|
As a sidenote: you edited your name out in the playername section but left it in as the annotator. Just in case you want to wipe that.quote:1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. Nxc4 Nb6 8. e3 e6 9. Bd3 Nxc4 10. Bxc4 Bb4 11. O-O O-O 12. Qb3 a5 13. Na2 Qb6 14. Nxb4 Qxb4 Thoughts: 17.Bxd5 – is f3 a possibility here? The goal is to dislodge the knight and preserve the bishop pair. 19.Bd2? – The bishop looks very inactive here. What I might try instead is a5=>Bc5=>Bb6 with the idea of shutting down black’s space/activity, and keeping open the twin ideas of moving the bishop to the b8-h2 diagonal (and targeting b7) and an a6 break (taking back on c6). 27.f3=>28.g3=>29.h4 – If you want to play this idea, play h4 immediately. Remember, in a slog, you want to be firm about claiming your space. 27.f3 allows ideas like an immediate g5 or even f4. Furthermore, you want to delay g3 so your bishop has a space to get out. Maybe h4=>f3=>Be1=>Bg3. Your pawn structure comes in to play later, with black missing the shot 34.f4! 35.e4 ?! – You have the time to prepare this more. Maybe just something as simple as Rgg1 to get the rook off the vulnerable diagonal. 39.Bg5+?? – Rxg5 -+ 53.h6 – Kf3 keeps the winning chances alive, and may in fact be sufficient. 56…g5+ - Equally sufficient but way cooler is the immediate Rxh7. Broadly speaking, rooks with opposite coloured bishops strongly favours whoever is attacking, since they can target pawns with their bishop that the other player cannot defend. Your goal in such positions, then, should be centred around activating your rooks and getting your king across the centre of the board. Your position suffered from a real lack of open files for your rooks, and there’s a chance that the middle game was, if not drawn, then at least drawable from black’s perspective. Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Aug 1, 2012 |
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Hand Knit posted:As a sidenote: you edited your name out in the playername section but left it in as the annotator. Just in case you want to wipe that. Thanks for this, careless of me. I don't check this thread too much so it was there awhile. Oh well. Thanks for the thoughts as well, I am looking through them and will reply: quote:17.Bxd5 – is f3 a possibility here? The goal is to dislodge the knight and preserve the bishop pair. Yes it definitely is. In fact, there is really no way for him to defend that extra pawn and preserving the bishop pair is possible. My mindset a lot of the time when a material gain appears is unfortunately is to convert as 'easily' as possible without looking for that better move when my opponent is helpless. quote:19.Bd2? – The bishop looks very inactive here. What I might try instead is a5=>Bc5=>Bb6 with the idea of shutting down black’s space/activity, and keeping open the twin ideas of moving the bishop to the b8-h2 diagonal (and targeting b7) and an a6 break (taking back on c6). This plan is excellent, and better than mine. Mine was simply to prepare b4 and provide backup to the e pawn in case f3 or f4 is called for later. This 'quick' move was made by me because this position arrived with less than 30 minutes on my clock remaining. quote:27.f3=>28.g3=>29.h4 – If you want to play this idea, play h4 immediately. Remember, in a slog, you want to be firm about claiming your space. 27.f3 allows ideas like an immediate g5 or even f4. Furthermore, you want to delay g3 so your bishop has a space to get out. Maybe h4=>f3=>Be1=>Bg3. Your pawn structure comes in to play later, with black missing the shot 34.f4! Playing h4 first is definitely more accurate, but I didn't correctly assess the danger to my e pawn or the 'threat' of f4. I was worried about f4 and Bg4+ even when it comes to nothing at all. After f4 I can still play f3. quote:35.e4 ?! – You have the time to prepare this more. Maybe just something as simple as Rgg1 to get the rook off the vulnerable diagonal. Again, I'm always worried I will run out of time, and also worried about f4. The right preparatory move is Rg1, connecting the rooks and avoiding any tactics. After f4, I can just play e4. quote:39.Bg5+?? – Rxg5 -+ My idea of course was to save the pawn, and is a big backfiring mistake because simply taking the bishop wins. He missed this chance. I will mention that I put absolutely zero thought into this move. Excited about winning the tactics for the first time in my life, I played this move in an excited state with zero thought behind it. quote:53.h6 – Kf3 keeps the winning chances alive, and may in fact be sufficient. I was dreadfully low on time at this point, something like 30 seconds remaining. quote:56…g5+ - Equally sufficient but way cooler is the immediate Rxh7. Agreed. quote:Broadly speaking, rooks with opposite coloured bishops strongly favours whoever is attacking, since they can target pawns with their bishop that the other player cannot defend. Your goal in such positions, then, should be centred around activating your rooks and getting your king across the centre of the board. Your position suffered from a real lack of open files for your rooks, and there’s a chance that the middle game was, if not drawn, then at least drawable from black’s perspective. My problem mainly as to do with variations in middle games. I get lost very quickly and the urge to exchange material becomes overwhelming, mainly because of the paranoia of a missed tactic. This also comes from blitz. Most of my club games end by me getting a strong position in the middle game against someone much better, then losing it, and then losing the game. Rarely do I draw so I am at least proud of this. I also do have one strength it seems - finding good natural moves very quickly. I seem to have good knack for finding solid moves with a sort of 'gut' positional feeling. Often I make lots of these moves and plans just come together well, with pieces finding great squares, and strong positions get built, and there is practically no calculation, visualization, or time required on my part. Actually, time only becomes a problem when I actually start to try and calculate - I waste enormous amounts of time and rarely verify anything conclusively. This pushes me to just avoid doing it entirely, especially when my time starts running low. The only problem comes when there are of course situations where your gut instinct is wrong, and if you never check your ideas with analysis, your strong positions will be blown away 99 times out of 100 by that single error. Anyway thanks for the helpful comments and analysis. I am trying to work very hard on my tactics but it seems that my efforts have made little headway. Currently I have been doing tactics problems, book problems, a chess visualization course. I believe I am just naturally very weak in this area. When I try to focus on a line it slips away over and over again and I can it can take me minutes just to look 2-3 ply ahead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 12:01
