Chess

(Forrester/1110) Ever play online blitz, lose a few games, then go completely on ...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 07:02:00 -0600

Ever play online blitz, lose a few games, then go completely on tilt and just
start sacrificing pieces right and left? Felt guilty about it?

Might make you feel better to see one of the world's top 10 players do the
same, then. Except in a tournament.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7815

(DesCartes/1109) I don't think it's that they're ranked separately. I think it's ...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:38:00 -0600

I don't think it's that they're ranked separately. I think it's more that there
is a separate lower standard for women so that they can qualify for women's
tournaments, which do still exist. There are fewer women among the high ranks,
but they do exist.

(Giraffe/1108) Why are women still ranked separately (and with lower threshhold...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 02:52:00 -0600

Why are women still ranked separately (and with lower threshholds) than men?
Just institutional inertia?

(Rian/1107) Highest is GM. That's for Grandmaster. Usually a FIDE ranking ...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:27:00 -0600

Highest is GM.  That's for Grandmaster.  Usually a FIDE ranking of 2600+ though
that's not set in stone; the actual awarding of the title is much more complex
and relies on systems of what's called "norms" (certain performance in
tournaments of a high enough participation level) as well as the ranking - not
to mention, often, a fair amount of politics.  And once earned, the title is
never lost, so you'll find GMs with lower rankings, who've fallen since gaining
the title.

Next down is IM (International Master).  2400+ FIDE ranking, and similar (but
lower performance-level) requirements to the GM title.

Next, FM.  FIDE Master.  2200+ FIDE ranking.  This is the lowest level title
FIDE awards.  Anything below/ other than this is a title given by a national
federation, not the international organization.

(There's also the women's titles - WGM, WIM - which are similar but with
slightly different (lower) rating and norm requirements than the GM/IM titles.
There are also titles related to organization and officiating, IA for instance
(International Arbiter), but those are administrative, not chess playing
ranks).

(Gespalder/1106) What is the order of rankings?

Gespalder@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:13:00 -0600

What is the order of rankings?
I know there is Grand Master and International Master

(Angus Young/1105) Heh.. that's kinda cool.

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:35:00 -0600

Heh.. that's kinda cool.

(DesCartes/1104) A friend of mine on facebook posted this link to a chess variant...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 06:47:00 -0600

A friend of mine on facebook posted this link to a chess variant:

http://alizarin71.livejournal.com/9489.html

Zombie chess. Black is the zombie side, 3 rows of pawns. They can only advance
one rank at a time, and still capture diagonally, as normal. However, when they
capture, they remain in the same position, but the captured piece becomes a
zombie. (They must capture if they can.)
White's rules are normal, except for the rook. Rook moves as normal, but can
neither capture nor be captured. (It can be used, essentially, as a roadblock
for the zombies, sheltering the king behind it.)

(River Rat/1103) I figured it out it was how I was tellin git to move. I was sayi...

River Rat@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:34:00 -0600

I figured it out it was how I was tellin git to move. I was saying b8 or b7b8
and it was looking for b8Q or b8R or b8N or b8B.

(River Rat/1102) My board is set up like this.

River Rat@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:12:00 -0600

My board is set up like this.

       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    8  |   | . |   | . |   | . |   | . |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    7  | . |-P-| . |   | . |<K>| . |   |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    6  |   | . |   |<B>|   |<P>|   | . |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    5  | . |   | . |<P>| . |   | . |   |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    4  |-P-| . |   | . |   | . |   | . |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    3  | . |   | . |-P-| . |   | . |   |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    2  |   | . |   | . |   | . |<P>| . |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    1  | . |-K-|-R-|   | . |   | . |   |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
         a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h

I want to move my p at b7 to b8.  Crafty is saying it is an illegal move.

(River Rat/1101) Darn it I missed a big chess game.

River Rat@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:11:00 -0600

Darn it I missed a big chess game.

http://www.desc-online.de/turniere/open/2011/index_en.php

I would have played in this if I had known about it.  I should read the chess
newsgroup more often.

alt.chess

Cries.

(Angus Young/1100) My wife watches a show named 'Leverage'. It's an ok show.. it's...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:43:00 -0500

My wife watches a show named 'Leverage'.  It's an ok show.. it's kind of like
an A-Team type show.  Anyway, one of the guys had to play in a blitz chess
tournament and when it got to the final match, it showed the beginning of it
and so I watched what they played to see if it was sensible based on the fact
that they were supposed to be good players.  Happily it did make sense.  It was
a very normal looking e4 opening with what looked like a sicilian type of
defense.  It's hard to say exactly what it was because the camera didn't focus
on it very long... but I was glad to see that it wasn't just a hodgepodge of
pieces thrown all over the board.

(Rian/1099) Jeremy Silman has an article on his website about designing the ...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:50:00 -0500

Jeremy Silman has an article on his website about designing the problem for the
first Harry Potter movie, and he mentions that very thing among others that get
messed up putting chess in movies.  A fun article, and the kids love it.  I use
it and the problem in chess classes, then show the scene from the film.  An
easy and fun lesson all around :)

(Kena/1098) I take entirely too much pleasure from watching shows/movies/wha...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:45:00 -0500

I take entirely too much pleasure from watching shows/movies/whatever, and
lookng closely at chessboards to see if they're set up incorrectly.  I've
recently become addicted to The West Wing, where two of the primary characters
are supposed to be avid players... and yet, the board had white to the left. 
D'oh!  Really, simple pleasures for simple people.  Like me.

(Forrester/1097) Remembering the Endgame w/Bishop vs Endgame w/Knight argument aw...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:23:00 -0500

Remembering the Endgame w/Bishop vs Endgame w/Knight argument awhile back,
thought I'd point out Game #1 here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?new
sid=7453

(Forrester/1096) Besides hanging the pawn, I think the biggest mistake he made wa...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:23:00 -0500

Besides hanging the pawn, I think the biggest mistake he made was dxc5 instead
of bxc5. Talk about your backward pawns ...

(Angus Young/1095) Another game of mine that went well. I was fortunate that he bl...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:57:00 -0500

Another game of mine that went well.  I was fortunate that he blundered a pawn
away early and it ended up being the difference.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8578336
After move 6.. fairly standard looking game.  After 7: Nc3, I figured the
'normal' move would be Be7.  I decided to go to d6 knowing c5 would probably
follow and that I'd have to fall back to c7.  I felt like being adventureous
and sure enough, that's how the next couple moves went.

9: .. Bxf3
I figured this was good so my bishop could control the b8-h2 diagonal better,
plus my bishop was largely useless at this point in time.  I was actually
thinking that he was possibly going to move Ne5 on move 9 and not give me a
chance to do that.

10: ... e5
An (overly) aggressive move considering I haven't castled yet.  This is
something I often have a problem with, but I can't help myself sometimes, I
love attacking.
11: Bb2?
Didn't know why he did this.  I would've thought he had to move dxe5.  I was
happy to move to e4 though.
12: ... b5
I figured he wasn't going to miss the en passant.  It was too obvious.  I guess
I was getting a little too optimistic.  This was definitely my worst move of
the game and created weaknesses on a6 and c6 that I would have to deal with for
the rest of the game.
19: a5??   He lets his pawn hang on e3.
21: ... Nxc5   I really didn't like his knight placed nicely there.  I didn't
like giving him the pawns a5, b4, c5, but I didn't know how to avoid it.  I
knew that all he would have to do is move b5 and he'd have a pawn in the clear.
24: ... Be5
Starts a trade of bishops and queens that I'm all too happy to do.  I wanted to
simplify things considering I thought I was still in the lead.
27-32: I was just trying to close things up and make it so my knight became
more useful while his bishop became less.
33: Nxf3  .. now, this looks dumb in principle.  But I saw that his next few
moves were forced..
34: Kxf3 (obvious)  Rb8.  I loved the game at this point.  His rook needs to
defend the b4 pawn (his last threat in the game).  But not only that, d4 is the
only safe square for him, so he can't even move his rook.  Not to mention that
my K is coming to e5 so he has to support his rook with his king too!  Ties him
down big time.
So, when I took on f3, I saw through move 36 and had the general idea of how
the game would probably finish after that.
37: gxf5 (not completely forced, but seems like the best move.  Otherwise he's
just wasting a move (Ke3 or Kc3) and I will probably follow with f4 and he has
to worry about another passed pawn.
38: (he still can't move his rook even though the g4 pawn isn't there anymore

I think there was some variance that could've happened after 38, but I didn't
see any way for him to hold everything.  I thought at one point he might put
his king on c3 to free up his knight to move back from the 4th rank, but I
still didn't see a way for him to hold onto everything.

(Forrester/1094) Yeah, he was toast with that, and with Qc8 too ... good game!

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:18:00 -0500

Yeah, he was toast with that, and with Qc8 too ... good game!

(Angus Young/1093) For>

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:37:00 -0500

For>
I didn't look into it too much, but I think my course of action after that
would be:  after Re4 Rh8: Rg4+ Kf8, Qg6
and again he's in a tough spot.  He has to do something about Rf4+ and I'm not
sure what.  His king is stuck and so is his rook.  The best guess of mine would
be Bd8.  But then I think he loses to: Re4+ Ke7, Qg7+ .. , Qxb7
Maybe there's something more.  Like I said, i didn't look into it too much.

(Forrester/1092) What I was looking at was him moving Rh8 instead of Kh7 I think....

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:11:00 -0500

What I was looking at was him moving Rh8 instead of Kh7 I think. After your
Re4.

(Angus Young/1091) For>

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:22:00 -0500

For>
You mean after Qf7?  I think the line I posted was forced where he'd end of
with B v Q+p

(Forrester/1090) I was looking at Rh8 for him ... not sure if he would have survi...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:23:00 -0500

I was looking at Rh8 for him ... not sure if he would have survived or not, but
it didn't look that bad.

(Angus Young/1089) He chose Kh6.. game over.

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:58:00 -0500

He chose Kh6.. game over.

(Angus Young/1088) Ok, I found winning lines on everything I think. All start with...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:43:00 -0500

Ok, I found winning lines on everything I think.  All start with Qf7+
If he moves Kh6 I have mate with:
Kh6, Re6+ then either Kh5 Qg6++ or Kg5, Qg6+ Kf4, Re4+ Kf3, Qg4++
So Kh6 is all wrapped up.  I haven't seen a mate with Kh8 just yet, but this
will be simple enough:
Kh8, Qxe8+ Kh7, Qf7+ Kh8, Rxh4 Bxh4, Qxb7
I will be up a Q to a B and 1 pawn.  Simple win.

