I almost never play 2. f4, as I despise pawn sacrifices in the opening, even though I could apply extra pressure on black's weak f7 square by doing so. I prefer to exploit positional advantage via center control found in the Petrov or, my favorite, Ruy Lopez.

2....Ng1- f3 (previous move)

2. Nb8-c6

http://zioxville.homestead.com/files/Chess2.jpg

Yes! Ruy Lopez!

2...Nb8-c6 (previous move)

My move:

3. Bf1-b5


Time to make me move that bishop. :D

Yes! :D The Ruy Lopez...I believe this little pawn maneuver was known as the Morphy Defense. Funny how some of these terms stick in your head years later.

3. 3. Bf1-b5 ...your move

3. a7-a6

BTW I dislike pawn sacrifices too. More fun to husband one's forces for the climatic battles ahead. :up:

http://zioxville.homestead.com/files/Chess3.jpg

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/1449/pos10hb.jpg

Almost like diamonds, and just for you! :P

Now there is some fine Deutsches craftmanship. Danke! :up:

That is a nice looking board.

Previous move: 3...a7-a6

My move: 4. Bb5-a4

This line is indeed the Morphy. It also is my favorite line. Seems like you know your theory, which means that this is going to get really interesting.

We've an interesting mix of nationally named openings going on here: The English opening in match 1, the Spanish in this game (as the Ruy is also known), and the French defence in the third game. Seems all the major 17th century colonial powerhouses are accounted for :lol: .

:lol: If I win, I get Burma.

Wrong. It's Catalan System. you rejected my offer to play it English. Lousy gentleman, I have to say! :-j If you wouldn't have played 5. .../d5, then it would have probably turned English.

Yeah but that subtle nuance only kills my Colonial theme as Catalan is not a 17th century colonial powerhouse :P

Dang...you guys know your openings, national histories and all.

Okay...lemme try a developing move which buys a little time by putting pressure on White's King Pawn. This should bring the crowds back from the beer stands.

4. Bb5-a4.....your move.

4. Ng8-f6

By the way I come from the old school move recording method of P-K4, N-KB3...etc. So, should any of my algebraic notation cease to make sense just refer to the picture. :D

http://zioxville.homestead.com/files/Chess4.jpg

C'mon you guys. It took you 2 days to get to this point in the game ? After all it's only the beaten path you took :lol:

[i am serious btw ;) ]

Yes, let the mushrooms raise all over the board! :D

BTW, torplexed, what kind of notation is that you mentioned? P-K4? Pawn to King 4...? :doh: I know the long notation (Ng1-f3) and the short notation (Nf3) and the correspondence chess notation (7163), but I never heared or red of the one that you mentioned.

English notation, also known as descriptive notation. A lot of chess literature that's published in english was written with this notation - until the last couple decades when we began to finally switch over to algebraic and joined the rest of the world.

It still persists though, even today, as a lot of the classics that are reprinted are done so without any conversion from descriptive to algebraic. My personal favourite of these is my copy of Staunton's "The Chess-Player's Handbook" (originally published in 1847, my copy is a reprint from 1994); try and follow this typical quotation from it:

1. P to K's 4th 1.P to K's 4th.
2. K's Kt. to B's 3rd. 2. Q. to K. B's 3rd
3. K's B to Q.B's 4th. 3. Q to K. Kt's 3rd

"Black now attacks two undefended Pawns, but he can take neither without ruinous loss to him; for suppose on your playing P to Q's 3rd, to protect the K's P., he ventures to take the K Kt.'s P., you immediately take the K.B's P. with your B (ch)..."

Its notation is much more cumbersome than the more common abbreviated form of descriptive in other books (ex P-K4 instead of P to K's 4th), but I bought the book anyway as a curiousity piece :)