Chess rating: 1708 Fide 2135
LCF 200 Fide approx. 2250
British Regional Master
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 73
|Thu Jul 24 2008 3:43PM | edited: 4:03:17 | MsgID: 9665454|
Originally posted by: "Matt Beyers"
Very nice analysis, but couldn't the same thing be accomplished in about 10 less moves by moving the G pawn first and then moving the bishop to C1? Then you can advance the A pawn with impunity still and the king is much closer to the A side of the board that it wants to be on anyway.
Just a thought....tell me if I missed something...please!
If the g pawns goes to g5, how can white threaten to invade on the K-side ?! White needs to create two simultaneous threats on both sides of the board to win this - the a pawn advance, combined with King infiltration on the K-side - doesn't he?!
For example, say White seals the K-side with g5, then when White later plays a4, Black is not obliged to take the a pawn. Black can hold the following position:
White first guarantees that black has to do bxa3 because of the threats simultaneously of Kh6 and Bxc5. If White had though sealed the k-side with g5 earlier, than this is a different situation without the threat hanging over black of Kh6.