(Angus Young/1087) weird... he moves Kh7.. I'm going to look for a mating attack, b...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:36:00 -0500

weird... he moves Kh7.. I'm going to look for a mating attack, but instantly I
can see Qf7+ ... Qxe8.  So I at least have his rook.

Oh, and just as I write this, I saw:
Qf6+ Kh6 Rxh4
which I would think he'd have to respond with: Bxh4 Qxb7 winning me a queen and
pawn for a rook.  I'm not sure which I like yet, and I still have to look over
the position more.  I just started

(Angus Young/1086) I'm sure he was thinking: "Oh! pieces! NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM"

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:35:00 -0500

I'm sure he was thinking: "Oh! pieces! NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM"

(Rian/1085) It's not so much opening theory as it is general positional theo...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:25:00 -0500

It's not so much opening theory as it is general positional theory.  That said:
In this particular game, as it played out, nothing.  As a general rule,
positionally speaking... it leaves a huge hole at c3, which can't be protected
by pawns, that black can exploit.  Black should have been playing for a faster
attack on the queenside, opening that side to use c3 for a launching/ resting
point, the same way Angus is using e6 now.

I was looking, trying to see where black might have gone wrong, and I think
it's the 10th move, ... Nxd4.  I like ...Ne5 better, with all four knights on
the long a1-h8 diagonal to blunt the power of the fianchettoed bishop, similar
to the way they act against the g7 bishop in a lot of Dragon lines.  That would
put question to the b5 bishop, giving either an exchange on d7 (activating the
queen and connecting the rooks with tempo) or cause it to retreat, allow a
....c5 break and quick expansion on the queenside to exploit the a3 and c3
holes... really all the potentially weak squares on whites queenside (since
with a queenside pawn storm and both black rooks shifted to the queenside, plus
the well placed e5 knight, white coule be forced to loosen the pawns further to
protect some of the others, notably b4), and take the initiative in a big way.
Not only that, but that e4 knight could support the other one coming to g3, or
go there itself, acting as a springboard to shift from queenside to kingside
attack.  Instead, he trades some minors, makes an aimless queen move, trades
the last piece retarding the b2 bishop (which, when white recaptures, also
makes that diagonal completely inaccessible to his pawns as well)... and the
rest is just ugly *heh*

_Definitely_ a positional advantage... and while you're right, Angus, about a
bishop move dropping the rook, it might be all he has.  That'll leave him with
bishop and pawn for the rook, and more importantly give him some activity. 
Probably not enough, but I don't see anything else, really.

And what was he thinking, actually accepting that sac on h6? *heh*

(Forrester/1084) My opening theory sucks too -- what's wrong with fianchetto'ing ...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:42:00 -0500

My opening theory sucks too -- what's wrong with fianchetto'ing the bellhop
after d3 in this game?

(Angus Young/1082) Yep... Kg7 and I moved Re4.

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:34:00 -0500

Yep... Kg7 and I moved Re4.
We'll have to see what he comes up with.  Lots of moves for him are deadly now.
I honestly don't know what I would do if I was in his shoes.

After all, any bishop move is just going to give up his rook.  He could move
the rook offering up the bishop up to try to get to a somewhat even endgame..
but where to?  g8 will be met by: Rg4+ and soon after Rxg8..
f8 doesn't really work either..  if he does, I follow Rg4+ and it finishes with
either: Kh7, Qg6+ Kh8, Qg7++ or Kh7, Qg6++

So, I don't know what to think for him.

(Rian/1080) Makes sense :)

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:55:00 -0500

Makes sense :)
I started with e-pawn openings... I learned to play while living in Spain.  Any
surprise my first two openings were the Giuoco Piano and the Ruy Lopez? *heh*
But I found the d-pawn openings later on my own, and have some of both I like a
lot.  I find I prefer to play e-pawns as white, and face d-pawns as black... so
I do the same thing, opening with d4 from time to time.

NOT, however, in a rated game.  I learned that lesson the hard way.  Twice :/

(Angus Young/1079) Oh, and in that.. I am even worse at e4 openings than I am at d4...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:53:00 -0500

Oh, and in that.. I am even worse at e4 openings than I am at d4.   Weird I
know since most people are opposite.. but it is for that very reason that I
played e4 this game... forcing myself to learn

(Rian/1078) nods Yeah, you'll have to be a bit careful here because of the...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:49:00 -0500

*nods* Yeah, you'll have to be a bit careful here because of the open lines on
the kingside, and of course he is up a piece.  But indeed, the bailout do the
draw by repetition is there if you need it.  As for the bishop's danger... it's
lessened a lot if he can get a rook move in with check of course *heh*

If I'm black, here, I might also be looking for places where I can give my rook
to free the other pieces, effectively trying to make bishop and passed pawn
worth the rook, and playing for the draw.  I doubt that's there... but I might
look for it :)  Or maybe some way where I can give the queen (which isn't doing
me much good anyway) for rook and pawn, and play with rook, bishop, and two
pawns for the queen (which happens to be my favorite positional imbalance in
chess).

(Angus Young/1076) I can sum up the reason why I fianchetto'd my bishop in 4 words:

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:50:00 -0500

I can sum up the reason why I fianchetto'd my bishop in 4 words:
..... I suck at openings... :)

(Rian/1075) And agreed, the black queen does look pretty silly :) That whol...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:43:00 -0500

And agreed, the black queen does look pretty silly :)  That whole line of play
starting with black's 19th makes no sense to me.  Yes, it's space on the
queenside, but with no open lines, and black _has_ to realize that witht he
center closed, a queenside attack is going to be met with a kingside one, and
with the queen shut out it'll mean trouble.  Better would have been, I think,
something involving ...Kf8 to help hold the center-rear, or else something with
a g7 pawn push and lift of the king to cover that abysmal hole at g6, in
combination with ...Qb5 (not ...b5) to activate the queen.

All that said... Angus, you got away with it, but speaking of pawn holes, you
should know better than to fianchetto your bishop after playing d3 :)  I've won
games based on that one positional mistake *heh*

(Angus Young/1074) Rian>

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:45:00 -0500

Rian>
Yeah, I'm kind of expecting Kg7 for that very reason.. and it will set up a
discovered check which will probably force me to move my king and his rook
effectively will be free, but his bishop will still be in peril and I will have
a queen and rook peering at his king on an open board.  The thing is, I had a
draw if I wanted it (I think).. but I like going for the win.  I think Qh5+
ends up drawing since I think he will be forced back to f8 to protect the rook.
Then I just move back to h6.. repeat for 3 fold

(Rian/1073) Perosnally, I like Qe6 better as well. The queen may control a ...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:34:00 -0500

Perosnally, I like Qe6 better as well.  The queen may control a lot of squares,
but paradoxically she works best on the attack close in.  Also, there's a
tactical consideration at play; Qe6 denies the black king the g8 square.  If he
can get to g8, then he might manage to get to f8... freeing the rook to come to
g8 and perhaps launching a counterattack.  White has the initiative, but his
king is exposed as well, and black _is_ up a piece and a pawn.  All it'll take
is one move and the initiative goes the other way.  Anything that brings that
rook into the game without check or a forcing consideration could, depending on
position, give black that move.

I wouldn't be surprised if instead of ...Kf8 to come, black tries ... Kg7, to
free that rook and get his pieces back in the game, in fact.

(Angus Young/1072) I think Qh5 works too.. I just like the e6 square. It does lots...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:05:00 -0500

I think Qh5 works too.. I just like the e6 square.  It does lots there... it
pins the bishop to the rook, it forces the king to block the rook from checking
my king so I can get a free move to bring my rook out, etc.  I don't think Qh5
is bad though... it just sticks the Q out on the edge of the board

(Steppenwolf/1071) But it's got your d pawn dead to rights, and that's gotta count ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:00:00 -0500

But it's got your d pawn dead to rights, and that's gotta count for something.
:)

As someone who is far less good than you at chess, I would have thought your
last move would have been qh5, which would force the king back to f8 and maybe
give you the opportunity to move your rook up to do some more damage.

I presume I'm missing something, but what is it? And can it be explained to
someone who knows NOTHING about good positional play? :)

(Angus Young/1070) Oh.... and doesn't his queen look silly out there? :)

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:54:00 -0500

Oh.... and doesn't his queen look silly out there? :)

(Angus Young/1069) Got a fun game going here.

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:47:00 -0500

Got a fun game going here.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8544050
My thoughts on it so far:
The opening was ok.. nothing too wild.  In the middle I thought I grabbed a bit
of a positional advantage.  Then, one bad move that handed him a pawn and a
tempo put me down a bit.  But, then I decided to (while down a pawn) sac a
bishop for an attack.  The thing is, I think it might work.  I don't know for
sure if I have him, but I have him very pinned down and I think he will have to
toss me his bishop in an effort to loosen his position up.  After my move 32:
Qe6+ my plan is to move: 33. Re4.  The nice thing is, my check on Qe6+ will
force his king to move in the way of him moving Rg8+ which he could use to
loosen up his position since he'd move with a tempo.

Anyway, I'll post again when this game is done.  But for now, please don't give
me any strategy for the following moves.  I just thought it might be
interesting to look at for now.

(Angus Young/1068) heh.. I love games where everything goes right..

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:55:00 -0500

heh.. I love games where everything goes right..
I just annihilated this guy:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8543516

It started when he didn't see my sneaky 12: Bc6 to win a pawn.. then once we
hit move 17 or so, I just tore him up.