|
|
|
Anyone in the Bay area going to see The Queen's Gambit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Most of my club games end by me getting a strong position in the middle game against someone much better, then losing it, and then losing the game. Rarely do I draw so I am at least proud of this. I also do have one strength it seems - finding good natural moves very quickly. I seem to have good knack for finding solid moves with a sort of 'gut' positional feeling. Often I make lots of these moves and plans just come together well, with pieces finding great squares, and strong positions get built, and there is practically no calculation, visualization, or time required on my part. Actually, time only becomes a problem when I actually start to try and calculate - I waste enormous amounts of time and rarely verify anything conclusively. This pushes me to just avoid doing it entirely, especially when my time starts running low. The only problem comes when there are of course situations where your gut instinct is wrong, and if you never check your ideas with analysis, your strong positions will be blown away 99 times out of 100 by that single error. I want to focus on this part. Acquiring strong/advantageous positions you don't know how to win, and then subsequently losing them, is a natural part of the learning curve. And, really, it should be an expected one: with so much of chess being experience then it makes sense that we mishandle positions the first several times we face them. Here's a game I played a year ago where I got a superior position that I couldn't convert, and ended up losing. As you play these positions more and more you'll develop a familiarity which will allow you to spend more time on thematic moves and less time having to think things through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Just found this, I've been a lifelong chess enthusiast but until my upcoming move to NYC I haven't known any chess players within 5 miles, as a result it's all been sporadic internet Chess when not playing other games and a lot of puzzle/study fappin. I think my name is zoness on FICS and i can probably move to other chess servers. I play primarily blitz because I have a decent opening memory and I don't have the patience or attention span for correspondence (I used to play 15 minute games but time shenanigans annoyed the bajeebus out of me). As a result my endgame practice is pretty poor although I have a hopefully-better-than-mediocre grasp on theory on all parts of the game. I play for complications.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
I'll edit you into the master list once you're a little more sure of your name. On that note, is there anyone I have missed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
I'm on ICC now as apsyrtes (also FICS, but that's an old account don't go there often)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
I attended a chess clinic with GM Nigel Davies today that he was giving at my club, and for once I feel like I actually have a clear roadmap to improving my strength. Slightly related: He's giving a 20 board simultaneous exhibition at the club tomorrow, and it's going to be broadcasted live on their site. (Or at least they're attempting it: the club can't afford any fancy stuff like DGT boards, so some guy with a laptop is just notating all the games by hand.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
This thread could use some more games. Here's a sweet blitz game I just played. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Be3 Be7 7. Be2 a6 8. Qd2 Nbd7 9. O-O-O Qc7 10. g4 Nc5 11. f3 b5 12. g5 Nfd7 13. b4 Nb7 14. f4 Nd8 15. f5 O-O 16. f6 gxf6 17. gxf6 Nxf6 18. Bh6 Kh8 19. Bxf8 Bxf8 20. Qg5 Bg7 21. Rhg1 Ne8 22. Ncxb5 axb5 23. Nxb5 Qb6 24. Nxd6 Qxb4 25. Nc4 f6 White to move and win 26. Qxg7+ Nxg7 27. Rxd8+ Ne8 28. Rxe8+ 1-0 He really let me get away with one by not pushing b4, when my knight would have been pushed to b1. I think, to hold off the attack, he had to at some point play f6, pushing back the my queen and let his laterally defend the Bg7, but he might be too backwards at that point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Wow you guy's still play chess??  Remember me? Ill post this here game because I was happy someone used it on the redhotpawn's forums to explain to a beginner some concepts (playing Bd6 in front of the black pawn in the opening). Nothing special my opponent was really bad but I did play it kinda nice on my side. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bd6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Nc6 5. O-O O-O 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 b6 8. Nc3 Qe8 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nh4 Ne7 11. Qh5 Kh7 12. Nd5 Nxd5 13. Nf5 Link to the discussion on rhp http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=144007&page=1#post_2784955 Real happy to see goons are still into chess!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a primer on chess for someone who doesn't know anything more advanced than "how the pieces move"? I'm asking for a, uh, friend
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Can anyone recommend a primer on chess for someone who doesn't know anything more advanced than "how the pieces move"? I'm asking for a, uh, friend same here, also is it worth it to get a gold membership on chess.com???
