|
On December 09 2011 13:50 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 13:11 mastergriggy wrote:On December 09 2011 12:34 qrs wrote:On December 09 2011 11:33 mastergriggy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +[T]he reason why I see the position as equal is because white has to give up at least one pawn to stop black's passed pawn (I think he might have to give up both, but since I don't really want to post all the lines, I'll simplify it by saying that the only way white can get his king to the pawn is by giving up his g or h pawn). But giving up a pawn to capture a pawn is not really giving up a pawn. Do you have any lines where White gives more pawns than he gets? + Show Spoiler +Well black would get two pawns for one pawn. It might still be a won position for white though? Line: After 32. Rxa6 Rc2 33. Rxf6 d3 34. Kf1 Re2 35. Rf2 Re5 and black can pick off two pawns.
+ Show Spoiler [...and White wins] +32. Rxa6 Rc2 33. Rxf6 d3 34. Kf1 Re2 35. Re6+ ... 1-0. You might consider that just a situational bit of tactics, though, so let me add that + Show Spoiler +even in your line, we still ought to end up getting two pawns for two pawns: you have Black conceding the f-pawn from the start, and he surely can't hold the d-pawn.
Fork aside, by the way, I think that ...Re2 is probably a wasted move after Kf1 in general: not only does it not threaten anything that I can see, but it actually makes it harder for Black to push his d-pawn.
+ Show Spoiler +I was assuming that black played Kd8, not e8 but I should have said that.
|
I've studied this game for years, and I feel I haven't learned a single damn thing.
I play opponents who are just as clueless as I am. We both trade moves, back and forth, back and forth, until eventually we reach a position that we both realize is won for one side. We don't know how it happened, or why it happened, or which move was the blunder or the brilliancy. Because we can't understand why one side won, it's difficult to learn from the game at hand. But we repeat and repeat and trade wins and losses, and it feels neither side is really improving. I swear when I play this game I feel like I'm playing poker, it's such a mystery.
And yet there are 10 year olds who can simply beat masters. Don't ask me... but I'm still addicted to it for those moments when things almost make sense.
|
On December 09 2011 13:55 Ng5 wrote:
dxe4? Not even a thought. I could have auto-moved c5 being prepared for it weeks ago, but I wanted to schedule my moves around both my academic obligations and my flight home.
I mean everything was about when how and under what circumstances I can push c5 since... Kxd7?
c5 has been the first move to check in every single position, sideline and variation since then and I knew that it could happen when I realized Rb8 was a good move in this opening and that you might answer with early Bxc6. I knew I would have to move it should my original plan with Rb8-Rb6-Rg6-sack-mah-head-off-on-the-kingside not come through. I mean a5 had been one of the center points of every thought in every move and even a5 was only made to make me be able to push c5 later in peace.
About predictability. It doesn't really say anything. One can predict every single move in a game, but you have to know the deep underlying idea of what your opponent wants. I knew you were trying to force a win. I use force because you could have been much more patient, but your moves weren't. That doesn't really work well most of the times. So yes my moves might have looked predictable and/or boring, but every one of them served one single purpose - and that's c5.
For example... Back in the days when I started playing I had the then newest version of Chessmaster. It had this game of Kasparov with guessing the moves. I had a pretty high ratio even after half a year, but the truth is - my intuitions and my ideas were crystal clear - but I still didn't know jack shit about chess. I'm not implying the same - I'm just saying that predicting and falling lazy because of your prediction comes through for a while is an insanely usual pattern that leads to many players downfall.
Part of becoming a better player is not just overcoming that anticipation, but getting to a point where you don't even 'pick it up' per se.
Anyway I wrote long enough already.
What I did consider for a few days is just taking it to an easy draw, though - after seeing this thread dying slowly despite the tremendous work gone into it. I don't think I would have done it because it's unlike of me, but I did dance with the idea for a while. I'm often amazed by what different pages we seem to be on in this game. So many times our assessments of a given position or move seem to be diametrically opposite, the current one being the latest case in point.