(River Rat/1067) [Event "Friend mode"]

River Rat@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 02:46:00 -0500

[Event "Friend mode"]
[Site "Murphysboro"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Hinson, Robert"]
[Black "Fritz 12"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "107"]

{179MB, Fritz12.ctg, DC-PC} 1. e4 {0} e5 {0} 2. Bc4 {10} Nf6 {0} 3. Qf3 {7} Nc6
{0} 4. c3 {9} Be7 {1} 5. a3 {4} O-O {1} 6. d3 {12} b5 {1} 7. b3 {7} bxc4 {1} 8.
bxc4 {7} Bb7 {1} 9. a4 {7} Rc8 {1} 10. a5 {4} h6 {1} 11. a6 {3} Bxa6 {1} 12.
Rxa6 {3} Nh7 {1} 13. Rxa7 {4} Nxa7 {1} 14. Na3 {4} c6 {1} 15. Ne2 {11} g5 {1}
16. O-O {2} Rb8 {1} 17. d4 {13} exd4 {1} 18. cxd4 {2} Qb6 {1} 19. c5 {2} Bxc5 {
1} 20. e5 {14} Bxd4 {1} 21. Nxd4 {2} Qxd4 {1} 22. Qe3 {8} Rb4 {1} 23. Qxd4 {5}
Rxd4 {1} 24. Be3 {6} Ra8 {1} 25. Bxd4 {2} h5 {1} 26. Re1 {6} Nb5 {1} 27. e6 {1}
fxe6 {2} 28. Nxb5 {11} cxb5 {1} 29. Rb1 {14} Kf8 {1} 30. Rxb5 {2} g4 {1} 31.
Rxh5 {3} Rc8 {1} 32. Rxh7 {5} Rc4 {1} 33. Bg7+ {7} Ke7 {1} 34. Rh8 {10} Rc2 {1}
35. Bf8+ {2} Ke8 {1} 36. Bb4+ {7} Kf7 {1} 37. f3 {12} Rc4 {1} 38. Bd6 {4} Rc1+
{1} 39. Kf2 {3} Rh1 {1} 40. fxg4 {2} Kg6 {1} 41. Be7 {6} Rc1 {1} 42. Rg8+ {2}
Kh6 {1} 43. g5+ {3} Kh5 {1} 44. Rh8+ {4} Kg4 {1} 45. h3+ {4} Kf4 {1} 46. Rf8+ {
2} Ke5 {1} 47. Bf6+ {6} Kd6 {1} 48. Kg3 {9} Kd5 {1} 49. Kg4 {6} e5 {1} 50. h4 {
1} e4 {1} 51. g6 {2} Rc2 {1} 52. g7 {2} Rxg2+ {1} 53. Kf5 {3} Rxg7 {1} 54. Bxg7
{2} 1-0

I won.  He resigned.  :)  First time I beat a computer.

(Rian/1066) heh I find both of the 2-minors checkmates tedious, personally...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:59:00 -0500

*heh* I find both of the 2-minors checkmates tedious, personally... truthfully,
I hate teaching them, because it's so uncommon to find oneself in that position
anyway, on either side. K+Q or K+R, sure.  But who has minor and pawn and
promotes to another minor?  Only if promoting tot he major would stalemate does
that make any sense, and even then, delaying promotion a move usually solves
the problem.  And being up double-minor but not able to transform that to an
easier winning material difference seems even more unlikely.

Forrester -> Fair enough, though I'm not entirely sure "not fair" is quite
true.  After all, if you're equating it to rating, and then continue to lower
the rating you refer to... *shrugs*  But in any case, I'll leave it.  And I did
answer: I really think it's not a matter of rating, it's much more a matter of
time/ experience.  A 1500 player that's seen hundreds of games is far more
likely to know those things, be more comfortable with them, than an 1850 who's
played maybe 150 games, just as an example.  As a general rule, higher rated
players are more experienced, so there's a correlation... but that's ot always
the case.  And incidentally, I don't know that you can say "almost never" about
_anything_ in blitz.  I've had masters drop material or make serious blunders -
positional and tactical alike - against me in blitz, a good bit.  Not as much
as I have, perhaps, but far more than to say "almost never."

(Angus Young/1065) Yeah, I know how to do it fairly well. I did kind of practice i...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:41:00 -0500

Yeah, I know how to do it fairly well.  I did kind of practice it though.  CM
has a drill for it and I like going through lots of the drills.  Another one
(that I have more trouble with actually) is K+B+B vs K

(Forrester/1064) No fair saying not to get hung up on ratings and then say I've "...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:31:00 -0500

No fair saying not to get hung up on ratings and then say I've "dropped from
1850 to 1600" -- I'm not even sure what that means in the context of the
discussion. I'd assume it possible that a 1600 player could win a K+B+N
vs K endgame, but certainly wouldn't expect it. But it's in that sweet spot
where if the online-to-USCF rating inflation is 100-200 pts, then it would
make sense that a 1600 USCF player would know it.

I guess that's what I'm curious about. My gut, which could be wrong, tells
me that there's a threshold for a player knowing, by heart, K+B+N vs K, and
that it roughly matches up with almost never stupidly hanging something in
blitz, being comfortable with opposition/zugswang, being 3-6 moves deep in
a huge set of openings (the Falkbeer counter-gambit?! Not a problem!), and
perhaps more importantly, being at the level where if you are playing someone
of equal ability, and you find yourself two pawns down, or a pawn down with
an obviously poorer position, it's not crazy to just resign.

I don't really care whether that's 1200, 1400, 1600, or 1800, I'm just
wondering what it is. My experience was that in Fritz-land, it's about 1850,
for blitz games. (Obviously, it's a lot easier to not hang something stupidly
in longer games, etc.) I'm also curious what an 1850 rating translates to
in USCF-terms. Similar tactical ability, but knowing a dozen Dragon lines,
15 moves deep? Always winning K+Q vs K+R? Etc. There's also a bunch of
endgame stuff that I know advanced players have to master, that if I knew
what it was, I could ask about it. Sadly, I don't!

PS Angus, but could you blitz out (e.g., do you know by heart) K+B+N vs K? If
so, I'm jealous. I taught myself it a million years ago, but it's long gone.

(Angus Young/1063) Just my $.02>

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:20:00 -0500

Just my $.02>
I know how to mate with K+B+N vs K... i taught it to myself

(Rian/1062) chuckles I notice you've now dropped from 1850 to 1600... but ...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 07:17:00 -0500

*chuckles* I notice you've now dropped from 1850 to 1600... but noted. 
Teaching it and having them learn it are indeed two matters entirely, though it
does help that in general, kids are taking chess classes/ lessons because they
want to, so they're interested and want to learn.

You've created an excellent example with your last post, though.  Having your
pawns not interfere with your bishop, or at least being aware of the square
color of your pawns and bishop - and for that matter, your opponent's bishop -
is something any decent, well taught scholastic player is aware of, anywhere
above about 1000 or 1200, these days.  And while my official USCF rating has
never been above 1725, I've beaten much higher rated players (sadly, not in
rated games.  But I've beaten two masters in quick (but not blitz) in the past
year... and lost to them many times *heh*) - and I've been aware of and using
that since before I was rated.  My approximate strength then was about 1400 or
so.

Which is another point.  Don't get caught up in the rating.  It's just a
number, and ratings are maybe more fluid than they've ever been, with the
larger amounts of scholastic players at different levels of experience,
learning quickly, etc.

All that said: the biggest differences these days between lower-rateds, class
players versus experts and masters, is I think in the opening.  Yes, there are
some endgame tricks.  And most of the higher rated players have been playing a
lot longer, have seen more positions, have more rote memory and can therefore
apply their knowledge faster and more confidently.  But the pro-level (expert/
master) players are so because they're that, exactly - professionals.  They put
the time and study into it, they know opening lines not 3-6 moves, not 8-10
moves, but often (usually?) 12-20 moves deep, with little nuances, variations,
etc.  And they analyze these all the time, constantly looking for the tiniest
positional flaw to exploit, advantage to gain.  So the differences aren't
tactical, they're not mechanical (how to do a 2-bishop mate, etc)... they're
strategic and they're experiential.  A good 1500 player probably knows as much
tactically as an expert or master - they just don't have the experience or the
eye to always recognize it, so opportunities get past them, and they don't have
the experience of having done some of those things (the rote-opposition
pawn-on-2nd vs king, opposition-dependant ending that has to be played just
right to win instead of draw, for instance).  So they draw instead of win. 
They'll not know how to use a knight and king to shield a pawn and promote it,
so they'll draw against the bishop instead of beat it.  Or they will know, but
haven't done it enough, make one slip, and draw instead of win when they lose
the pawn. That sort of thing.  And as I said to start this... they won't have
the deep positional knowledge to know what advantages they'll get 20 moves into
an opening line, or how to apply that little positional, strategic advantage.
I really do think that's the difference between, say, 1500-1600 and 2100-2200.

GM's, now... whole different ballgame.  1500 is miles closer to 2200 than 2200
is to 2400 *heh*

And... online vs OTB ratings?  Very hard to correlate.  I've seen them be
similar, and I've seen them be hundreds of points apart, both ways.  (The ones
that play OTB several hundred points better than their online or correspondence
ratings are most interesting, IMO.  Certainly no accusing them of cheating, for
one *heh*)

(Forrester/1061) I found this interesting:

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 06:56:00 -0500

I found this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Bishop_versus_knight_endings_.28with
_pawns.29

To be honest, I don't think I commonly make sure that my pawns are on an
opposite color vs my bishop during endgames, and apparently that's a good idea
.... something to think about!

(Forrester/1060) Rian, since you're much closer to this than I am -- what skill s...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:26:00 -0500

Rian, since you're much closer to this than I am -- what skill set/bag of
tricks/knowledge base would you say that most 1800'ish USCF players have?

(Forrester/1059) There's a big difference between teaching it and them knowing it...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:17:00 -0500

There's a big difference between teaching it and them knowing it, though ;). I
can't really say though how well things correspond, having not been officially
ranked in a billion years. But I thought that the online (e.g., Chessbase)
ratings weren't crazy different from the USCF ratings, and I know that there's
no way in hell that anyone with a ranking of less than 1600 is going to rock
out a K+B+N vs K win there. (A good grasp of opposition, sure.)

(Rian/1058) Well, over-the-board and correspondence are completely different...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:36:00 -0500

Well, over-the-board and correspondence are completely different animals.  But
an OTB 1850, these days, had better know a whole lot more than that.  At least
half of that, if not more, describes a decent portion of the 900-1200
scholastic players I know nowadays.  I've _taught_ K+B+N, opposition-dependant
endgames, and unbalanced piece vs pawn endings to 900's.

(Forrester/1057) Not sure how RHP lines up -- especially given the time limit -- ...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:08:00 -0500

Not sure how RHP lines up -- especially given the time limit -- but I vaguely
recall that online blitz ratings are maybe, for the average player, about
100pts higher than USCF? But blitz is a different game than regular time
controls, too ...

