Home > Publishing Schedule > Danish Championship – Round 4

Danish Championship – Round 4

Most of the other guys are still fighting. It seems the three oldest players are in charge. Sune will probably win, Schandorff also. I drew. A natural standing will be Hansen & Aagaard 3/4, Schandorff & Rasmussen 2.5/4. But Rasmussen might still hold, despite being two pawns down.

My game today was not great. I did not like the way things were going after 10 moves and decided to add some irrationality with 11.g4!?!?. Of course it was not great, but I had no play! At move 21 I was a bit of a weakling when I offered a draw, but I am trying to be old and solid…

Aagaard,Jacob (2520) – Mikkel Djernes Antonsen (2467) [D38]
DEN-ch DM 2014 Skorping (4), 15.04.2014

1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 c5 8.e3 c4 9.Nd2 Be6 10.Be2 0-0 11.g4 Nc6 12.a3 Be7 13.Bg3 Nh7 14.0-0 Na5 15.b4 cxb3 16.Nxb3 Rc8 17.Nb5 Nxb3 18.Qxb3 a6 19.Nc3 Nf6 20.f3 b5 21.Bd3 ½-½

Categories: Publishing Schedule Tags:
  1. Gilchrist is a Legend
    April 15th, 2014 at 23:00 | #1

    The Ragozin can be annoying to face, it reminds me somewhat of the 4. Qc2 d5 Nimzo-Indian variation, but a draw is not exactly bad. Drawing two games instead of winning one and losing one feels different somehow though. Or perhaps disappointing with drawing with White? To be honest, my overall tournament pattern has been, until I switched to 1. d4 from 1. e4, to draw with White and win with Black. I could barely play 20-25 moves with White and not be worse or opponent already equalised…

  2. Jacob Aagaard
    April 16th, 2014 at 06:50 | #2

    @Gilchrist is a Legend
    I do find it is difficult to get out of the opening with a lot of these guys who are very strong, but have no ambition to beat me! Btw. when we were juniors Mikkel was a big talent and an IM at 17 or so, while I was a late bloomer. Now he is a baker and I am a grandmaster. Things never turn out the way you expect them to. It should be said that we are both quite happy with how things turned out :-).

  3. Phille
    April 16th, 2014 at 13:03 | #3

    @Jacob:
    Gilchrist’s comment reminds me, that quite a while back I opined on this blog that it is easier to get by with 1.d4. Whereas 1.e4 demands a lot more work to at least not be worse after the opening. (And correspondingly a lot of players (me included) have more trouble meeting 1.d4, especially in the lower echelons.)
    You said that you might do a blogpost about “1.e4 vs 1.d4” one day. I would still be very much interested in that.

  4. Jacob Aagaard
    April 16th, 2014 at 16:58 | #4

    @Phille
    Really? After I barely manage to draw with weaker players with White?

  5. Phille
    April 16th, 2014 at 20:36 | #5

    Well, the comparison could go: 1.e4 is crap and 1.d4 is no good either. And don’t even get me started on 1.c4 …
    Of course if you know a trainer who also publishes high quality opening books, you could ask him to do a guest post on this blog. Because that seems to be the ideal combination to have something worthwhile to say on that topic.

  6. boki
    April 16th, 2014 at 21:11 | #6

    Again a win with black ! Jacob, you should write a book on Hot to win with black 🙂
    Seriously, I think many Players have worse results with black, I at least. I never have beaten someone > 2300 elo with black, while I have good results against even 2400 .

  7. Gilchrist is a Legend
    April 16th, 2014 at 22:22 | #7

    At least you play 1. d4, I found that when I played 1. e4, my game was =+ in 20-25 moves, in one tournament (9 rounds) that I played in Montréal in 2008, it was so bad that I only won one game with White, and it was against a lower rated opponent (2200). That was the last time that I played 1. e4 in tournaments. My last game there was against a 2350 wherein I played 1. e4 and was -+ on move 22-23 in a Scheveningen Sicilian. At least with 1. d4, the worst that can happen is = or perhaps =+. Somehow it just seems easier to have to face 1. e4, just a personal feeling though.

  8. Ray
    April 17th, 2014 at 07:03 | #8

    @Gilchrist is a Legend
    Well, I think it all depends on your reportoire with 1.d4. E.g. if you play 5.Bg5 against the Semi-Slav, 6.Ne5 against the Slav or the classical main line against the KID you can lose quickly with 1.d4 as well… This is not true for quieter lines such as the Slow Slav of course, but in that case i.m.o. you shouldn’t compare with the Scheveningen Sicilian op other Open Sicilians but more with an anti-Sicilian. When I still played 1.e4 I used to play the King’s Indian Attack against 1…c5 and there white does not run any great risks of losing quickly or being worse, if he knows what he’s doing. You might argua that in that case white is giving away ‘his’ opening advantage, but the holds for the quieter lines after 1.d4.

  9. Ray
    April 17th, 2014 at 07:04 | #9

    I meant obviously ‘the SAME holds for the quieter lines after 1.d4.’

  1. No trackbacks yet.

 Limit your comments to