Curtains vs PoG

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
Stragga,
[ QUOTE ]
14. Nf3 d4
15. Rd1 Qd7
16. Na4 b6

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a possibility for 15. Qb4?
i'll also mention Qb6 as a possible next move for us

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Bxd4 here removing the blockade. Then if he takes our b4-knight by moving his Queen again, we take his knight on c3, liquidating the minor pieces. His dark bishop cannot attack our d5, either.

Depending on Curtains response, we follow up with Q-e7/d7/c7 and then castle.

Castling here is too passive.

[Stephen H]

Is liquidating the minor pieces to our advantage? Others have suggested earlier that with an isolated queen's pawn, trading off the minor pieces is a disadvantage to us as we have the weaker pawn structure for endgame.
Personally, I like castling before Curtains can work up a threat on our king, but I don't have a good feel for how to generate an attack of our own at this stage, so I'm probably settling on a castle as a decent default action here.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Is liquidating the minor pieces to our advantage? Others have suggested earlier that with an isolated queen's pawn, trading off the minor pieces is a disadvantage to us as we have the weaker pawn structure for endgame.
Personally, I like castling before Curtains can work up a threat on our king,

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes you win the prize!
Trading minor pieces leads to a losing endgame.

The op stated the bishop can't attack the pawn, however the bishop can pin the knight and that weakens the pawn further.

We are behind so exchanging is bad news....

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
i'll also mention Qb6 as a possible next move for us

[/ QUOTE ]

13... Qb6
14. Na4

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I like Bxd4 here removing the blockade. Then if he takes our b4-knight by moving his Queen again, we take his knight on c3, liquidating the minor pieces. His dark bishop cannot attack our d5, either.

Depending on Curtains response, we follow up with Q-e7/d7/c7 and then castle.

Castling here is too passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

(As I said I'm just going to stick to ideas rather than variations...)

There is some logic to this plan. Exchanging is generally bad for the side with the isolated pawn. But here, White has no real weaknesses to attack in a middlegame. Castling now does not change that, but will give White a chance to avoid the exchanges if he wants. Nothing bad will happen if we delay castling for two moves or three moves, since White will be busy with forced recaptures.

By removing most of the minor pieces now, it allows our rooks to get into play. We can use the c and e files. We can ignore our d5 pawn somewhat if it allows us to get active play with our rooks. Think about this d5 pawn as something we definitely want off the board, and see what we can get in return.

Anything else to vote on besides O-O and Bxd4?

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
(As I said I'm just going to stick to ideas rather than variations...)

There is some logic to this plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Tim if I can follow the same sort of things and just talk in ideas. Let's look at it this way.

The knight defends the pawn from a dark square, so white’s bishop can find a way to remove the knight. Either Bg5, or Bf4 to Be5, or via the b2 diagonal its hard to keep the knight there if the bishop wants to eat it (as covered in PAC-MAN’s Bishops VS Knights). So maybe that’s not all true but let’s pretend it is.

So If both sides triple up behind the pawn the pawn is only safe because the knight is an additional defender. However we’ve just proven(?) the knight can be removed.
Without the knight white pushes the e-pawn and the d-pawn falls as capturing drops material.
Of course we could march our king into harms way to support our tripled up pieces.

To simplistic, maybe but that is the kind of path we are allowing by removing minor pieces and it going to come down to major piece play that will favor white.

You know the book, everything I need to learn in life I learned in kindergarten, well… you could say almost the same thing Fred Reinfeld.
(that I’m serious about, I really think not shooting yourself in the foot takes you to about 2000 ELO)

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stragga,
[ QUOTE ]
14. Nf3 d4
15. Rd1 Qd7
16. Na4 b6

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a possibility for 15. Qb4?
i'll also mention Qb6 as a possible next move for us

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Bxd4 here removing the blockade. Then if he takes our b4-knight by moving his Queen again, we take his knight on c3, liquidating the minor pieces. His dark bishop cannot attack our d5, either.

Depending on Curtains response, we follow up with Q-e7/d7/c7 and then castle.

Castling here is too passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather not get into an endgame with our knight vs his bishop on an open board like this. We'll be at a disadvantage.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
The knight defends the pawn from a dark square, so white’s bishop can find a way to remove the knight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, castling instead of Bxd4 does not change this. He will still be able to use this bishop to take out our f6 knight. But with Bxd4 and Bxc3 we remove two pieces that can attack d5 in return for only one that can defend it. And those knights are going to make it hard for us to use our rooks. They clog the files and cover key penetration squares. But with the yet undeveloped dark square bishop as White's only remaining minor piece, he will not be able to keep our rooks from becoming active. Then we can use the c-file and possibly the e-file, and "defend" d5 by playing against White's pawns on the second rank.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes you win the prize!
Trading minor pieces leads to a losing endgame.

The op stated the bishop can't attack the pawn, however the bishop can pin the knight and that weakens the pawn further.

We are behind so exchanging is bad news....

[/ QUOTE ]

You again make zero sense.
1) We are not behind in any way, shape or form.
2) White has no weaknesses to attack in our position.
3) White will not pin the Knight, particularly after we play BxD4 and then possibly Bxc3.
If we castle for no reason here, THEN he can pin with Bg5, should he so choose. Why would you want to let him do that?

By exchanging and then positioning Queen and rooks, we gain a strong attack on the c/e files, our King is perfectly safe when we o-o later. Now is the wrong time to do so.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stragga,
[ QUOTE ]
14. Nf3 d4
15. Rd1 Qd7
16. Na4 b6

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a possibility for 15. Qb4?
i'll also mention Qb6 as a possible next move for us

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Bxd4 here removing the blockade. Then if he takes our b4-knight by moving his Queen again, we take his knight on c3, liquidating the minor pieces. His dark bishop cannot attack our d5, either.

Depending on Curtains response, we follow up with Q-e7/d7/c7 and then castle.

Castling here is too passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather not get into an endgame with our knight vs his bishop on an open board like this. We'll be at a disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we won't. In addition, his bishop cannot attack either of d5 or d1 -- the Queening square. Also, we will have better major piece play with our rooks and queens, which more than compensates for the supposed B over N advantage.

We develop our rooks and Queens in combination on the c/e-file attack is 2nd rank pawns, and his e4 square is loose to boot. We are in solid shape here.

At worst, we reach a very dry endgame and possibly tie Curtains, which would be an achievement for POG!

Naj