It's been a long time but my concept of an 1850 player is:
1) Knows what "opposition" is
2) Knows how to mate with K+B+N vs K
3) Almost *never* just hangs a piece or a pawn, or allows a move that would
lead to an immediate loss of a piece or a pawn (without compensation)
4) Is 3-6 moves deep in a bunch of different openings
5) Knows some endgame theory that I've long since forgotten

(DesCartes/1056) (I wonder if the two of you are talking about two different numb...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:05:00 -0500

(I wonder if the two of you are talking about two different numbers. A certain
rating on RHP doesn't correspond to that same rating in the USCF.)

(Rian/1055) heh I wasn't even quite that, though I've played at higher str...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:23:00 -0500

*heh* I wasn't even quite that, though I've played at higher strength.  He
thinks I could make expert, but I'm not so certain.  And in fairness... it
isn't that he prefers the knight himself, but that he does see the merit in the
idea.  not that he needs me to defend him... his only reason for not staying
above 2200 is that he's an environmental geologist and hazmat supervisor, two
professions not exactly conducive to maintaining a consistent chess skill
level.

The rook question at hand: agreed, it doesn't look good even without the rook
being passive on b2 or e2, but I can't help but think it's _something_.  Angus,
I agree that your rook wouldn;t be too much better in that line, but it would
be somewhat, and remember, you'd be the one up.  Far better to have a somewhat
passive rook and be up material than a completely passive one and down.  So I
think he had to do _something_ to counter the material deficit, even if it was
just a pawn, and the rook had to stay active.  It's not great either way... but
I think Rb2 would have been playing for a draw at best.  Granted... maybe that
was required, especially considering the result :)  But I'd rather go down
fighting.

(Forrester/1054) Looking at that game, I thought that his Rb6xe6 wasn't that bad,...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:30:00 -0500

Looking at that game, I thought that his Rb6xe6 wasn't that bad, as Rian said
his rook is in a lousy position if he sits on b2 or e2, but playing around with
it a bit, given how far away his king is from everything, it looks kind of grim
once you get that passed pawn. I'm not sure how white defends against it ...
thinking Rb2 might be necessary.

As far as preferring knight to bishop, in a 1800+ game that isn't blitz, I
remain skeptical ;). The smart-ass in me wants to say that a 2150 player who
says he prefers knights to bishops in an endgame ... well, there's a reason he
hasn't hit 2200, but given that I was 1850 at my best, I don't think I could
get away with that ...!

(Angus Young/1053) I still don't know about Rxe6..

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:55:00 -0500

I still don't know about Rxe6..
True, if he moved Rb2 then it would probably have to go Ra4 Re2.  But the thing
is, it seems to me that even though his rook is passive, mine isn't the most
active either.  Plus, he could bring his king to f2 then f3 and support things
and basically he would need to contend with the 4 on 3 on the kingside.  Dunno.

It's funny... I'm so _not_ a theoretical player.  I know the basic principles
more or less, but I play so much more by feel and instinct than I do by careful
thought out planning.  I guess I'm just too ADD for that. :)

(Rian/1052) I don't think the rook capture at move 30 is all that bad actual...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:44:00 -0500

I don't think the rook capture at move 30 is all that bad actually.  If he
plays 30. Rb2, then after 30 ... Ra4, 31. Re2 is forced, and the rook is in a
terribly passive position.  The king comes up and supports a 4-on-3 advance,
plus your rook is more active.  I think he saw it as keeping his rook active,
trading down pawns a bit and maybe getting into a more certain drawing
situation?

The situation in the 40s, I'm still looking at :)  I keep wanting to try to
make something out of 44 Rxg5.  Yes, it allows queening and forces  the sac of
the rook for the newly promoted queen, but with as advanced as those pawns
are... still, though, I don't think there's anything there.  The rook can come
to g1, and white can't clear the h pawn without dropping/ trading one of the
two.  If he could have two pawns that advanced, king ahead of them, there might
be a draw line... but one?  So there's probably nothing in the rook capture. 
As to where the win is assured or isn;t though... *heh* I'm a cynic.  It's
never assured :)

(Rian/1051) Again, playing devil's advocate a bit, but:

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:31:00 -0500

Again, playing devil's advocate a bit, but:

(In other words, there are contexts where a knight is better, but if you asked
any good player "In a typical endgame situation, would you prefer to have a
bishop or knight?" 100% of them -- not 95%, 100% -- would say 'bishop'.)

The last time I had this very conversation was just a couple weeks ago, in the
post-game analysis of a casual game between another instructor and myself at a
chess camp this summer - a game I won, but only because of a blunder on my
opponent's part, not because of my bishop versus the knight.  When it came up,
and I mentioned the point - which came, originally, from an A-class player and
I've heard from a number of other good players - my opponent understood before
I'd even finished speaking, and agreed there was merit to the idea.  Mind you,
I prefer the bishop myself, but I can see the point of those that prefer the
knight.  Incidentally, nobody I've heard have that preference is lower than
B-class... and the other instructor I was talking to?  A USCF 2150-something
Candidate Master.

So... no, not 100% would say "bishop."  Which is I think true of anything in
chess; _nothing_ is 100%

(Angus Young/1050) Oh, btw..

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:48:00 -0500

Oh, btw..
I have to share this with you.  It has to be one of the top moves lately that
my opponent has made that made me go: "WHAT?! hehehehe"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8508421
Move 30 for white.
I thought that he _HAD_ to move Rb2.  Instead he exchanges my e pawn for his a
pawn, giving me a passed ALLL THE WAAY over there.


One thing I was curious about.  Going into move 42, is the win assured?  I
didn't do a deep analysis of it, but my plan was too bring my king over to b7
and then up the b-file to eventually make him exchange his rook for my pawn.  I
tried to come up with a plan that he might use to have a quick turnaround on
the other side to have _some_ kind of counterplay, but I could not.  I figured
that since he had to keep his king ahead of his g,h pawns and couldn't ever
come out of hiding, he was pretty much done.  What do you think?

(Angus Young/1049) My thinking in that position was this (and, I didn't think very ...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:35:00 -0500

My thinking in that position was this (and, I didn't think very deeply on it,
so I could've been completely wrong.)
With the position after 30: Rhe1
1) I'm only down a pawn, which at my level isn't a kiss of death.  I tend to
like endgames, so pushing it that way would be more into my comfort zone.
2) Moreover, my thought was that having his a,b,c pawns connected up was going
to be a problem for me since I only have 1 pawn on that side to try to combat
them.  Even though he couldn't do it immediately, I'm sure he would eventually
move a4 b5 and it would put me in a very tough position.  So, if I doubled his
b pawn he wouldn't have quite as easy of at time pushing up that side.  He
can't simply force me to trade off my a-pawn without support from another
piece.

The thing is, if you look at this game, I was scrambling from the very
beginning.  My openings are by far the worst part of my game, and this game
shows it.  In fact, I consider it pretty miraculous that I was only down a
pawn going into the endgame.

(Forrester/1048) It's nice to reach squares of either color, and in an extremely ...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:59:00 -0500

It's nice to reach squares of either color, and in an extremely locked up
position a knight can be better, but there's just no good argument against the
fact that a bishop both can cover more squares, and cover squares further away.
(In other words, there are contexts where a knight is better, but if you asked
any good player "In a typical endgame situation, would you prefer to have a
bishop or knight?" 100% of them -- not 95%, 100% -- would say 'bishop'.)

ON the other hand, at middle-and-lower rankings, I think having a knight is
probably better. I doubt that Angus's opponent would have blundered into a
bishop fork (not even sure how it could have occurred on that board) the way he
blundered into a knight fork! So knights can definitely be more annoying...

So yeah, maybe I have to take that back, given Angus is 1600'ish, as is his
opponent. Except that you really don't want to trade material when you're down,
if the trade gives you no obvious advantage -- that still holds.

(Rian/1047) One caveat to that (just playing devil's advocate, and ot having...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:43:00 -0500

One caveat to that (just playing devil's advocate, and ot having looked at the
position(s) in question): I've known a number of players that prefer having a
knight if they've only got one minor (or one piece period) in an endgame
situation, because the knight can reach squares of either color.  Personally, I
prefer the bishop as well, especially because of its range, but I can see their
point.

(Forrester/1046) Angus, was looking at some of your recent games -- you're on a n...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 08:54:00 -0500

Angus, was looking at some of your recent games -- you're on a nice streak! One
thing about http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8331
309 -- when you're getting into the endgame like that, I don't think you should
trade bishop for knight when you're a pawn down. The bishop is generally going
to be a stronger piece in the endgame, and you don't want to trade off material
in any case until you've equalized or are just about to equalize.

(Unless the knight was an immediate threat, and it didn't seem like it was.)

(Forrester/1045) LOL christ that is sad. And he's supposedly nearly a 1600 player...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 08:46:00 -0500

LOL christ that is sad. And he's supposedly nearly a 1600 player? I mean,
blundering is one thing, but blundering like that when you only have two pieces
on the board, and there's no time control ... well, karma's a bitch :). That's
what he gets for not resigning.

(Angus Young/1044) hehe.. in the game I refered to earlier:

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 08:31:00 -0500

hehe.. in the game I refered to earlier:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8480772
I offered him a draw a while back and he decided to play with K+R vs K+N+p
well, he now blundered and let me fork him (darn those pesky knights) and the
game will be a breeze if he doesn't just resign outright.

(Angus Young/1042) Right, that is what I was guessing.

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:55:00 -0500

Right, that is what I was guessing.

No he hasn't... well, actually he did a while back when he was clearly losing,
but not since it was actually drawn.
I can't believe I had the position at move 38 and now I'm looking at a draw.
Ugh..

(Rian/1041) nods The answer to which seems to be:

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:48:00 -0500

*nods*  The answer to which seems to be:
1) If Black messes up, White uses carefully placed checks and maeuvering with
the knight to bring the pawn to the 7th rank, forcing Black to blockade with
the king, then checking once more with the knight to allow promotion - and the
only way for Black to prevent that is to either capture the pawn, leaving
insufficient material, or capture the knight to draw the king away and then
capture the pawn, leaving bare kings; or
2) If Black plays carefully, keeping the king tied to the pawn and knight with
checks mostly from the rear, White dances near the center of the board, not
overextending the pawn, and ending up with a draw by the 50-move insufficient
progress rule.

I've tried a few variations, admittedly at fast time controls, and that's what
happens with all of them.  So yeah, it looks dead drawn, if Black is smart. 
Has he offered yet?