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Can anyone recommend a primer on chess for someone who doesn't know anything more advanced than "how the pieces move"? I'm asking for a, uh, friend There are about a billion that contain largely the same basic, universally agreed-upon information. (Unfortunately, and rather amazingly, despite this I haven't been able to find any good comprehensive free online resources.) Nimzovitch's "My System" is certainly an option, especially if the idea of soaking in a piece of chess history appeals to you. Nimzovitch invented (or at least was the first to codify) a lot of what is now considered fundamental knowledge. Personally I'd venture you can find modern writers who have maybe refined the notions a little better and probably write in a style more accessible to modern readers, but some people swear by it, and for some people the historical interest might help motivate you to keep studying it. Personally I really like Lev Alburt/Sam Palatnik's "Comprehensive Chess Course, Vol. II." It's written in the form of lesson plans for chess coaches, but don't let that dissuade you: it's very clearly written and has a wealth of material including lots of practice problems (very important) as well as good recommendations for further study. Volume I of that series is all basic rules and probably not necessary for you, although you should go on Wikipedia and make sure you know all these. Contrary to common opinion there aren't that many and none are especially difficult; this ain't American football, although there is an amusing story of a grandmaster getting up to ask a referee about the 'subtleties' of castling. The main rules which most beginners don't know are details of castling, the ways a draw can arise, and en passant (be sure you know the history of this one, it makes it easy to remember). Anyhow if for whatever reason that doesn't appeal, like I say there are a jillion other options, half a jillion of which were written by Bruce Pandolfini. Anything of his that advertises itself as a general primer is probably okay. Edit: I agree that the book recommendations below aren't appropriate at your level, except possibly the very earliest chapters of Silman's Endgame Course. Even Silman doesn't recommend his own Reassess Your Chess, for instance, until you've reached at least 1200 (or maybe even higher, I don't remember) which will take you a while even on chess.com where ratings are inflated by a couple hundred points in my experience. And if Silman doesn't want your money you know he's serious! (Which makes sense: how do you reassess what you haven't assessed in the first place? That book is all about exceptions to general rules and reexamining simplistic ideas that most chess players of a certain level have learned from other books and sometimes from experience. Yes I know, there's an argument to be made for preventing the formation of bad habits instead of correcting them later, but not in this case.) Edit 2: Almost all chess books are best read with a board at hand, and are best studied in depth. These aren't novels you read through and maybe skim a little when you're bored. They're textbooks, though some are denser and drier than others (and primers in particular will usually be relatively light and conversational). For best results you want to absorb every last drop you can from that book; I must have read Comprehensive Chess Course a dozen times before I finally felt I'd outgrown it. But of course chess for most people is a hobby; make whatever tradeoffs you must, that's better than making yourself miserable and quitting. McNerd fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Aug 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Can anyone recommend a primer on chess for someone who doesn't know anything more advanced than "how the pieces move"? I'm asking for a, uh, friend Xeom posted:same here, also is it worth it to get a gold membership on chess.com??? Strangely enough, I haven't found any one good source of chess information, but rather several. Chess.com has testimonials from GM's saying that Chess Mentor may be the one computer program that has it all, but I've never used it and can't personally vouch. For computer programs, the Chessmaster series is the best game I've come across in teaching all around chess concepts, although I feel like the amount of explanation the game can provide is minimal compared to a real instructor or a chess book. The advantage is that you can see things happen on the board in real time alongside the explanation. Fritz 13 is a program which can help you learn quite a lot but almost certainly requires basic knowledge of the game first. It has training modules for openings, middle games, endgames, a built in coach, hints and suggestions, a module which will show you threats, plans, under-defended pieces and hung pieces, etc. as you play (its like ez mode.) You can also set up the computer in a variety of ways to make it more than fair for beginners. Still, I feel like you wouldn't even know where to start with this program unless you were familiar with chess and chess programs in general - the ribbon interface is a bit confusing and the documentation is difficult to digest. And that's all I know about computer programs. On the other hand, if you are talking about chess books, there are many fine books out there. I had already done Chessmaster XI before reading any books so I didn't need to buy any basic books. For openings, Fundamental Chess Openings is excellent. For middle games, Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is a classic. For endgames, Jeremy Silman's own Endgame Course is great. For games that are annotated with the logic of every move explained, Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev I think would help beginners quite a bit. But the problem with all of these books is