|
On November 24 2011 12:28 chesshaha wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 11:45 Ng5 wrote:I'll give you a little spoiler of my thoughts. I'll spoiler it so you can avoid it if you'd prefer to. + Show Spoiler +
You guys sound so concerned about losing a tempo with Nd2, but that's what has been happening. Bf4-Re3 and the knight moving back and forth between f3 and d2. When in the end the rook got exchanged and if you decide to take back with bishop it will still end up on e3.
At the same time black's light squared bishop ended up on the best possible diagonal for now, the dark one is blocking your only occupied open file, and the two rooks miraculously ended up on the same open diagonal - where one will stay even after the exchange.
I don't think Nd2 was the largest concern here in sense of losing time...
Black hasn't made a single pawn move since a5, just advanced the heavier pieces to good squares.
Can you tell that white's pieces are at their proper place could be one very important and sensible question here.
I thought Bxc7 was a good move, idk, I guess it doesn't matter now. I was busy with MLG weekend. So for the next move. + Show Spoiler +I think fxe is better than Bxe3, but I still need to think it over. I thought it was all right, but I hoped Nd2 was better. Pretty much everyone besides me had stopped analyzing by then, and I missed something until it was too late. fxe3 was the plan here, but now I don't know anymore.
Here's how I see it continuing:
+ Show Spoiler +24. fxe3 Rb2 25. e4 dxe4 26. Nxe4 Bb7 (the move I missed until too late) 27. Nd2 Bd6 28. Be3 Bd5
|
I'm saying just Bxe3
+ Show Spoiler +Why move a pawn blocking a key diagonal unless we have to? Also splits our strongest wall of pawns
|
Between fxe3 and Bxe3, I would choose fxe3 just because we already developed our bishop like that to attack the pawn on c7.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, is Rc1 worth looking into at all? If he moves Rc8, Rb7, or Bd8, we can outright kill his rook. He can't do Rc3 because thats just suicide. Re1 also = dead rook. Unless I'm missing something, we can get away with material gain?
|
|
|
On November 24 2011 14:47 GenesisX wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, is Rc1 worth looking into at all? If he moves Rc8, Rb7, or Bd8, we can outright kill his rook. He can't do Rc3 because thats just suicide. Re1 also = dead rook. Unless I'm missing something, we can get away with material gain? Huh? You mean this move? + Show Spoiler +24. Rc1? No, it's not worth looking at. Black won't defend the pawn--he'll save his Rook instead. A Rook is better than a pawn.
|
currently the line that qrs is giving for 24. fxe3... seems pretty accurate. + Show Spoiler +and if that's the case, it's a line that I don't particularly want to go down. right now, I'm considering Bxe3 since the given arguments seem valid, despite the importance of opening those pawns to give our King some breathing room: back-ranks are still a threat to consider.
i'll hold off my vote for now, but right now it's pointed towards Bxe3. + Show Spoiler +the move 24. ... Bd3 that qrs has given in his analysis tree seems to put us in a similar bind, but I would much prefer this over the 24. fxe3 line given above. if more analysis would be made to this current line it would probably be easier for me to decide, but since I'm bad at those sorts of things and do little to contribute I should probably just shut my mouth anyway.
anyways, at this point we have to take the Rook. we just have to decide what to take it with. + Show Spoiler +not Rc1. 24. Rc1 continues with ... Rxa3, then whatever we attack with is followed with ... Rc8 with threats of back-ranking.
|
fxe3
Always attack towards the center.
|
fxe3
+ Show Spoiler + Of course he will take this into account and probably respond with Rb7 since if he goes for the a3 pawn then he will lose the exchange. Therefore, by doing fxe3, Ng5 will most likely do Rb7, or another way to defend that c7 pawn but I believe Rb7 is the most logical way to do so. Either way, I prefer this move over BxRe3
|
+ Show Spoiler +I'm really just thinking Bxe3 is stronger. While 'Attack towards center' is in general a good idea...He occupies the center while we don't and our strength is on the far left and far right where we've got strong pawns. If he's left with just bishops it's going to be hard for him to be defending side to side as we begin pushing pawns. Also just running the position through CM10 for 12 trial runs, not once does it decide on anything buy the Bxe3 followed by ...Rb5 eventually trading rooks and getting our passed pawn up to a6.
|
On November 25 2011 02:36 EnderSword wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm really just thinking Bxe3 is stronger. While 'Attack towards center' is in general a good idea...He occupies the center while we don't and our strength is on the far left and far right where we've got strong pawns. If he's left with just bishops it's going to be hard for him to be defending side to side as we begin pushing pawns. Also just running the position through CM10 for 12 trial runs, not once does it decide on anything buy the Bxe3 followed by ...Rb5 eventually trading rooks and getting our passed pawn up to a6. Please, don't start bringing chess engines into it.
|
On November 25 2011 02:57 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 02:36 EnderSword wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm really just thinking Bxe3 is stronger. While 'Attack towards center' is in general a good idea...He occupies the center while we don't and our strength is on the far left and far right where we've got strong pawns. If he's left with just bishops it's going to be hard for him to be defending side to side as we begin pushing pawns. Also just running the position through CM10 for 12 trial runs, not once does it decide on anything buy the Bxe3 followed by ...Rb5 eventually trading rooks and getting our passed pawn up to a6. Please, don't start bringing chess engines into it.