(Angus Young/1040) I know.. I was just saying you could do it to see how fritz woul...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:35:00 -0500

I know.. I was just saying you could do it to see how fritz would go about
progressing with white if black didn't immediately draw the game

(Rian/1039) Yeah, but I'm a class player, possibly good enough to make exper...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:33:00 -0500

Yeah, but I'm a class player, possibly good enough to make expert if I were to
really put the time in, but even that's iffy.  Fritz is... well, Fritz.  Even
if I am still using version 7 on a WinXP machine :)

(Angus Young/1038) You could play against Fritz and try to play for the win as blac...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:28:00 -0500

You could play against Fritz and try to play for the win as black as my
opponent seems to be doing.

(Rian/1037) Fritz bails right away on that one, actually: after your Ke5, Fr...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:23:00 -0500

Fritz bails right away on that one, actually: after your Ke5, Fritz goes with
....Re1; Ke4 Rxe4; Kxe4 and insufficient material.  So even it recognizes
there's no winning chance for the rook, and simply secures the draw.  Which
also suggests it sees potential in the pawn, to simply bail out right away... I
wonder what that is.  I suspect I could run the analysis 100 times and never
know, because the machine will simply take the draw as black.

(Angus Young/1036) Oh, one other thought about pushing for the win. Once I get to ...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:35:00 -0500

Oh, one other thought about pushing for the win.  Once I get to the 7th rank,
he is definitely going to keep his rook watching the queening square and the
only way to prevent a draw at that point would be to block with my knight in a
way where if he takes it and I take back that I could still get back in time to
defend the pawn.

(Angus Young/1035) Yeah. Maybe I will plug the position into Chessmaster later to ...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:28:00 -0500

Yeah.  Maybe I will plug the position into Chessmaster later to see how it
would progress to try to win..  if it can at all that is

(Rian/1034) Yeah, it would be tricky. You'd have to continually shield your...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:17:00 -0500

Yeah, it would be tricky.  You'd have to continually shield your king from the
rook using the knight, and his rook will transfer flanks more easily (plus have
checks from behind, especially as you get closer to promotion), so playing for
the draw is safer, certainly. Still, there are the cute little traps like, say
Kd5 Ke6; Nc7+ (which I don;t figure him to fall into, but you never know *heh*
But even if the winning chances are slight, you're the only one with them, and
a draw seems the worst outcome.  In fact I wonder if he's sort of hoping for a
slip based on you dropping that minor previously, and will offer himself after
a few moves of you not doing anything egregious.

(Angus Young/1033) I thought about the fact that I might actually be able to progre...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:11:00 -0500

I thought about the fact that I might actually be able to progress the pawn up
the board, but I'm not confident that I wouldn't fall into a trap of some sort,
so I figured I would just hang out in the middle and force the draw

(Rian/1032) Hell, with proper play, even K+N vs K+R is a draw. With the paw...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:07:00 -0500

Hell, with proper play, even K+N vs K+R is a draw.  With the pawn, you've got
at least some winning chances, and in fact I've won a couple of those games
before.  If I'm ever in that position in a tourney game, I'll be giving the
rook for the pawn and forcing the draw, thank you :)
And now I'll actually go look at the position :)

(Angus Young/1031) Oh.. don't look back very far in that game because I was winning...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:08:00 -0500

Oh.. don't look back very far in that game because I was winning and got too
excited and moved quickly and donked off a minor. :)

(Forrester/1030) Yeah, that's super-drawn. Even if you lose the pawn, it should b...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:07:00 -0500

Yeah, that's super-drawn. Even if you lose the pawn, it should be a drawn game,
given your knight and king are in the center.

(Angus Young/1029) http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:04:00 -0500

http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8480772
my last move (Ne7+) was just a repetition one.  I will be moving N back to d5
next.
My thinking with that move is that even if he moves Kf6 then my next move will
be Nd5+ and then he will have to go back to g6 or f7 because e6 will end up
forking his rook.

(Forrester/1028) Sounds super-drawy to me. Do you have a link?

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:02:00 -0500

Sounds super-drawy to me. Do you have a link?

(Angus Young/1027) I am in a game where I have K+p+N vs K+R.. the guy with the rook...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 05:52:00 -0500

I am in a game where I have K+p+N vs K+R.. the guy with the rook rejected a
draw offer.  I think this _has_ to be a draw, no?
Oh, and the pieces are connected up.  The pawn is protecting the knight and the
king is supporting the pawn right now with both his rook and king on the
outside looking in.  I figure as long as I can fend him off from getting to my
pawn he can't make any progress and as long as I have my knight to help push
the king out from time to time he won't be able to step in at all.  Seems
simple to me.  We'll see how long he goes first.

(River Rat/1026) .::.

River Rat@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:27:00 -0500

                                                       .::.
                                            _()_       _::_
                                  _O      _/____\_   _/____\_
           _  _  _     ^^__      / //\    \      /   \      /
          | || || |   /  - \_   {     }    \____/     \____/
          |_______| <|    __<    \___/     (____)     (____)
    _     \__ ___ / <|    \      (___)      |  |       |  |
   (_)     |___|_|  <|     \      |_|       |__|       |__|
  (___)    |_|___|  <|______\    /   \     /    \     /    \
  _|_|_    |___|_|   _|____|_   (_____)   (______)   (______)
 (_____)  (_______) (________) (_______) (________) (________)
 /_____\  /_______\ /________\ /_______\ /________\ /________\
                                                 __By Alefith 22.02.95__

(Rian/1025) nods My intial thought was e8 as well, for the same reason - t...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:53:00 -0500

*nods* My intial thought was e8 as well, for the same reason - the rook being
blocked in.  Though there is a sacrifice line in the Alekhine's Defense where
white gives a bishop on f7, and in that line, black's game is fine with the
king on g8.

Mind you - that line involves white being a piece down, not equal material. 
And it's really only sound in blitz, which is to say not really sound at all
*heh* But it works in blitz sometimes because it can fluster an opponent and
white _does_ get a quick monster attack and exposed black king for the piece.
But that said, the fact that black's king is fine on g8 in that line suggests
that there's at least _something_ in it.  it's hard to make progress on the
light squares without a light-squared bishop, and I suspect that with even
material, if black can find a way to trade queens he'd be okay.  And with a bit
easier development and both kings still in the middle (though white's won't be
for long) he might be able to.

I'd have to look at it a lot more closely though than the quick glance I gave
it.  And even with that glance, I'm not saying I'd want the black side of it
after taking the bishop in a tournament game.  But anything can happen :)

(Angus Young/1024) I thought taking the bishop was better too.. but I would think t...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:22:00 -0500

I thought taking the bishop was better too.. but I would think that my position
would be clearly better though.  He does have the f-file which is nice, but
when you say he can 'tuck the king away' after Ng5+, where is a good spot?
Back to e8 and just play with the king in the middle?  or g8 or f8  and have
his rook trapped?  I would have to think e8, but then that's a liability to
deal with the rest of the game.

(Rian/1023) Oh jeez. I only wish I could get games like that. Yeah, he blu...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:24:00 -0500

Oh jeez.  I only wish I could get games like that.  Yeah, he blundered there in
a few ways; that last one is just the final straw.  Though if he takes the
bishop, then simply tucks the king away when you check at g5 and follow with
the capture of the bishop, I don't think he's all that terrible.  I haven't
analyzed it, but material is even, development is pretty retarded on both sides
(though you would have the central knight, it's easy to chase), and his
development may be a little easier (he's got an open f-file for one thing, and
might be able to secure a bit more space with pawn moves taking advantage of
the knight).  So white would be better... but not a slam-dunk by any means I
wouldn't think.
Quick impressions only of course... and also of course, not taking the bishop
then dropping the queen puts paid to that *heh*

(Angus Young/1022) There is text in your edit file. Do you wish to erase it? (Y/N)...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:54:00 -0500

There is text in your edit file.  Do you wish to erase it? (Y/N) -> Yes
Ok.. I finally got a little redemption for most of the games I've played
lately.  I've been up in games then completely blundering.  This game however,
I ended in 12 moves. :)
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8329111
After move 3 I saw he was just fianchetto'ing is bishops without regard to what
I was doing so I decided to make a very aggressive (and somewhat reckless) push
with having d4 and e4..
I actually did blunder a bit.. with 6: h3... pointless move really .. then he
grabs a pawn.. but I quickly saw the combination that followed:
Nxe4 Bxe4 Bxf7!
doesn't matter if he takes or not.. if he does: Kxb7 Ng5+ ... Nxe4..
he didn't take and it went: Kf8 Bb3 (I personally think that taking it was
better)..
From that attack/check he just start floundering.. I could just tell he was out
of sorts..
d5? (doesn't really do much.. guess he was thinking that later he might want
to manually castle).  I castled.  He moves Nd7.  Then I saw my clinching move.
Ng5 and now he can't hold everything together.  The biggest threat is Ne6+
(which in the game he somehow missed which ended it).. but there were other
threats too.. so, I don't even know what the best thing would've been to deal
with Ng6+.
Moving the Q seems silly.. Kg8 leads to Nxe4 (with his pawn pinned)
Ke8 is possible but I think I might still move Ne6 and after his queen is
forced to move, Nxg7.
The only move to protect e6 is Bf5.  (Other than Nc5, but I just take that)
and I think Bf5 might have been best.. but then I had an idea of something
like Qf3 (threatening Ne6 yet again.)
So basically Ng5 had him FUBAR as far as I can tell.

(Angus Young/1021) Yep. I am in trouble. Trying what I did was kind of an all-or-...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 18:35:00 -0500

Yep.  I am in trouble.  Trying what I did was kind of an all-or-nothing type
move.  If he tried to skewer my rooks I would've won the game right there
basically.  He didn't so he's going to win.  Oh well.

(Rian/1020) nods Yeah; black is going to be in toruble because of the open...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 07:56:00 -0500

*nods* Yeah; black is going to be in toruble because of the open a-file and the
longlong white (or if you prefer, light) diagonal.  a8-h1, I'm referring to. 
Bishop and/or queen support the rook coming down with a flank attack, not only
breaking up the pressure against the white king, but potentially flushing the
black king as well - and his outlet is on a light square as well, with the
white queen and bishop poised to capitalize on those weaknesses.  Their role is
much more flexible that the purely defensive appearance.
I don't know about 5 moves; white's got some issues to solve too, including
some weaknesses of his own (which is why I didn't like g3, truthfully).  But
soon, it'll get difficult for black.