That said, we're not in entirely different places. Yes ...c5 is probably the move that's been thematic for longest in this game, and ever since move 12 or so, it was one of the first moves that we looked at for you in pretty much every position (where something else wasn't forced), right up to this one.
The reason that I was so sure that you'd play 25...dxe4 was not that I think I can predict your moves in general--I guess chess is like a relationship that way for me: I'm never confident that I can predict my opponent; certainly not an opponent like you, who's already surprised me more times than I can count. I expected 25....dxe4 for a much more basic reason--I thought it looked pretty good for you, whereas in all other lines that I looked at, I continued to like White.
I mentioned earlier that back when I was pushing for 23. Nd2, I had overlooked one move until it was too late. I don't suppose there's any harm in telling you what it was, as it's more or less irrelevant now: at this point, after 25...dxe4, I had been counting on 26. Nxe4. The move I overlooked was 26...Bb7, pinning the Knight to the f2 pawn. After that, while you didn't necessarily have a win, you had us pinned firmly in a defensive position, and would probably be able to regain your missing pawns without much trouble, whereas I wasn't able to find any active plans for us. That's why I was starting to lose interest: not simply because I thought I could predict where the game was going, but because I thought I could predict where it was going and couldn't think of anything to do. (I suppose it didn't help that everyone was off playing Skyrim, and almost no one else was posting analysis in the thread at the time either.)
|
On December 09 2011 14:17 mastergriggy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 13:50 qrs wrote:On December 09 2011 13:11 mastergriggy wrote:On December 09 2011 12:34 qrs wrote:On December 09 2011 11:33 mastergriggy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +[T]he reason why I see the position as equal is because white has to give up at least one pawn to stop black's passed pawn (I think he might have to give up both, but since I don't really want to post all the lines, I'll simplify it by saying that the only way white can get his king to the pawn is by giving up his g or h pawn). But giving up a pawn to capture a pawn is not really giving up a pawn. Do you have any lines where White gives more pawns than he gets? + Show Spoiler +Well black would get two pawns for one pawn. It might still be a won position for white though? Line: After 32. Rxa6 Rc2 33. Rxf6 d3 34. Kf1 Re2 35. Rf2 Re5 and black can pick off two pawns.
+ Show Spoiler [...and White wins] +32. Rxa6 Rc2 33. Rxf6 d3 34. Kf1 Re2 35. Re6+ ... 1-0. You might consider that just a situational bit of tactics, though, so let me add that + Show Spoiler +even in your line, we still ought to end up getting two pawns for two pawns: you have Black conceding the f-pawn from the start, and he surely can't hold the d-pawn.
Fork aside, by the way, I think that ...Re2 is probably a wasted move after Kf1 in general: not only does it not threaten anything that I can see, but it actually makes it harder for Black to push his d-pawn. + Show Spoiler +I was assuming that black played Kd8, not e8 but I should have said that. Yeah, I realized the ambiguity there after I posted, but I didn't bother to edit my post, since if you meant to change earlier moves in the line that you gave, you should have said so. In any case, I think that most of the points I made in my post still stand:
+ Show Spoiler +- I don't understand why Black plays ...Re2 (to which I'll add that, if he does want to play it for whatever reason, I don't understand why he takes an extra move to play ...Rc2 first).
- Even without check, I think that 35. Re6 is a pretty good response to your 34...Re2 (it forces Black to move his Rook and prevents your intended follow-up 35...Re5. After, for instance, 35...Ra2, we can continue with 36. Re3.)
- Even if we follow your line to the end, I don't see Black winning two pawns for one: yes, he can pick up our a- and d-pawns, but he gave us the f-pawn at the start of the line, and there's no way he's holding his d-pawn with his King so far away.
|
liberal wrote:
I've studied this game for years, and I feel I haven't learned a single damn thing.
