These games are an exploration of F_R opening principles listed in a core thread.
If you can see a new insight then feel free to run up a flag.

But, then again, if you just want to sledge, then please form an orderly queue.

regards
MOZ*

23. bc

... a Rook unmoved on f1

These games are an exploration of F_R opening principles listed in a core thread.

But it is also a Rook removed from f1

Bloody move order. I did not look at that. I thought I was winning a pawn.

... Qa8

It was really the NEW INSIGHTS aspect i thought i could contribute to moz . I mean IT IS what i SPECIALISE IN , after all !

I'm sorry but with all due respect, for you to even countenance the entertainment of the idea of me having any semblance of a sledging agenda , is not only a disappointment to Ax , Ax fans , the SCT , SCT affiliates , and all associated with the freedom movement , but a slight on the very understanding of reality itself .

That being the case, perhaps games should be limited to 15 moves with the winner being decided by a computer analysis to say 14 ply.

Well, that is always an option.

I do refer to my signature line.
Many of us drift out of competitive traditional-chess because the contest becomes gutted when some opponent trots out a book-learned first 10 or 20 moves at GM level.
The value of F_R is it returns these stolen challenges to both players and they once again have 'FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game'.

At a personal level I prefer to play the F_R exploration-games right out rather than have them 'adjudicated' after 15 moves.

regards
MOZ

ps...have responded with Rb7 above.

Yes, the whole game is the joy and this game must be played to a conclusion. Perhaps future games should be analysied by both players for the first 10 moves and then the remainder played asa normal game. In that way,
the way "general principles of the opening" might change in FR might become apparent.

Rb7 looks so strong my eyes are watering. The question is did I underestimate how quickly you would be able to start playing forcing moves. Obviously yes.

... Ne3

.

I am still following the advice(*) given in Shaun's blog 10/7/2010 (see the link I gave in post #52).

White now plays
Qb5


*"The most important law of chess". The law is "Restricting the mobility of your opponent's pieces (and in association with this: domination by your own)" It then goes on to explain the methods you can follow to achieve this, methods which are intended to generate a concrete plan for you to follow.
While this is of course easier said than done, and the book itself admits this, it certainly encourages a more subtle approach to the game. Nonetheless I suspect it needs a level of commitment and understanding beyond what I am capable of to truly work, but I'll at least see if can provide some improvement to my overall results.

I simply cannot defend d7 and catastrophic loss of material - maybe checkmate too. All I can find are "spoiling moves."

Black resigns.


Restricting the opponent is so clinical, so robotic, so Spanish World Cup. Now, we know that a system that prevents control works at elite level. However, at club level (chess and football), where play is always very sub optimal, opportunities to hit back come frequently. That is why "attacking play" is popular. Of course, it could be said that attacking space/squares is "restricting" but it is also extremely difficult to attack all spaces/squares at once. I suggest that for club level, the direct attack for checkmate (or goal) is a strategy that has merit.

Our game finished in 25 white moves. Not sure how much more attacking you would want white to be.

I could show you.

I hope this set up complies with FR. It is not truly random because I simply placed the pieces as far as possible into value order. Maybe something will become apparent from examining conditional extremes.

I am playing d4 because I want to use castling in this set up as an attacking move. [at some time I would like to play something like Rd1-Rd2 and then K stays on c1 while Rb1-d1]

p.s. [or Kc1-Kd1, Rd1-Rc1]

If your opponent detected your objective to castle queen-side, then he may use this knowledge to advantage.

(King side castling has the K to g1, and R(d1)f1)

That is also true of classical chess (CL). I am exploring this opening with you, so that NEW principles might be elucidated. For example: In CL castling is usually king side - why? in FR, should you castle long, short, toward the major or minor pieces?

I am electing to castle with the intent to attack you king directly. I think that since I have a tempo I can be the first to take advantage of a pawn move in front of your king.

What will you move and why?