@Chambaru said in #1:
> i always struggle and have a hard time playing with the classical center from ruy lopez and parrying the opponents counter attack. in ruy lopez white only has d and e file pawn on the center after the pawn exchange in the center, and 99% of the times the pawns in the center are only supported by the piece. this fact makes me feel the center is extremely unstable and vulnerable from the attack from the black pieces and pawn-breaks. ... most people in the internet says "just maintain the structure and youll be better, youre the one who has the strong center" but i just cant believe that it is a good idea while black has countless option to counter white. ... [White "AdmireVega (1799)"] [Black "KimRobert (1870)"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 d3 d6 5 O-O Bd7 6 Re1 Be7 7 c3 O-O 8 Nbd2 h6 9 Nf1 a6 10 Ba4 b5 11 Bc2 Rb8 12 a3 Bg4 13 h3 Bh5 14 Ng3 Bg6 15 d4 exd4 16 Nxd4 Nxd4 17 cxd4 Nh7 18 Bd2 Bh4 19 Ne2 Bh5 20 Qb1 Bg6 21 Qd1 Re8 22 Nc3 c6 23 Qe2 d5 24 Qf3 dxe4 25 Bxe4 Bxe4 26 Nxe4 Qxd4 27 Qg4 Bxf2+ 0-1 ... am i misconceptioning things about classical center? what can i be more conscious about this structure to improve my play?
@OctoPinky said in #6:
> ... you overprotected e-pawn and neglected d-pawn, but ultimately lost to a typical f2/f7 attack, mainly because you allowed a Bishop to be comfortably seated on h4. ... I think your pieces are rather passive (focused on protecting your e and d pawns?) and have no attacking chances (*). If you feel I'm right, maybe you overestimate the center pawn importance and thought you will win just by having it. A strong center pawn is an asset, but not so much that everything else can be ignored. ...
@kindaspongey said in #7:
> After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6, I believe that 4 O-O is the preferred move, but 4 d3 is sometimes suggested as a way to avoid some complications. As far as I can tell, the machine thinks that AdmireVega was doing fine against KimRobert until the choice of 16 Nxd4 (instead of 16 cxd4) reducing AdmireVega's advantage. Not sure why. Apparently, 18 Bd2 (instead of 18 f4) was another advantage-reducing decision. Nf4 looks like it would have been better than 21 Qd1 or 22 Nc3. 23 Qe2 took away AdmireVega's ability to reply to 23...d5 with 24 exd5 or 24 e5. It also created a potential d4-vulnerability, down the road. Still, things were apparently approximately level until the decision to go for 27 Qg4.
@Chambaru said in #11:
> ... its pretty hard to care all sorts of tactics when my pawns and pieces are being unstable and positionally losing. my understanding is that the bishop are best placed at c1 and c2, the knight should be maneuvered to g3 or e3, no need to rush to connect rook because it can easily activated by a4, but it seems that all of the idea that i possess isnt working. ... like
@octopinky said perhaps i overestimate the center pawn too much. ... if i played 27.Bc3 instead the position would be playable. it completely kills the advantage of using ruy lopez, but playing d3 instead can be an option, not playing d4 until im completely comfortable with the push after all of the maneuvers.
I think that it is drastically wrong to imagine that one can "just maintain the structure" and "be better". How can one expect to accomplish much if, after 22 moves, one has a knight on c3 and the rest of one's pieces are on the first two ranks? For comparison, look at how much was going on after 22 moves in the
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1605456 game. In your game, there did not seem to be any reason to be concerned about the stability of your e4-pawn for your 23rd move. It was already protected by 3 pieces.
GM McDonald suggested 4 d3 in his Move by Move book. Perhaps 12 h3 would have been better than 12 a3. I have already mentioned some other possibilities.