And now that I've said way too much about agame in progress... *heh*

(Forrester/1019) I think you mean black is going to be in trouble ... biiiiiiiiii...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 07:04:00 -0500

I think you mean black is going to be in trouble ... biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig
trouble.

(Rian/1018) heh looked back over my last post after I saw the new position...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 06:29:00 -0500

*heh* looked back over my last post after I saw the new position, and nodded...
and then realized (as the context makes clear I suspect) that I was referring
to a4, not h4... I guess I'm braindead this morning, too? :)

But I suspect Forrester is correct; I like his position there, and as soon as
the queenside opens up the combination of the open a-file and long white
diagonal is going to be trouble.

(Forrester/1017) Given where that game is right now, with best play on both sides...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 06:16:00 -0500

Given where that game is right now, with best play on both sides, you will find
yourself wanting to resign in about five moves, I think :(. Maybe fewer.

(Forrester/1016) He looks pretty solid there. I'm sure you have some chances even...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 05:59:00 -0500

He looks pretty solid there. I'm sure you have some chances eventually, but I
don't see a brilliant combination that tears apart his kingside, not yet.

(Rian/1015) Bg2 seems a no-brainer to me in those situations. Otherwise, th...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 05:40:00 -0500

Bg2 seems a no-brainer to me in those situations.  Otherwise, that weakness at
h3 is glaring.  But I didn't really like g3 to begon with when I looked at it
(admittedly very briefly) last night.  I was at first glance very tempted to
ignore the rook entirely, knowing there were other ways to defend, and instead
play h4, forcing you to consider the other side of the board, looking for a
quick breakthrough that would allow a flank attack on your attacking force. 
His pieces are well enough placed to shift to defense, except that queenside
rook, and such a move would have allowed a quick activation of it, and
complicated the situation somewhat.
All moot now, of course, but if I hadn't been so brain-fried last night that's
where my first analysis would have gone.

(Angus Young/1014) update on my last post. He did move g3 as expected, but on his ...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 05:04:00 -0500

update on my last post.  He did move g3 as expected, but on his next move he
went for the more defensive Bg2 instead of Bf3.. damn.

(Angus Young/1013) Another game for comment..

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:50:00 -0500

Another game for comment..
Here's the game:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8307843
I just made my move 23.. Rf4
Now, the game will probably have progressed by the time anyone reads this, but
I spent a lot of time analyzing this... and this is what I came up with.
I can see it going:
25: g3 (trying to kick it out) Rg4
26: Bf3 (skewering the rooks)...
If this happens, I am going to start an attack that will either leave me
up a ton and walking towards victory, or possibly down an exchange for a
pawn, so well worth the risk in my opinion.

Here it goes:
26: Bf3 Qh4
Now, here's the key move.. the f-rook is forced to move to prevent Qxh2++, but
it is where he moves to that is important.  I think the spot that looks most
logical is e1.. but if he makes that move it will be his downfall.
27: Rfe1 Qxh2+
28: Kf1 (forced) Rxg3!
now he's in all kinds of trouble.  He can't take with fxg3 because it loses to
the line 29: fxg3 Bh3+ 30: Bg2 Qxg2++  (this is why the Re1 move is key).
So, his f-pawn is sort of indirectly pinned to his king.  His Bishop is pinned
to his queen.  The queen can't move really. Qe2 leads to Qg1++. Qe4 is
probably met with Rf4 attacking f3 and causing more problems since fxg3 can't
happen because it leads to mate like earlier: fxg3 Rxf3 Qxf3 Bh3+ Qg2 Qxg2++.
So, the queen can't move, the Bishop can't move, there are a couple of pins.
In fact, I don't really know what he'd do here.  He's down 2 pawns and is very
constrained.

But like I said, that's contingent on Rfe1.. if he sees it coming and moves
Rfd1 (i think Rfc1 and Rfb1 are highly unlikely..) I will probably have to
end up retreating and losing a bit of material with:
27: Rfd1 Qxh2+
28: Kf1 R4g4
29: Bxh5 Rxh5
I'd be down a pawn for an exchange.
Although, if he's not nice and careful next move, it could go:
30: .. Qh1+
31: Ke2 Bxd1
32: Rxb1
and suddenly I'm up a pawn..

Anyway.. Crazy crazy position.. will have to see how it goes.

(Forrester/1012) Goofing around with it, I see some fun lines on your end afterwa...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:34:00 -0500

Goofing around with it, I see some fun lines on your end afterwards ... :)
Potentially, at least!

(Forrester/1011) fxe4 looks like it weakens your position, IMO -- not only does i...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:27:00 -0500

fxe4 looks like it weakens your position, IMO -- not only does it not seem to
help, it may actually be harmful.

I like f4, jam that pawn up there and make him worry about what you're going to
do next. He's pretty protected over there but I think his movement is more
limited, and even if he can free himself up eventually with something like g4,
it's easy to screw up.

It's kind of like a poker thing, I guess -- you've made him uncomfortable and
increased the chance he makes a bad decision to relief that discomfort. It may
work, it may not. I think fxe4 relieves tension on his side, as opposing to
increasing it.

(Angus Young/1010) k.. got a question for y'all...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:54:00 -0500

k.. got a question for y'all...
in this game:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8307842
on move 13 for me I was debating f4 or fxe4.. I finally went with f4 because he
is starting to get a bit pinned down already and I have a lot of material
pointed his way.  Also, he has a B, N, R, and his Q that are not goign to be
able to help real soon.
So, my question is, what move would you prefer?  I'd prefer you don't go into
lines since the game is ongoing.. just a general notion is all I'm looking for.

(Angus Young/1009) Good point about hxg6 instead of h6

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:55:00 -0500

Good point about hxg6 instead of h6

(Angus Young/1008) Well, if nothing else, it seems to me that he'd have to respond ...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:48:00 -0500

Well, if nothing else, it seems to me that he'd have to respond to h4 before
making the move Nc4.  Otherwise, I would think this position would be rather
bad for him:
19: Bd3 Nb6  20: h4 Nc4  21: h5 ..  22: h6
h6 would hurt.. it wouldn't be moving anytime soon as far as I can see. and I
don't think his move 21 would stop it.

One other thought regarding Bxb6... it is definitely a tradeoff.  By doing so,
I am stopping his knight from becoming a powerful piece, but in doing so, he
will undoubtedly try to move d4 at some point opening the bishop up that was
dead before.  and while my Bishop on d4 is kind of silly looking, it does stop
d4 and it protects e5.  So, I don't know that Bxb6 is quite that automatic.

(Forrester/1007) I take that back -- yeah, immediate h4 looks very sweet. If he d...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:47:00 -0500

I take that back -- yeah, immediate h4 looks very sweet. If he doesn't
immediately counter, he's screwed -- but you wouldn't push to h6 after h5, more
like h5xg6 then he's boned. The h file is open for you to mate him on, and if
you want to rub it in, after f7xg6 you have the bishop sac of Bc3xg6, which is
just brutal.

Yeah, I like h4 a lot. And I think if he counters with h5, he's weakened
himself there so after you retreat, you can try Bxg6, or g4 ... yeah, the more
I look at it, the more an immediate kingside attack looks very nice if he moves
his knight over to the queenside with Nc6 -- or even if he doesn't, I think.

(Forrester/1006) I don't know that you can push hard enough on the kingside to ma...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:43:00 -0500

I don't know that you can push hard enough on the kingside to make up for the
huge pain-in-the-ass that Nc4 will be. Talk about a fantastically placed
knight! But I'm not sure.

(Angus Young/1005) Or one more thought... if I want to do an h-pawn push, do I need...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:33:00 -0500

Or one more thought... if I want to do an h-pawn push, do I need to stop Nc4?
if anything it almost delays his queenside attack.
19: Bd3 Nb6  20: h4  then if he proceeds with Nc4, yeah it's anchored nicely
there, and it is strong, but it may take a while to us it to his advantage and
if I really am pushing hard on the kingside, will that happen soon enough?

(Angus Young/1004) I just started exploring something else.. I haven't got to think...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:20:00 -0500

I just started exploring something else.. I haven't got to think through it
very much yet, but after:
19: Bd3 Nb6 20: Bxd6 Qxd6, do I really need to castle right away?  What if I
try to make a hard push of the h pawn.  He will have to do something to stop
it, and I might throw my game into chaos in the process, but a quick thought
about possible moves:
After 21: h4, I figure he can do a few things.. h5 stopping me from getting
that square.  If I got there with my Q on the g-file still I could push it to
h6 which could be deadly.  Also, he could do something like Qc7 threatening
Qxe5 as well as Qc1+ Rxc1 Rxc1 Kd2 Rxh1.  Although I think Ke2 would take care
of Qc1+.  So I'd just have to protect e5.  lastly d4 opening up the diagonal.

I don't know what would be best for him, I'm guessing Qc7, but I could be
wrong.  Anyway, he would have to make sure I can't complete h6 I think.. so
it'd be something for him to worry about.

(Forrester/1003) After Bd3, I'd say things were roughly even -- he's got some sma...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:08:00 -0500

After Bd3, I'd say things were roughly even -- he's got some small chances on
the queenside, you've got some on the kingside. If he manages to breakthrough
by pushing that d pawn (? or e pawn?) without a loss, freeing up his bishop to
ravage the long diagonal, then I'd give him a positional edge unless you have
something else going on, or can immediately counter it.

(Angus Young/1002) For>

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:13:00 -0500

For>
So, you think things are even or what?

(Forrester/1001) I don't think he'd try to open things up on the kingside, not wi...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:07:00 -0500

I don't think he'd try to open things up on the kingside, not with the pressure
you're exerting there. My guess is that he'd try Nb6 in order to plant it on
c4, and you'd be forced to take it with Bxc6, Qc6, and then you castle and you
should be able to keep him from doing too much mischief, you'd just want to try
to keep him from freeing his bishop on the long diagonal.

On your end, you'd have to consider h4 and h5, but it might be tough to break
in there.

(Angus Young/1000) Ugh.. I donked away another game..