that you probably shouldn't get into them unless you can already manage a rating of 1000 or so. Middle game books in particular, like Silman's, probably require that you are already able to play logically enough and not be prone to catastrophes. I've always wondered if this thread or another chess thread couldn't get made with an OP basically breaking down the game fundamentals (beyond piece movements). The previous chess thread I believe had a pretty detailed OP. It may be one of those things where the only place you find everything you need about a topic is strangely an SA thread. As for the gold membership, if it removed the lag moving the pieces, I'd be a serious potential customer. With this lag as it is though I am reluctant to try it out. ---------------------- edit: PART TWO I will just start off by saying that the concept I believe to be most important in chess is that you need to consider your opponent's moves, perhaps even more so than your own. There was a GM who on some instructional video called this "the key to chess" enticing you to buy more videos. This is probably over-stated, yet I am not sure I can think of any general chess principle more important. The best players are the ones who give their opponent's moves the respect they deserve - refuting them if they are bad, minding them if they are solid, and planning for them if they are good. Every time your opponent makes a move, don't make yours until you can mentally verbalize exactly why your opponent made his. If it seems terrible, still try to see why he made it - it will be helpful to get into his mind and discover what his plan is so you can crush him even quicker. If his move looks terrible and you can't think of the reason he made it, objectively evaluate this move. If it's bad, trust your judgement punish it, but don't let your bias creep in to your evaluation. As a new chess player we all want to smash our opponents with our brilliant moves and combinations, but I would tell a beginner to instead do the opposite - become the counter player. Forget about doing what you want or looking good - just patiently build your position move by move until your opponent cracks and you can launch that knockout punch. Play solid and safe until your opponent makes that first mistake. If your opponent isn't making any mistakes, then you have no right or ability to go crazy aggressive. The other important concept I would say is vital to chess is that you need strong tactics to be good. If you don't have this, then nothing else really matters. Studying the theoretical aspect of the game will make you much stronger, but not before you look after your visualization abilities and make sure they are strong enough to match the rest of what you know. I would recommend that any new player straight away drill the poo poo out of tactics before learning even basic positional concepts. For some people, this part of the game is insanely difficult so they avoid it. But you will always be weak until you can start processing those half moves reasonably quickly. Without the ability to check lines you will be totally helpless against someone who can, no matter how much theoretical knowledge or experience you have. Thankfully, tactical vision can be learned slowly over time with natural experience, or somewhat faster with focused practice. The later can be quite brutal. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Aug 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
I sometimes play blitz on chess.com as JayMax.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 12:44
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Can anyone recommend a primer on chess for someone who doesn't know anything more advanced than "how the pieces move"? I'm asking for a, uh, friend This is hard to say without knowing exactly where you're at. If you're not much beyond moving the pieces, then you'll probably do best by finding a friend who knows the game and picking basics up from them. Most elementary literature is at the kids level and most adults would find that tedious and condescending.* I also think that trying to pick up chess through books is like trying to learn a language through the dictionary. There are two elements which I think are central for moving beyond just shuffling the pieces: vision and aesthetic sense. For board vision, if you have the stamina, find a repository of low-level tactics (like mate-in-two level) and go through them. I had 1001 brilliant ways to checkmate when I was younger, and that helped me considerably: it breaks down problems not just by move length but also by theme (e.g. queen sacrifice). Aesthetic sense is important for being able to develop the ability to evaluate a position, what is good and what is bad. For this, I recommend playing a game of pawns against pawns, with the goal being to get a pawn to the other side of the board. As an added benefit, this won't only help with understanding pawn structures but also foresight since pawns only require move-counting. There are a couple of other useful teaching games that you might want to try. Sheep and wolves: White has eight pawns and black one rook. White's goal is to get a pawn to the other side of the board. The point of the game is to teach supported pawn structures, and the value of coordination of 'lesser' pieces. Tempo game: White has a king and four central pawns, while black has a full set. White gets two moves every turn. Game ends with checkmate. Black can, theoretically, win every time but I find that white wins most often. The point of the game is to show the importance of tempi. If you have any more specific questions I'd be happy to answer. *As a side note, I think that kids' ability to do tedious tasks (like solve masses of low-level tactics) is part of what makes them able to learn the game so much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
