This is a Queens Gambit Declined game. White sacrifices a pawn for rapid development. Black picks up two pawns and sort of gives up a piece hoping to trick White into a a checkmate position. He ends up being checkmated as he protects his Queen at the expense of the King! Comments are welcome.
This game features the Danish Gambit where White sacrifices several pawns for rapid development, and then tries to sacrifice a piece which Black declines, and at the end, I could not find a better a way to explain what happened, without paraphrasing what Jesus said regarding setting your priorities straight. I hope you enjoy the game. Your ideas, thoughts, suggestions, and comments are welcome.
There have been debates on what is more important, imagination or knowledge? Albert Einstein is quoted as having said, “imagination is more important that knowledge”. He could be right. He did not say, knowledge is not important. Knowledge is important, so is imagination. However, comparatively, in his opinion, imagination is more important.
I think imagination and knowledge (can) enrich each other. For example, if you want things to be different and you do not know (yet) of a way to make them different, you may go out and see knowledge or means to effect change. That is how necessity is the mother of invention. There is a need which awakens creativity in people. On the other hand, when you get a certain level of knowledge, you may wonder if there is a way to advance beyond what you have. Is there a better way? Are there some unanswered questions that can be answered by making a leap from current knowledge? It appears as if at the end of the day, imagination saves the day. However, it must be noted that in the latter case, knowledge provides the platform from which imagination is born and launched.
In Chess, accumulation of knowledge and experience saves time and effort during actual games. However, rarely does one play whole games that he or she has already prepared for at home. The opponent will surely detour from the script or you may depending on what is going on on the board. At that time you rely on your own resources. You try to use the knowledge and experiences that you have gained up to that point to win the game. In the process you create something on your own. The only limitation to what can happen on the board is your imagination. Sometimes the position may be barren such that there is no room for creativity. Most of the time, it is not, but one may just not know when the position is ripe for creativity. This brings up interesting questions. How does one know when to be creative? or How does one become creative? Well, I suggest that one cannot know when to be creative without being creative in the first place. These two questions will be addressed in later posts. For now, I will just say that a short answer to both questions is that you keep looking for opportunities to be creative. That continuous search will make you more creative, and as you are looking, you will find the perfect time to exercise your creativity.
As I study chess games, I will be looking for the moment in the game when a player or both players became creative and try to understand what preceded the creativity (on the board, of course) and what the effect of the creativity was, for example, winning, defending a difficult position, etc. In addition, as I play Chess, I will try to keep looking and searching for ways to play better moves – that is better individual moves, and better combinations of moves.
Please feel free to share your ideas, thoughts, suggestions, or questions on creativity or imagination in Chess. [I know that some people will say imagination and creativity are not one and the same. Right or wrong, we will use them interchangeably here.]
Studying miniatures has many benefits. First, almost always, the winner wins quickly because the loser did something (really bad) that s/he should not have done in the opening. Second, related to the first reason, one learns what not to do. Third, related to the first and the second, one learns how to finish off a game when an opponent misplays the opening. Fourth, miniatures do not as much time as longer games to analyse or go over. Fifth, miniatures are usually tactical in nature, thus one gets to see tactics in (game) action. Sixth, one can easily replay the whole game from memory. [I think there are benefits to that.] Last, but not least, they are exciting [at least to me].
Here is a game between Mayet and Anderssen that I have annotated. The latter was one of the best-attacking players of his time.
Lessons learnt from White’s play:
- Don’t castle into the line of fire, unless you are sure you will survive it.
- Don’t go piece grabbing if it is going to cost you the game.
Lessons learnt from Black’s play:
- When you are ahead in development, opening up the position, even at the cost of a pawn or a piece may pay off huge dividends.
- Winning the game is more important that having more pieces.
Your comments, ideas, and thoughts are welcome.
“The need for self-actualization. — Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may still often
(if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the
individual is doing what he is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must
paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be.
This need we may call self-actualization.”
A Theory of Human Motivation – Abraham H. Maslow (1943)
