DierdreSkye. Only a few months ago you were a useful contributor to the forum, and your posts were worth reading. Not sure what's changed in your life or in your head... and I suppose it's not my place to speculate.
Regarding the database confusion... yes, my bad. Instead of marking move 14 as the inflection-point, I should have marked move 17 (where, just as I claimed, "Black has never won a recorded game" until now). But how you twist my unfamiliarity with the database into your claim that I'm just an ignorant database monkey, I will never understand. You seem to be claiming exactly the opposite of what the evidence indicates.
And how I refuted Master praxis in a line that "I was just following moves I couldn't understand, in a position that I couldn't evaluate"... that's anybody's guess.
Would you like to show us some of your own contributions to Chess?... aside from your slander, insults, character assassination and trolling, of course, which don't really count as a contribution IMO.
It does say DAILY game. That to me implies a very different beastie. It implies if you have out researched and then innovate it is actually *all* yours.
AnthonyAtanasov wrote:
Okay, I've blocked @deirdreskye
Yeah... probably a sounder plan than trying to reason with him.
Thanks, pfren.
I really dislike playing games like this... but I'm glad other people can enjoy playing them 
I suppose it's convenient for me, living in the time of Carlsen and a world full of Berlins and anti-Berlins where the Sicilian is considered 2nd to the Spanish and giving black equality before move 10 is common practice.
If it were Kasparov's time, and everyone was memorizing Najdorfs to move 30 and 40, I suppose I'd have to stay quiet about my preferences heh. I prefer a game played in Karpovian style.
Definitely a big part of it is I'm lazy. I don't want a game of chess to be endless calculation.
It's also the least satisfying way for me to win. I see a combination you missed. Ok, but that's how beginners win games so why would I be proud of that... an unfair prejudice I admit.
Also my favorite phase of the game is endgames.
"You find openings and tactics boring?!"
I realize I'm in the minority 
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
That's an interesting concept, honda. I see now that Tal had a lot to be embarrassed for!
If his combination is based on something logical like more pieces in the area, or some pretty geometry, I find that appealing.
But when combinations seem to come out of the air, from sheer will and calculation, that's just superficially pretty to me, without being truly beautiful.
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
I imagine it's true that the advent of computers has served to make players less speculative and risky.
Hey, but how about Aronians crazy rook sac vs Grischuk about a month ago?
Grischuk was in his trademarked massive time trouble, so Aronian decided to punish him for it by playing an objectively bad move that turned things incredibly sharp. He won the game and tied for first in the tournament!
True we don't get to see this too often.
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
This is a weird concept you're imparting to me, wafflle. Maybe an example or two would help...
Ok, umm. Maybe this.
First part is pretty geometry.
2nd part seems to just be pure calculation and isn't very satisfying to me. (And Nxd5 isn't even necessary, it seems black's pawns are falling in any case).
I'm playing top board for my club team in a rated match, The Canadian Team vs Team Malaysia.
I will allow the game to speak for itself. I'm Black.
https://www.chess.com/daily/game/200865884
And that's how I earned the respect of the Yardies!