+ Show Spoiler +Ya, sorry, don't mean to base my decision on it. Just felt it was worth more looking into that line. I guess it was only a few comments but I almost had the feeling this time people were just saying 'Well, Intuitively this seems fine based on a general rule' and didn't want fxe3 to just walk away with it without much consideration
|
On November 21 2011 18:22 Ng5 wrote:
Btw was it MrPro again? I was wondering when he'd turn up with a third wind and the name suits him. I wanted to read up on his posts, but I just can't bring myself to actually read them.
No it wasn't me , while I have followed this game with mild interest, I am not THAT much of an asshole to repeatedly troll your game ( despite what you might feel about me.)
|
On another note, for what it i worth I apologize for my part in creating a distraction from the purpose of this social experiment . As a chess lover I do respect and appreciate what you are doing here NG5 . But it seems some here still lack the objectivity to see their part in what happened ; anyway I will disapear back into the ether once again while viewing this experiment from the sidelines .
|
Hopefully the chess club I'm trying to start at school will be approved. Chess is amazing :D
|
|
|
MaverickSC wrote:
Hopefully the chess club I'm trying to start at school will be approved. Chess is amazing :D
Which city? I almost went to Calgary to study.
And I'm trying to get some coaching done in our own chess club. They've been trying to convince me to stay for the Winter and play with them for pan-ams or whatever it's called. Maybe next year. I hear there's some good players on top board so it should be fun.
|
MrProphylactic wrote:
On another note, for what it i worth I apologize for my part in creating a distraction from the purpose of this social experiment . As a chess lover I do respect and appreciate what you are doing here NG5 . But it seems some here still lack the objectivity to see their part in what happened ; anyway I will disapear back into the ether once again while viewing this experiment from the sidelines .
That's not an apology, and one is not needed. For once you could try to think of me as a different person as you are and read what I actually write.
I don't want apologies or crap. It's not needed between friends, they can just come back after an argument and be natural like friends are supposed to be. (Which is hard to imagine in some cultures...)
And as much as I think humankind is retarded and I wouldn't want anyone to think I am similar to you - every chess player is my friend. As hard it is to believe for once.
Just as ever LoL or WoW player, or anyone I meet. It doesn't need to mean I like them. Or that I want to group with them.
Anyway. It's been a while I replied to stuff in this thread actively so let me see what's up on the last two pages.
|
Bxc7 was a reasonable possibility, but I feel there's a lot of inaccuracies here. I will try to explain.
Basically endgames are far easier or far harder than how I see you thinking about it.
The easy part is - you have to make decisions. Whether you want to win or draw.
The hard part is - realize the nuances in the position that tells the two from each other.
Bxc7 in my opinion could not be as 'tryhard' as one should want it to be if it's about winning. Rc1 also had a small problem to it and we'll see how Nd2 will end up now.
The problem is not that. The problem I see is not the particular lines. I'm pretty sure that you see a lot of good moves, and good lines. The problem I think is - you don't take five steps back to look at the picture from a distance.
You try to build from the branches and not from the roots.
It's endgame, and this is so even in middle game, and as such stems from the opening. You look at the position and answer - yes I want to win. And then you look at the position and answer - what combination of pieces do give me chances to win? What can and what can't I exchange. Is the current composition of material/pieces winning for me? If there's an exchange what does it change in total. Would it be better for me if I had one or two less rooks in general? Is the answer the same in both cases? Would I want to exchange the knight for the bishop? Etc.
There's a lot of particular exceptions when you lay these down. Exact lines that can make opposite coloured bishops still not a draw, or the side with three pawns up still losing, etc. I had lines where I would sac an exchange and three or four pawns and still win in a queenless position.
But in my opinion you are skipping these very important first step. Because once you answer those questions you could always have something to try and fall back on if you are out of ammunition. Some logic that you could try putting holes in or empower reasons for.
Just a few thoughts, I hope it does help you guys having a different perspective on some things. I can't be a lot more particular for the sake of the game, but I felt like telling you.
|
|
|
On November 24 2011 16:35 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 14:47 GenesisX wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, is Rc1 worth looking into at all? If he moves Rc8, Rb7, or Bd8, we can outright kill his rook. He can't do Rc3 because thats just suicide. Re1 also = dead rook. Unless I'm missing something, we can get away with material gain? Huh? You mean this move? + Show Spoiler +24. Rc1? No, it's not worth looking at. Black won't defend the pawn--he'll save his Rook instead. A Rook is better than a pawn.
+ Show Spoiler +Oh, never mind. I was thinking 25. Rxc7 ... 26. Ra7 but I realized he can defend every piece and still get away with another pawn kill. ;_;
24. fxe3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