I think my major stumbling block at this point is definitely board vision and continuations. I've been spending a lot of time trying to teach myself elementary tactics (I have the Chessmaster tutorials and I've been working through those) and I understand the basic principles but it's so difficult to just, look at a board and take in the salient features of the position. Whenever something tells me to "play the natural move" I'm at a loss - I feel like I skipped the part where it was supposed to feel natural, instead of what's actually happening, which is that I haven't put in the work for it to feel natural yet. I'm gonna get ahold of some problem sets and just work through them until the patterns become more intuitive. Also I think you're right, I really wish I'd gotten into chess when I was a kid and had an infinite attention span.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Forgot to mention earlier, but I was surprised to find that "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess" is quite good too. (It's written by a former US champion.) http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Complete_Idiot_s_Guide_to_Chess.html?id=kPd5Cg52QxEC
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:I think my major stumbling block at this point is definitely board vision and continuations. By the way, you just described exactly what I was talking about with Chessmaster - it can feel like a lot of things get thrown around with not enough explanation behind it. That's because there's no human teacher there and the only thing you get is the text available, which sometimes is enough, and sometimes isn't. As far as the 'natural' move, I dislike this term because I doubt that anyone can define what it means. You might say the move that jumps out at you, but I find this to be useless because all kinds of things 'jump out at me' and they waste my time even following them. I have to focus and avoid thinking about what's 'jumping' if I want to stand a chance! Your best shot for this is to read "How to Reassess your Chess" by Jeremy Silman, which gives you a run down of positional concepts. Once you've mastered these, then indeed there will be logical moves based on each position. A simple example is, there is an open file and there really isn't anything else going on (no pieces under attack, no threats to either side, just all quiet on the front), and it's your turn to move a rook. It's almost always a good idea to move your rook to that file before your opponent does because once you do, you gain control of it, and this is always good. Even still, this doesn't imply 'natural move' the way most people use it, more like 'logical positional move' and actually these moves can end up being bad because of tactical considerations or there can be many of them in a given position. Natural move is just bullshit for "smart intuitive move that a chess genius would identify and make immediately" and is not helpful. Here are some more ideas for visualization: 1001 Brilliant Sacrifices (just like HandKnit recommended, I am working through this right now) Chess Visualization Course (A very interesting manual written by someone self-motivated to improve visualization, found at: http://chessvisualization.com/) Fritz 13 - This program has the ability to create infinite tactics problems. Just get a database of games (you can find them all over the place) and put it into Fritz. Then fritz spews tactics problems based on these games. I just put in a database of 3700 or so games and Fritz created 1600 tactics problems out of them, enough to keep me going for awhile. These problems are great because they are based on real positions from actual games - I was doing one just now which was based on a game between GM Nakamura and GM Wang Hao. These problems are interesting because they are just as likely Mate in 1's as Win a Pawn to very complex combinations - the only thing you see is "Find the best move." The move will always win material based on a threshold you set when generating the problems - .8 to 1 or more pawns is good. Knight visualization exercises - Knight's are the lamest pieces in the game for visualization with their awkward movement. Pick two squares on the board, one for where the knight will be, and one for where you are going to send it. Then try to visualize the quickest path for the knight to reach that square - do it all in your head! This doesn't require 'total' board visualization but its very tough in any case. It's helpful to know shortcuts, like knights always change the color of the square they are on when they move, and that they can only attack squares of the same color (in Blitz, to avoid forks, keep the two valuable pieces off the same color and you will always be safe!) edit: for anyone who ends up getting Fritz 13 or has it already, the tutorial for infinite tactics problems is here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8002 CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Aug 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
Thanks for all your help, guys. I'm definitely going to get a couple of those books and a positional problems database. I'll check back if I have more questions!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:1001 Brilliant Sacrifices (just like HandKnit recommended, I am working through this right now) I was actually talking about 1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate, which is also Fred Reinfeld but a different book. Incidentally, I stumbled across this which seems to be an amalgamation of both books. I first learned from a Latvian book titled Saha Rieksti, which seems to be the basis for Reinfeld's books. Here are some sample problems. (1) Difficulty:  1.Qxh6+ gxh6 2.Rxh6# (4) Difficulty:  1.Qe7+ Qg5 2.Qe4+ Qg4 3.Qe3 Zugzwang (6) Difficulty:  1.h7+ Kg7 2.h8=Q+ Kxh8 3.Kf7 +- (8) Difficulty:  1.Ba7 Ra1 2.Kf4 Rf1+ 3.Bf2 Rxf2+ 4.Ke3 And, just for fun, (10) Difficulty:  1.Rxe7+ Kf8 2.Rf7+ Kg8 3.Rg8+ Kh8 4.Rxh7+ Kg8 5.Rg7+ Kh8 6.Qh5+ Kxg7 7.Qh7+ Kf8 8.Qh8+ Ke7 9.Qg7+ Kd8 10.Qf8+ Qe8 11.Qe6+ Qe7 12.Nd6+ Ke8 13.Qf8#
