I played a chess match yesterday, so let's start the chess blogging. Unfortunately the game might be the dullest I've ever played:
A draw as black against a 150 is a decent enough result, but this was a pretty anticlimactic game after a 50 minute schlep out to zone 5. The Alapin is not an ambitious way for white to play against the Sicilian, and as black, I didn't really have much reason or opportunity to spice things up.
To be fair, there were a couple of places we could have played a bit more accurately:
A draw as black against a 150 is a decent enough result, but this was a pretty anticlimactic game after a 50 minute schlep out to zone 5. The Alapin is not an ambitious way for white to play against the Sicilian, and as black, I didn't really have much reason or opportunity to spice things up.
To be fair, there were a couple of places we could have played a bit more accurately:
- The pseudo pawn sac e6 was a strong idea after 12... Bc6 and 13... Nc4. I shouldn't have allowed that, and my opponent should have played it.
- 23. Be7 from white just chased my rook to the where it wanted to go and left me with no problems. Instead, white should have dislodged my bishop from d5 with another pseudo pawn sac idea: c4. Taking the pawn would allow white's rook to get to b7, which would have been awkward, and most likely, I would have just backed down with Bc6.
- I probably could have pressed for a bit longer before taking the draw. My king can get into the game via h7, and then try to "do something" against the split a, c and e pawns. It would be hard to pressure these pawns much when they're so solidly covered by the DSB, but there's not a lot of risk in trying. Perhaps my young opponent would have been generous enough to conform to the stereotype and play an terrible endgame.
