Paleface Attack (3), analysis depth?

Today's game is shown, not for any technical worth, but because it brought to light something I found interesting. I have been analyzing games with Houdini using 15 seconds per ply.

Looking at move #11, a missed winning move, I found that even with Houdini pointing out the Rxf6 winning variation I could not see the board with enough depth to know it was winning.

Move #12's winning variation showed up at 10 seconds per ply. With this variation I could barely see the merits on the board.

This was instructional for me. If I cannot see the merits of a move within a few minutes of static analysis, I certainly would not see it or similar moves during the heat of a game. So, for future games, my analysis depth will be 10 seconds per ply, saving time and useless effort.

Romantic Chess Era Returning?

I found this commented game between Rybka and Houdini fascinating.  Since I recently changed most of my repertoire to gambits, it was amazing to see the positional sacrificing that takes place in this game.  Is the Romantic chess era returning?  I certainly hope so, as it makes chess more fun (at least for me).

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit 6, fun and quick

Tonight's chess club tournament game matched me against another member. Both of us had not won a game so far ... and this is the 4th round. My opponent did not seem to be familiar with the BDG, but curiously stayed in book longer than myself.

The time control was game90, but my opponent resigned after playing 40 minutes, whereas I had used 26 minutes.

The more I play gambits, the more I have been enjoying the game, even though I seem to lose more often. The games are never boring.