EPTTL Chess Match 4 - Page 115
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On November 10 2011 23:22 Mash2 wrote: Here's the 21. Bf4 page on the analysis tree. So far I'm the only one who's posted anything on that page, but by all means I'd encourage others to post analysis there, or at any other point along the tree. (The reason that I keep plugging the tree as a place to post analysis, rather than just posting it here in the forum is that your analysis becomes much easier to find later on.) To answer your question:Bf4 + Show Spoiler + From the analysis that has been posted, this seems like a very strong move for us to play. Connects our rooks and develops our bishop. From what I've read, the only two prosposed responses from Black are c6 or Reb8 correct? And Re3 looks like a pretty good response to both of these. Although, and please correct me if I'm wrong, if the moves continue as Bf4 Reb8, Re3 RxR, PxR Rb3, aren't we in position to lose a pawn? + Show Spoiler + 21...c6 is one of the main moves that's been proposed for Black after 21. Bf4, but not the only one. 21...c5 also seems possible; maybe even 21...Rg8 or 21...Rc8. ...Reb8 is a thematic move for Black in general that comes up in several lines after ...Rb3. We did consider the possibility that Black would play it after 21. Bf4, but then I realized that we have the response 22. Bxc7! (Kxc7 RxB+), so at this point, I don't think that Black will play this move or that we need worry about it. For most Black moves, ...Re3 looks like a pretty good response for us, as you said. On November 10 2011 23:38 Bill Murray wrote: You realize that lets Black capture our pawn at a3, right?bd2 | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
derp | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
Nh4 | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On November 11 2011 00:28 Bill Murray wrote: Hmm, I hadn't considered playing that so soon, but it does seem like an interesting option. I'll add your suggestion to the tree.what about Nh4 | ||
|
greggy
United Kingdom1483 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On November 11 2011 00:52 greggy wrote: There are problems with it, I admit. The biggest one is the limitation of four links per post. (I didn't know about that when I made the tree on Quick Topic or I would have chosen a better host.) Ideally, something like this should be totally cross-referenced, but because of the limitation on links, it's not.I gotta ask: it's not a real "tree", is it? Is there a way to go backwards, or to see all of the threads made at once? There's also no way to see a 'bird's-eye-view' of the tree structure. It's still structured as a tree, though. If you start from whichever move you're interested in (e.g. the current position) you can go through the analysis posted by clicking the child you're interested in at each branch. You can go back if you like by clicking "back" in your browser or by opening each branch you check out in a new window to begin with. You can also see all the threads at once--just not as a tree. All you have to do is sign up for QuickTopic with the name you use here (or technically any name you like) and start viewing threads. The site tracks every page you've visited, and you can view them all at once by going to the "my topics" page. If you have an account that you're only using to look at the tree, then you'll see all of those threads that you've looked at, and no others. (That's the main way I keep track of it). Occasionally there will be ambiguity when moves in two different lines have the same name (it's actually interesting to see which moves come up the most in different lines), but for the most part it's easy to distinguish. If I were designing this from the bottom up, I'd do some things differently, but I think it serves its main purpose well, which is to make previous analysis for any given situation easily accessible--if you want to know what people have said about a given position, you know how to find it. Meanwhile, I've added a page for Bill Murray's suggestion of 21. Nh4. I have to say that I think it's an interesting idea. | ||
|
Mash2
United States132 Posts
On November 11 2011 00:28 Bill Murray wrote: what about Nh4 + Show Spoiler + Doing this would obviously be with the intention of getting our knight to the very appealing f5 square as we sort of planned with our last move correct? The problem I see with this move is that it seems like best case scenario we trade down a bishop and rook with black, if he so chooses, while we also lose our a3 pawn. And it would be black's move. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On November 11 2011 01:43 Mash2 wrote: Yes, I agree. I thought Bill's idea was interesting and worth looking at, so I did, but having done so, I think that the cons of such an early play outweigh the pros by quite a bit. It's a good move, but it's not the time for it yet, imo. My analysis is posted here.+ Show Spoiler + Doing this would obviously be with the intention of getting our knight to the very appealing f5 square as we sort of planned with our last move correct? The problem I see with this move is that it seems like best case scenario we trade down a bishop and rook with black, if he so chooses, while we also lose our a3 pawn. And it would be black's move. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Oh I just thought things were looking fairly drawish. | ||
|
LaXerCannon
Canada558 Posts