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Here's my first game with Vogelfrei, and my first attempt at an analysis, aided by iphone shredder analysis [Date "2012-08-16 13:18:06 +0000"] [White "thechessgoat"] - bigfoot [Black "Ambignostic"] - vogelfrei 1. c4 Nf6 2. g3 e5 3. Bg2 Bc5 4. Nf3 apparently Nc3 is better 4...0-0 5. 0-0 d6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Nc6 This move looks weak, allowing white to double black's pawns. White does not capitalise 8. e3 Bg4 9. Qb3? A blunder, which loses a pawn after Nxd4 exd4 Bxd4. Black does not capitalise ... Ne5 10. Qxb7 Rb8 11. Qa6 Nd3 Black misses the knight fork 12. Nc6 Rb6 13. Qxa7? A big blunder. Taking the rook with Qxb6 would have won the exchange ... Qd7 Rxc6 is better, says shredder 14. Qa4 Be2 15. Rd1 Bxd1 I couldn't handle this line at all 16. Qxd1 Nb4? += Shredder wants black to take the bishop on c1 17. Nxb4 Rxb4 18. b3 Ng4 19. Bb2 Qf5 20. Qe2 d5? White is up three pawns for the exchange 21. Bxd5 Qh5 22. h4 Qg6 23. Nd2 Rb6 24. a4 Rd6 25. a5 c6 26. Bf3 Qc2?? Ok here it all starts to go wrong. This is a monstrous blunder which both players completely missed. [If 27. Ne4 Qxe2 28. Bxe2 then white is winning a whole piece and shredder gives +6.6 or more]. Instead white played 27. Bxg7 ?? Thinking he was pretty awesome, and shredder swings from +6 to -6 Rxd2 28. Qe1 Rxf2 29. Bxg4 Rh2? Rg2 was the move here, I think 30. Bf3 Rd8 Here white could have saved a draw by repetition with Rc1 31. Bc3 Rh3 ?? "Crap" says black over in-game chat 32. Bg2 Rd3 And white has theoretical parity 33. Rc1?? Oops. Now white is getting mated. Bishop to d4 looks better. Rxe3 34. Bd2 Rxe1# Not sure I would have ever seen the right continuation at move 33. Wish I had seen better at move 27. I feel like a did a fewnon-terrible things in that game among all the errors. It was fun. Any opinions gratefully received. bigfoot again fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Aug 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:4. Nf3 0-0 Nc3 is indeed usually a good idea first in the English Opening (1. c4). The goal with the English is to control the central light squares, which the moves c4, Nc3, and g2/Bg2 do. Also, controlling e4 first with Nc3 prevents him from pushing his pawn before you develop your king knight. quote:
Instead of e3, why not 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9. Bxc6, winning a pawn and attacking his rook with time? quote:9. Qb3? Ne5 It looks like you need to keep defending d4, so Qb3 was the wrong move. However, it isn't Bxd4 that's worrisome, it's Nxd4 (9...Bxd4 10. exd4 Nxd4!), which attacks your queen on b3 and threatens to smother the rook on a1 with Nc2 at the same time! Maybe Qd3 here, developing the queen and moving it out of safety. Bf3 also looks good, because if he captures with his bishop, you can retreat your knight to recapture it. If he captures your d4 knight, instead you can just take his bishop on g4 and material is even. Luckily his knight or bishop on d4 wouldn't be in a position to do anything serious. quote:12. Nc6 Rb6 Remember that when your opponent decides to attack one of your pieces when his is hanging (also known as 'desperado' tactics), it probably won't work if his hanging piece is worth more than the one he's being desperate with. The only exceptions would be where his desperado piece puts you in check forcing a reply, when your attacked piece is as valuable or more valuable than his hung piece AND can't attack back (if it can then no problem!), or if the hanged piece you are attacking can attack yours back (in which case you'll nab his desperado and he'll nab your attacker). In these cases with exceptions, you'll want to work it out. In this case, his queen was hanging and couldn't attack back (knights are the bane of queens), while his desperado piece was a rook, worth more than the knight, and your queen can eat it as it can move and capture just like a rook if it wants. 13. Qxb6 axb6 14. Nxd8 Rxd8 +/- quote:27. Ne4! Qxe2 Nice! After 27. Ne4 Qxe2 28. Bxe2, he has 3 pieces hanging and no way to save them all. quote:28. Bxg7 Rxd2 I didn't see the point of Bxg2, because recapturing his Queen is an absolute priority. After that's done with there may be some tactical ideas there. Make sure you understand that this kind of desperado can only work if your move forces a reply (like check) and certainly the piece that you are leaving hanging needs to be protected, or else the attacker will escape by eating the piece. It appears like one of those insanity moves that I make from time to time. Maybe you were trying some counter-desperado? :] You put Rxd2 as the next move, but on the position I see there is no piece on d2 and Black's queen is still hanging on e2, so here I got confused a bit. quote:Not sure I would have ever seen the right continuation at move 33. Wish I had seen better at move 27. I feel like a did a fewnon-terrible things in that game among all the errors. It was fun. Any opinions gratefully received. The move 27. Ne4 was quite good, but the Bxg7 afterwards leaved something to be desired. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Aug 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Nc3 is indeed usually a good idea first in the English Opening (1. c4). The goal with the English is to control the central light squares, which the moves c4, Nc3, and g2/Bg2 do. Also, controlling e4 first with Nc3 prevents him from pushing his pawn before you develop your king knight. Thanks, this is astonishingly helpful. Unfortunately I didn't write it out very clearly because the lovely 27. Ne4! never happened. That was my 'what I should have played' line. The game went 26. Bf3 Qc2 27. Bxg7  I think I was panicking at the attack on my knight/queen and trying to desperado out of it (TIL about desperadoes). It was a horrible move but the good move was hard to find in at situation, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