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:45:00 -0500

Ugh.. I donked away another game..
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardanalysis.php?gameid=8284826

Move 19 I just moved too fast and made my moves out of order.. but tell me,
if I made what I thought was the right move (Bd3), I think I'm a little better
here, don't you think?  He's kind of pinned down at the moment, so I can see
him trying to open things up a bit with something like:
19: Bd3 f6  20: exf6 Nxf6
but that leads to:
21: Qxe6+ Kg7 or h8.. then maybe 22: O-O..
so now things are more wide open.  I'm up a pawn, my king is nice and tight,
his is loose..
Whaddya think?

(Angus Young/998) The link to view Forrester's game is:

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:48:00 -0500

The link to view Forrester's game is:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8291461

(Forrester/997) I'll be interested to see if anyone has any comments on this gam...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:48:00 -0500

I'll be interested to see if anyone has any comments on this game:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=8291461

(In other words -- after it's over, please comment on that game!) He squoooze
me really hard, then either hung a knight, or decided that his master plan,
whatever it was, didn't work -- and I'm still in iffy territory.

I'll have to see if I can find my old copy of Fritz and run this game (and the
one with Angus) through there, see what moves with both missed!

(Angus Young/996) the game's almost done anyway.. I'm about to be spread really th...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:59:00 -0500

the game's almost done anyway.. I'm about to be spread really thin

(Rian/995) grins Me either. I'm just giving you two a hard time... I had...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:50:00 -0500

*grins* Me either.  I'm just giving you two a hard time... I had to actually
look up the rule number I wanted, even :)

(Angus Young/994) heh.. it's more activity than this forum has had in a year... I ...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:49:00 -0500

heh.. it's more activity than this forum has had in a year... I don't think it
will bother. :)

(Rian/993) Oh, great! You're taunting in isca, hm?

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:45:00 -0500

Oh, great!  You're taunting in isca, hm?
Do I have to invoke rule 20I here, people? :)

(Forrester/992) Yeah, I was a little worried about you trading your bishop for m...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:01:00 -0500

Yeah, I was a little worried about you trading your bishop for my knight, but
figured it was okay if it meant that you had a pawn jammed up on you (g3, I
guess) hampering your movement.

But what I'm doing now could be even more fun ... buhahahahahahahaha

(Angus Young/991) For>

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:08:00 -0500

For>
Just so you know, I made the move Be1 before I read your post.  (I'm not saying
it's a great move or anything.  But it seems to be what you were hinting at
somewhat).

(Forrester/990) Thought I'd note Angus and I are banging it out at:

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:17:00 -0500

Thought I'd note Angus and I are banging it out at:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=8293191

It's interesting -- I think I have a tiny edge at the moment, in that the
position is currently locked up and my pieces are a bit more active, but I have
no clue how to take advantage of it. Ditto with the backward pawn on e3 -- I
have a potential target, but see no way to actually make it fall, it's too easy
to defend.

(I meant to say -- the position is currently locked up, and I have a knight,
which is better than a bishop in such situations. Of course, that can change
quickly ... d'oh, now I gave him ideas!)

Earlier, I could have sac'd the knight for his g and h pawns, but didn't see
how to convert it to a win, so held back. But the possibility remains :).

(Angus Young/989) Forrester>

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:05:00 -0500

Forrester>
I'll start up a couple games with ya.  I remember you being better than me, but
I'll see if I can muster up a challenge.
In fact, i just looked up my record against you and I'm 1 and 5 against you. :)
The 1 win I had did have a nice set of moves by me.

(Forrester/988) BTW, I'm Forrester10 on redhotpawn ... haven't played for awhile...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:57:00 -0500

BTW, I'm Forrester10 on redhotpawn ... haven't played for awhile, but all this
chess talk has me missing it a little :)

(Rian/987) Well, if I want to stop being confused, anyway heh

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:08:00 -0500

Well, if I want to stop being confused, anyway *heh*

(Rian/986) Ah. That's different then. All rook and pawn endings are drawn...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:05:00 -0500

Ah.  That's different then.  All rook and pawn endings are drawn :)

In that case though - without seeing the position yet, as I said, the one
question that strikes me is where are opponent's 4 pawns in relation to your
other 3?  4 vs 3 not counting the passed connectors suggests he's got an
advantage _somewhere_.  how far advanced, and could he create a passer that you
have to worry about, perhaps whittle to something in a K=p vs K game where he
can hold off the last pawn.

Guess I better look at it later :)

(Angus Young/985) Wait.. there's some confusion here..

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:51:00 -0500

Wait.. there's some confusion here..
if at move 37, it went Rxb5, Rxa7 38: Rxc5+
then the bishops would be off.. it'd be R+K+4p vs R+K+5p (with 2 being
connected and passed)

(Rian/984) If I recall my theory correctly, opposite bishops, even or with ...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:40:00 -0500

If I recall my theory correctly, opposite bishops, even or with one pawn to the
good, should be a theoretical draw - even with connected passers.  The trick is
that there can't be _other_ material, then the king can blockade one pawn, and
the bishop roves - and can't be interfered with by the other bishop.  King on
the same color as his own bishop, of course.  Now if two pawns to the good,
it's a win, but one isn't enough.

Mind you, I've not looked at the position (yet; I'll try to later).  But that's
the general rule, unless something els ein the position makes a difference.

(Angus Young/983) Really? I would think that position would be winning even at hig...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:22:00 -0500

Really? I would think that position would be winning even at high levels of
play.. maybe I'll set up chessmaster and let it good at itself later to see
what will happen.

(Forrester/982) I agree about 37 Rxb5, the connected passers should win the day....

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:58:00 -0500

I agree about 37 Rxb5, the connected passers should win the day. No guarantee
with opposite-colored bishops, but in a 1500 vs 1500 game, probably good
enough. You'd still have to worrk about a pawnstorm on the kingside, though. I
think that being a pawn up, with connected passers, still may be a draw with
best play on both sides, at least some of the time, but the burden would be on
him to prove it :)

(Angus Young/981) oh, and one other thing... I did mention in my original post tha...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:14:00 -0500

oh, and one other thing... I did mention in my original post that I blundered
bigtime with 37: c4.  But the line I mentioned:
37: Rxb5, Rxa7 38: Rxc5+
did lead to a winning endgame (even after I missed Rd1+)

(Angus Young/980) Forrester>

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:07:00 -0500

Forrester>
good point... Rd1 is nice.. (i obviously didn't see it... I had my thinking
locked on the a-file I guess)

Before 42 .. Ke6, I agree it is very drawy... but I don't know if it is
assuredly drawn.  My plan would've been to take the rooks off if I could and
then he'd either have to anchor his bishop or king to the queenside (pretty
much) and I might end up with a slight advantage on the kingside.. or, if he
doesn't lock down the queenside well enough I may force him to give up his
bishop to stop my b-pawn.

Again, at the highest levels, it is probably drawn.. but at ~1500 ratings, I
don't know that it necessarily is even without huge blunders.

(Forrester/979) Angus -- until he blunders away the g and h pawns with 42 ... Ke...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:01:00 -0500

Angus -- until he blunders away the g and h pawns with 42 ... Ke6, the game is
drawn. Basically, you blundered away a winning position, and then had to wait
for him to mess up :).

(Forrester/978) Angus, 34. Rd1 wins his bishop outright, doesn't it? No need to ...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:55:00 -0500

Angus, 34. Rd1 wins his bishop outright, doesn't it? No need to engage in said
goofiness :).

(Angus Young/977) I had one game I played on redhotpawn recently where I made a mo...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:08:00 -0500

I had one game I played on redhotpawn recently where I made a move I was very
proud of myself for finding... I played horribly in this game and was lucky to
get a win out of it.  Here it is:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8278889

Now, if you fast forward to move 33b.  Just 12 moves ago he was up 2 pawns and
now it's even, so I had the momentum..
So, since on 33b he was silly enough to give me a discovered check, I was
looking at it and thought it could very well be my best move.  So, I started
looking at where to move my bishop.. at first I thought of something like d4 or
maybe e7.. but the thing I didn't like is that after either of those moves it
could go: Rxa5, Rxa5, Rxa5, bxa5.. it would give me a nice outside passed
pawn,but I didn't see a clear-cut way to move it up the board.  And I felt
there was something better.. so I decided I didn't want all of the Rxa5 moves
to happen.  If I could end up with Ra5+ and he couldn't take it, he'd have to
respond with Bb5 (otherwise his bishop would hang..) and it would also be
pinned and I could try to bring up my c-pawn to fork... so I came up with Ba7
which I thought was an extremely odd looking move, but it closed his rook off
and allowed me to start that plan.  Moving forward, moves 35w,35b,36w went as
planned, but for some reason I didn't even consider 36b: c5, and I blindly went
ahead with my plan to fork him and he just took my pawn... stupid I know.. but
he couldn't stop me from taking his c5 pawn to even it back up and I still had
a very good position which I managed to convert to a win without much trouble.

the correct line after 36b: c5 was (I think):
Rxb5, Rxa7, Rxc5+
It would've given me connected passed pawns that would have steam rolled him.

(Kena/976) I had a bug in Yahoo, once. The notation got mixed up when I di...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:26:00 -0500

I had a bug in Yahoo, once.  The notation got mixed up when I did a castle
that, at the same time, threatened a piece (I think it was).  No longer
remember the specifics, but I e-mailed them, with an explanation, and a snippet
from the same game played out in gchess (with correct notation), and they
claimed it wasn't a bug.  Ah, well.

(Angus Young/975) One thing I've done.. if a player I know is a jackass and won't ...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:14:00 -0600

One thing I've done.. if a player I know is a jackass and won't resign purely
because of that reason, I will trap him down to 2 squares and then proceed to
(carefully) march the rest of my pawns up the board and take all of his
remaining pieces, etc..
not a nice thing to do, but when someone acts like an ass I get vindictive

(Rian/974) Oh, sneaking into a stalemate is always possible heh

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:38:00 -0600

Oh, sneaking into a stalemate is always possible *heh*
I recall one night many years ago (admitetdly, just in a local casual, unrated
tourney, but still) I was up a pawn, escorting it with my knight, and my
opponent (maybe 1100, if that?) claimed "You're not gonna get it."  I was rated
1726, and in the top quarter of the group.  I simply smiled, and at the crucial
point, blocked the diagonal with my knight, preventing him from sacrificing his
bishop to prevent the pawn promotion.  Fine and dandy.
Then I gobbled the bishop to get it out of the way, proceeded to maneuver his
king in a textbook fashion for a Q+N mate... and promptly misplayed the knight,
stalemating him.
Ouch.  but what was worst was the remarkable chortling the jackass did about
it.  That said... it was the last time I ever screwed up like that against him,
and was the last half-point he ever scored off me :)

(Forrester/973) I would say it's never a good idea to resign against someone rat...