On November 11 2011 02:30 Blazinghand wrote: Oh I just thought things were looking fairly drawish. As long as we continue playing safe, it will be a draw... Bf4 | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On November 11 2011 03:24 LaXerCannon wrote: I disagree. I think that as long as we continue playing safe, we have good prospects of slowly untangling our pieces, wriggling out of Black's pressure and reducing to a winning endgame.As long as we continue playing safe, it will be a draw... Bf4 | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
Vote: 21. Bf4 | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On November 11 2011 03:30 qrs wrote: I just want to say one thing about "drawishness". I've spent a lot of time in the last week on analyzing our game, and it's showed me one thing: there's a lot more to a game of chess than one sees on the surface. It's happened many times that I've thought I knew how to assess a given position until I found a new move or someone showed me one and I had to start thinking again--so many times that I realized that I, for one, barely know a thing about the game.I disagree. I think that as long as we continue playing safe, we have good prospects of slowly untangling our pieces, wriggling out of Black's pressure and reducing to a winning endgame. I don't mean that analyzing is a waste of time because you're bound to miss something anyway, or that luck determines who wins a game. On the contrary, the more time you spend moving the pieces around the board, the more you learn about it. You do come to understand more about the position. You see the various moves that keep cropping up, and some of the resources for both sides. You just don't see it all. What I'm trying to say is, I know I said that I think we have good prospects of winning here, but that's not really the main reason that I wouldn't call the position drawish. Honestly, my opinion of our prospects doesn't mean all that much. Whatever I see in the position at this point is only a small fraction of what's actually there. My assessment could be dead wrong because of factors that I haven't even thought about. That's why I wouldn't call the position drawish. | ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
Not sure how I feel about 21. Bf4 Rxa3 22. Rxa3 Bxa3 23. Rxe8 Kxe8 24. Bxc7 Bb4 and black has the Bishop pair but white has two pawns. I want to say it's good for white, but the Bishops are gonna get very annoying very quickly. 21...Bxa3 22. Rxe8 Kxe8 23. Bxc7 is an interesting dynamic. On one hand, black has a rook which is much better than whites and probably can pick off a pawn if white plays wrong. On the other hand, if Black moves his a6 Bishop I don't think he can stop the pawn without giving up material. Thankfully the Bishop is doing a lot on a6 so there really isn't a reason for Black to move his Bishop. | ||
|
dtvu
Australia687 Posts
| ||
|
GenesisX
Canada4267 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + best move | ||
|
Malinor
Germany4758 Posts
For what it is worth, I just wondered if 21.Re3 might be worth consideration. At least I don't find anything immediately wrong with the move, but it would probably change the lay-out of our king-side pawns and pushes the king in the middle for defensive purposes very soon. So I don't really know. (21.Re3 Rxe3 22.fxe and then Kf2 sometime in the future. 22.Be3 would make the bishop retty immobile, although it surely is no MVP on c1 either. In any case, it would keep black's dark-squared bishop pretty immobile.) Just some food for thought. I will be on vacation for the next 10days, so I don't know if I am able to vote on the next move. But definitely not losing interest, just to let you know. | ||
|
Ng5
702 Posts
qrs wrote: I just want to say one thing about "drawishness". I've spent a lot of time in the last week on analyzing our game, and it's showed me one thing: there's a lot more to a game of chess than one sees on the surface. It's happened many times that I've thought I knew how to assess a given position until I found a new move or someone showed me one and I had to start thinking again--so many times that I realized that I, for one, barely know a thing about the game. I don't mean that analyzing is a waste of time because you're bound to miss something anyway, or that luck determines who wins a game. On the contrary, the more time you spend moving the pieces around the board, the more you learn about it. You do come to understand more about the position. You see the various moves that keep cropping up, and some of the resources for both sides. You just don't see it all. What I'm trying to say is, I know I said that I think we have good prospects of winning here, but that's not really the main reason that I wouldn't call the position drawish. Honestly, my opinion of our prospects doesn't mean all that much. Whatever I see in the position at this point is only a small fraction of what's actually there. My assessment could be dead wrong because of factors that I haven't even thought about. That's why I wouldn't call the position drawish. Thou hath speaketh wisdom. | ||
|
ApocAlypsE007
Israel1007 Posts
21. Bf4 Rxf3 22. gxf3 Rg8+ 23. Kh1 Bb7 24. Re3 c5 will lead to a possible mating threat and a huge disadvantage to white. I think it is necessary to sacrifice the a3 pawn to gain some momentum and maintaining a solid position for white while trying to trade for the endgame with material advantage. I will play 21. Be3 as taking the a3 pawn for black is more or less giving up on immediate mating attack. | ||
| ||