I just thought I'd quickly report that I dived in and got Diamond level chess.com, and the lag is still terrible. Apparently they have a total refund no questions asked guarantee at the end of the month (basically a free trial) so I hope it works. edit: BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:It was a horrible move but the good move was hard to find in at situation, I think. I doubt I would have found it. Hand Knit posted:Just played a hell of a game with the black pieces: When your on full tilt its a tossup between resigning the second you (think) you've lost a pawn or continuing to play until your king is mated or you win on time. Bonus option: giveaway chess. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
Just played a hell of a game with the black pieces: 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e5 Ng4 and then white ragequit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
I've been playing correspondence chess with Chess Time for iPhone and Android. It seemed to be the most popular online chess app that's also cross platform and free. My username is fiveagon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
e: never mind
Tiax Rules All fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Played a tournament today (in the open section 1812+) I was unranked until last Tuesday where I managed to win all my games in the lowest section of my first tournament which due to the weird elo rating system shot me up to a provisional 1862 (I would put myself at roughly 1650s). Time controls were 45 minutes each with 5 second delay. Game 1 [Black], played a hippo since I was really nervous and I didn't have anything prepared for 1. d4 g6 2.e4, I only really studied 1. d4 g6 2. c4 (which occurred in game 4, the only one I won). I really should have drawn this game, I think I played solidly until the last 5 minutes of the game where I speed up my play since my opponent was under time pressure and I had a 20 minutes on him, he was down to 2 minutes when I blundered]. quote:[pgn] Game 2 [White], messed up a tactic on move 16, I saw the knight fork, but thought g4 worked (I think it does via a different variation, should not have played 17 Nxg6, that's just a blunder, Qa8 would have been much better. Also I don't think I needed to play 5.h3, Nf3 would have been better. quote:[pgn] Game 3 [Black], played the Nimzowitsch defense he played an unconventional and probably unsound response which is probably where I got such a advantage but I blundered it away as usual. quote:[pgn] Game 4 [Black], I was studying up on the Sniper/Dzinzdi Indian so I was pretty prepared, though I still managed to blunder, except he blundered right back and also did a questionable pawn capture with a pawn instead of a rook which gave me a passed pawn. I probably displayed bad end game technique. I think I was losing severely until move 35. I thought 32 worked but in hindsight it didn't, and my opponent didn't catch it. quote:[pgn] Overall I'm happy with my performance, I didn't think I could compete in the section since I thought my rating was really inflated, but I had some good fighting chances in most of my games. Bonus! Here's a game I played as white in my last tournament where I had a dominating position and then lost it all and barely eeked out a win. quote:[pgn] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. O-O d6 8. f4 Be7 9. Nc3 O-O 10. f5 Bb7 11. Qf3 Kh8 12. Be3 c5 13. Rad1 a6 14. Bc4 Qc7 15. Bg5 h6 16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. Bd5 Rfb8 18. Kh1 Bxd5 19. Nxd5 Qd8 20. Qh5 Ra7 21. b3 a5 22. c4 Rbb7 23. Nc3 Be7 24. Rd3 f6 25. Rg3 Bf8 26. Nb1 a4 27. Nd2 axb3 28. axb3 Ra2 29. Rd3 Rba7 30. Rb1 Ra1 31. Qd1 Qa5 32. Nf3 Rxb1 33. Qxb1 Qa1 34. Qxa1 Rxa1+ 35. Ng1 Re1 36. h3 Rxe4 37. Nf3 Kh7 38. g3 g5 39. Kg2 h5 40. Kf2 g4 41. hxg4 hxg4 42. Nh4 Rd4 43. Ke3 Bh6+ 44. Ke2 Bg5 45. Ng6 e4 46. Nf8+ Kg8 47. Rxd4 cxd4 48. Ne6 d3+ 49. Ke1 Kf7 50. c5 dxc5 51. Nxc5 d2+ 52. Ke2 e3 53. b4 Ke7 54. b5 Kd6 55. Ne4+ Kc7 56. Nxg5 1-0 [/pgn] singe fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
singe posted:Game 1 [Black], played a hippo since I was really nervous and I didn't have anything prepared for 1. d4 g6 2.e4, I only really studied 1. d4 g6 2. c4 (which occurred in game 4, the only one I won). I really should have drawn this game, I think I played solidly until the last 5 minutes of the game where I speed up my play since my opponent was under time pressure and I had a 20 minutes on him, he was down to 2 minutes when I blundered]. The main thing here is that you have to find a way to be more active. In openings like the hippo and the Pirc where you initially cede space without a central pawn you can't afford to wait too long. What I might try in this game is 11...Nc6. There are three ideas behind this. The first, and simplest, is that his queen is much better than yours so you want to either trade them or push his back. The second is that Nc6 allows the f5 push which is often very good if you can get away with it (you have to be able to defend e6). The third is that you can relocate your knight to c4 via a5. The transient pressure on d5 doesn't hurt either. After 11...Kh8 your position begins to look very dire. Even if you may theoretically have defences, the game goes in one direction from that point and it's very easy for you to blunder. quote:Game 2 [White], messed up a tactic on move 16, I saw the knight fork, but thought g4 worked (I think it does via a different variation, should not have played 17 Nxg6, that's just a blunder, Qa8 would have been much better. Also I don't think I needed to play 5.h3, Nf3 would have been better. quote:Game 3 [Black], played the Nimzowitsch defense he played an unconventional and probably unsound response which is probably where I got such a advantage but I blundered it away as usual. The key move in this game is 13...h6, giving him the initiative. You should play h5 immediately. Your goal is to rip open the h-file, and you're in position to sacrifice your queen to do it. Sample line off the top of my head: 13...h5 14.Bf6 h4! (15.Bxh8 hxg3 15.hxg3 Nf5 16.Bf6 Nfxg3+ 17.Kh2 Nxf1+ 18.Qxf1 g3+ 19.Kh1 g2+) 15.Bxh4 Nf5!! 