Forrester@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:39:00 -0600

I would say it's never a good idea to resign against someone rated 1500 or
lower, because sneaking into a stalemate is always possible :). (Okay, maybe
1400?)

(Angus Young/972) Actually, I got a few things in there slightly out of order, but...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:35:00 -0600

Actually, I got a few things in there slightly out of order, but you'll get the
idea.

(Angus Young/971) Yeah.. I've seen people play to mate in certain cases.. but once...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:14:00 -0600

Yeah.. I've seen people play to mate in certain cases.. but once you are
players of a certain rating (not that I'm that high) you can probably assume
you've lost.
Also, the position is simple.. I could see maybe if there was a complex pawn
structure still left that he could hide in and try to stalemate it.. but this
really couldn't be much easier.

Oh, and if you wanna check out the game, there's a couple things to note.
(here's the link again so you don't have to backtrack)
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8113143

First, there have been a number of blunders.. but there was one particular
sequence I was happy with.


To start with, on move 9, I got my moves out of order. Nd5 was going to be
aggressive.. but I intended to move Rfe1 first.. anyway, he grabbed the pawn I
left hanging.  After Qe3 and Nxg5 I had to decide whether to take back with Q
or N.  I was guessing that if I took back with my Q that he would trade them
off.. so from there I came up with my little plan that I liked.. after the
trades (ending in my Nxg5 on move 13).. I was hoping he didn't see my plan. He
didn't.. after 13: .. c5?  the next couple were forced.  14: Ne7+ Kh8
15: Nxf7+ Rxf7 16: Bxf7.. got me a pawn and an exchange.  After that I traded
down a bit just to simplify things.  I didn't have to, but I figured I would be
winning based on his play so far.  Then I ended up donking off a minor for a
pawn.. but it also doubled up his pawns and got mine off of the squares with
his bishop so it wasn't the worst bumble in the world.. but still bad..

Moving ahead.. After 33: Ra6 (I wasn't doing much here.. was planning on a4
next to try to break a pawn into the clear.. I assumed he en passant and I
would start targeting his last pawn on that side next.) He ended up moving Kf7
which I immediately saw the problem with.. after 34: Ra7+ he has few options.
The only 2 moves he has are Nc7 or Bc7 and neither of them are great moves. If
he tried to protect h7 with his K (which he did) I respond with Re7 taking a
minor for a pawn and putting me back up by a pawn and an exchange.
The funny thing is, he tried to bring his K out again with Kf7 and I did the
same Ra7+ driving him back to protect his pawn.

Since then the rest has been pretty basic.

(Rian/970) Maybe he's holding out for a stalemate? heh

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:49:00 -0600

Maybe he's holding out for a stalemate? *heh*
But indeed - some people simply can't resign for one reason or another.  I
always teach scholastic students to play to mate, not resign, for learning
purposes... maybe they've taken that same idea to an extreme. *shrugs*

(Angus Young/969) I know I really shouldn't be too bothered by people that don't r...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:26:00 -0600

I know I really shouldn't be too bothered by people that don't resign, but come
on:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=8113143

(Giraffe/968) kilonodes (searched) per second

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 20:01:00 -0500

kilonodes (searched) per second

(River Rat/967) When using an engine like crafty, what does Knps mean?

River Rat@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:38:00 -0500

When using an engine like crafty, what does Knps mean?

(Rian/965) I once saw a game that involved 5, I think it was. Mind you, wh...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:02:00 -0600

I once saw a game that involved 5, I think it was.  Mind you, when the player
that got the 5th promoted, it allowed the losing player to sacrifice him one
for a forced stalemate.  Too many queens can be a bad thing...

(Yorick/964) My son and I were trying to find out the answer to the following...

Yorick@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:49:00 -0600

My son and I were trying to find out the answer to the following question:
what's the maximum number of queens that any player has had on one side of
an official chess match?  I have to imagine 2 has happened.  Has 3?

(Rian/963) Or possibly Progressive Chess, which is a variant where each sid...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:17:00 -0600

Or possibly Progressive Chess, which is a variant where each side has multiple
moves.  White plays one, Black plays two, White plays three, Black four, etc.
But even there, there shouldn't be a capture; a check (even mate) ends the
sequence, even if the side playing has moves left, if played correctly.

(Concept/962) White makes multiple moves, including a king capture. It might ...

Concept@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:15:00 -0600

White makes multiple moves, including a king capture.  It might be less of a
bug and more of a manual override after someone gets pissed at being so bad.

(Angus Young/961) This is funny. I was searching on youtube for videos about ches...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:50:00 -0600

This is funny.  I was searching on youtube for videos about chess. I can't tell
you how many I found that showed a 'bug' with chess software when the computer
made an en passant move.  heh..
This is interesting though.. a real bug:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOqaQlIZcGU&feature=related

(Rian/960) I'm even typoing move lists now? I'm hopeless heh

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:55:00 -0500

I'm even typoing move lists now?  I'm hopeless *heh*
Let me see...
1. Nc3 d5  2. h4 Nf6  3. a3 e6  4. g3 Be7  5. Nf3 Nc6  6. Bg2 O-O
7. O-O a6  8. e3 b5  9. Ra2 Na5  10. b4 Nb7  11. a4 bxa4  12. Rxa4 c5
13. Ba3 cxb4  14. Rxb4 Bxb4  15. Bxb4 Re8  16. Ne5 Qc7  17. f4 Nd6
18. Bh3 Nde4  19. d3  Nxc3  20. Qa1 Nb5

Arriving at:
Wh: Kg1; Rf1; Qa1; Bh3, Bb4; Ne5. pawns h4, g3, f4, e3, d3, c2.
Bl: Kg8; Re8, Ra8; Bc8; Qc7; Nf6, Nb5. pawns h7, g7, f7, e6, d5, a6.

I didn't look to see where I'd erred, but this is from the notation I took at
the time and arrives, played through, at the right position.  Should do it.
*heh* I haven't done anything really wrong, played solidly while not
spectacularly, and white's wasted some tempos and dropped a rook.  And I'm very
possibly losing after 21. c4! *shakes head*  Kids... :)
I'm wondering if my last was a mistake though.  Up the rook, I could've (maybe
should've?) played ...Ne2+ instead.  The knight doesn;t escape, but if I follow
with a capture on g3, undermining the pawns and blunting the effects of that
kingside space, I might have been better off.  Ah well... hindsight's 20-20.
Among the things I'm considering is giving back some material (the knight on b5
specifically) via ...Bd7 and ...Bxb5, or ...Qxb5 after a trade of minors if
white chooses to on e7.  Then I could use both rooks on the open queen side and
try a heavy piece flank attack to undermine that pawn phalanx coming at me.
Other options in there too though, and I hate giving back material... *heh*

(Ralph/959) Yeah, 4. g3 Be7 isn't right either when I tried to replay it.

Ralph@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:28:00 -0500

Yeah, 4. g3 Be7 isn't right either when I tried to replay it.

(Angus Young/958) Rian,

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:19:00 -0500

Rian,
Interesting game.. although your move list isn't right.  You have c6 for black
twice.  Kind of difficult to do that.

(Rian/957) Here's one for folks to have fun with: I'm black in this game, ...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:08:00 -0500

Here's one for folks to have fun with:  I'm black in this game, 20 moves in.
I'm not looking for advice - one, the game is ongoing, and two, it wouldn't
seem I need it.  I'm up a rook. But... here's the position:

White: Kg1. Rf1. Qa1. Bh3, Bb4. Nc5. pawns: h4, g3, f4, e3, d3, c2.
Black: Kg8. Re8, Ra8. Bc8. Qc7. Nf6, Nb5. pawns: h7, g7, f7, e6, d5, a6.

White to move.  My king is secure, I've got a rook, but I'm underdeveloped and
suffering from a bit of a lack of space.  The game has been suspended since
April, but will be finished, and I'm pretty sure 21. c4! will be the move on
resumption.  Which poses a number of problems for me; I'm not sure I can take,
but I'm pretty sure I can't not take, either.  I might be able to force the
queens off the board, but if I can, then it gets slower, and the space may
tell.  And where can I possibly give back material for a breakout?

And did I mention my opponent is 7 years old, and has been playing only since
early this year? *heh*  He's been taking classes and lessons, and I've sent him
some materials as well; he's certainly put it all to good use.

How it got here by theway, for those that are curious:
1. Nc3 d5  2. h4 Nf6  3. a3 c6  4. g3 Be7  5. Nf3 c6  6. Bg2 O-O  7. O-O a6
8. e3 b5  9. Ra2 Na5  10. b4 Nb7  11. a4 bxa4  12. Rxa4 c5  13. Ba3 cxb4
14. Rxb4 Bxb4  15. Bxb4 Re8  16. Ne5 Re8  17. f4 Nd6  18. Bh3 Nde4  19. d3 Nxc3
20. Qa1 Nb5

(Rian/956) Yep, we sure will! heh Sometimes just even transposing move o...

Rian@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:54:00 -0500

Yep, we sure will! *heh*  Sometimes just even transposing move order works.
Now, that's not to say that studying openings, knowing the move rders, etc.
isn't a good thing.  It is.  But the point is to know _why_.  It's not enough
to know that Black plays ...Nf6 early in a Sicilian.  What you need to know is
that it's done in order to force White to play Nc3 before s/he can play c4, so
as to avoid the e4/c4 pawn stranglehold on the d5 square, since that d5 square
becomes central to the transfer of pieces through the center, especially for
Black.  Which is why Black usually plays for an early ...d5 in most Sicilian
lines.
But just memorizing move orders doesn;t get you that sort of knowledge.  That's
where books on specific openings, in depth, are so good, as well as books like
Rueben Fine's _The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings_.  That one may not be the
best example, as it's old and a bit outdated, but for the understanding for
casual, club-level play? Nothing wrong with it... :)

(Angus Young/955) I agree with KS.. If an experienced player is playing against yo...

Angus Young@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:49:00 -0500

I agree with KS.. If an experienced player is playing against you and they get
the feeling that you just memorized openings but don't have strong play to back
it up, they will start to throw in unusual openings just to get you out of your
comfort zone.