16.Qe1 and then whichever of Nxh4 or Be7 is more crushing (probably Be7). quote:Game 4 [Black], I was studying up on the Sniper/Dzinzdi Indian so I was pretty prepared, though I still managed to blunder, except he blundered right back and also did a questionable pawn capture with a pawn instead of a rook which gave me a passed pawn. I probably displayed bad end game technique. I think I was losing severely until move 35. I thought 32 worked but in hindsight it didn't, and my opponent didn't catch it. Generally I can't say I like the opening, but to me the key move is 15...Qa6. You need to be active and work around the a4 square, which has to be a kind of fulcrum for you in this position. Either Qa4 or Ba4 is a necessity. Then you hung the pawn the next move and it was just kinda over. It was very nice of him to trade queens, since taking them off lets you hold the position. You should certainly take when he plays 24. Qb3. After you trade on b5, you don't want to push either of your pawns. Just leave them there because you want to lock the position if he pushes (and walk your king kingside). Your idea is probably to push f5 to prevent e4 and keep his d-pawn weak, keep the position semi-closed while expanding, and look for a moment to swap off the rook such that your passed c-pawn can be decisive. Overall I think you played very well, and with a bit of smoothing can certainly merit an 1800 rating very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Oh man is the lag on chess.com horrible. Blitz games boil down to who suffers the laggiest pieces like half the time. They better give me my full no-hassle refund for trying their service. Anyone else try Blitz on chess.com? Basically I will click a piece to move it, click on where it's supposed to go or what it's supposed to capture, and it just cancels out of it. You have to click, and then wait a couple of seconds, and then do it, or else it cancels out wasting some of your time. Sometimes it takes 5-10 seconds even of a wait and if you guess wrong you keep losing time. Just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:The goal with the English is to control the central light squares, which the moves c4, Nc3, and g2/Bg2 do. CowOnCrack posted:(also known as 'desperado' tactics)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
http://chesstactics.org is a ridiculously good resource. Also, I'm getting sick of correspondence chess. Do most people in this thread use chess.com for live games? crimedog fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Sep 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
FICS is a lot better in terms of lag, only caveat is that you need to get a client to run it. I also find that chesstempo has really helped out my understanding/recognition of tactics. Most of the resources are free but I would definitely recommend a membership.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
singe posted:FICS is a lot better in terms of lag, only caveat is that you need to get a client to run it. I use the free part of chesstempo quite a bit. Which of the membership features do you use the most? Gold or silver membership? I think the endgame problem solving might help me a lot but I'm not sure what else it offers that might help me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Well I just got the silver membership, it also gives you the evaluations for alternate moves as well as what tactics you tend to miss most frequently, so it can pinpoint your weaknesses. You could just jot down which problems you get wrong from the free version but it's an extra hassle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
DrGonzo90 posted:I use the free part of chesstempo quite a bit. Which of the membership features do you use the most? Gold or silver membership? I think the endgame problem solving might help me a lot but I'm not sure what else it offers that might help me. I've tried the membership there (silver if I recall.) It's very cheap and the service is valuable. I don't know if the Gold features are that valuable, but since the cost is so cheap anyway I would say try them out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
I'm trying the premium membership on chess.com because their Chess Mentor program looks amazing. So far so good. It also does computer analysis on your games, which is really handy for me. Turns out that on a good day about 25% of my moves are mistakes of some variety. But I picked up this game at 30 and my brain just isn't all that plastic anymore
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 10:05
|
|
|
Goose Halo posted:Also, I'm getting sick of correspondence chess. Do most people in this thread use chess.com for live games? This is a defining characteristic of the "casual gamer," really. It's not that people play Angry Birds because they don't like Halo; it's that AB can be played in bursts, with no major commitment. Chess is a "serious" game, but it's nice that there's a way to break up a game into small bites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
I'm on chess.com as Khasai. I sent friend requests to those of you listed in the thread. I mostly play 30 min games but I'm also down for blitz (I'll be terrible) or correspondence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 21:12
|
|