I play opponents who are just as clueless as I am. We both trade moves, back and forth, back and forth, until eventually we reach a position that we both realize is won for one side. We don't know how it happened, or why it happened, or which move was the blunder or the brilliancy. Because we can't understand why one side won, it's difficult to learn from the game at hand. But we repeat and repeat and trade wins and losses, and it feels neither side is really improving. I swear when I play this game I feel like I'm playing poker, it's such a mystery.
And yet there are 10 year olds who can simply beat masters. Don't ask me... but I'm still addicted to it for those moments when things almost make sense.
It's good when you can find buddies you can hang out with. At least that's my experience. I never really liked learning too much from others - in fields and places it's unavoidable - but I like to try things for myself and have a conversation. Thatswhy I think you need buddies. To have a conversation. Because in a usual teacher-student relationship - especially if you are paying for it - it's very hard to find a good teacher who is both a good person as a human being and is there really to teach you something you wouldn't know in your own.
Most people I talked to - especially higher rated ones - misunderstand this approach and it leads to them disconnecting from what I mean. And this is why I get upset about not being able to stream, while other times I just wish it all to hell. I mean for a teacher - at least in my opinion - there's no better thing in this entire world when one of those moments come when something is almost clear.
|
qrs wrote:Show nested quote +Ng5 wrote:
dxe4? Not even a thought. I could have auto-moved c5 being prepared for it weeks ago, but I wanted to schedule my moves around both my academic obligations and my flight home.
I mean everything was about when how and under what circumstances I can push c5 since... Kxd7?
c5 has been the first move to check in every single position, sideline and variation since then and I knew that it could happen when I realized Rb8 was a good move in this opening and that you might answer with early Bxc6. I knew I would have to move it should my original plan with Rb8-Rb6-Rg6-sack-mah-head-off-on-the-kingside not come through. I mean a5 had been one of the center points of every thought in every move and even a5 was only made to make me be able to push c5 later in peace.
About predictability. It doesn't really say anything. One can predict every single move in a game, but you have to know the deep underlying idea of what your opponent wants. I knew you were trying to force a win. I use force because you could have been much more patient, but your moves weren't. That doesn't really work well most of the times. So yes my moves might have looked predictable and/or boring, but every one of them served one single purpose - and that's c5.
For example... Back in the days when I started playing I had the then newest version of Chessmaster. It had this game of Kasparov with guessing the moves. I had a pretty high ratio even after half a year, but the truth is - my intuitions and my ideas were crystal clear - but I still didn't know jack shit about chess. I'm not implying the same - I'm just saying that predicting and falling lazy because of your prediction comes through for a while is an insanely usual pattern that leads to many players downfall.
Part of becoming a better player is not just overcoming that anticipation, but getting to a point where you don't even 'pick it up' per se.
Anyway I wrote long enough already.
What I did consider for a few days is just taking it to an easy draw, though - after seeing this thread dying slowly despite the tremendous work gone into it. I don't think I would have done it because it's unlike of me, but I did dance with the idea for a while. I'm often amazed by what different pages we seem to be on in this game. So many times our assessments of a given position or move seem to be diametrically opposite, the current one being the latest case in point. That said, we're not in entirely different places. Yes ...c5 is probably the move that's been thematic for longest in this game, and ever since move 12 or so, it was one of the first moves that we looked at for you in pretty much every position (where something else wasn't forced), right up to this one. The reason that I was so sure that you'd play 25...dxe4 was not that I think I can predict your moves in general--I guess chess is like a relationship that way for me: I'm never confident that I can predict my opponent; certainly not an opponent like you, who's already surprised me more times than I can count. I expected 25....dxe4 for a much more basic reason--I thought it looked pretty good for you, whereas in all other lines that I looked at, I continued to like White. I mentioned earlier that back when I was pushing for 23. Nd2, I had overlooked one move until it was too late. I don't suppose there's any harm in telling you what it was, as it's more or less irrelevant now: at this point, after 25...dxe4, I had been counting on 26. Nxe4. The move I overlooked was 26...Bb7, pinning the Knight to the f2 pawn. After that, while you didn't necessarily have a win, you had us pinned firmly in a defensive position, and would probably be able to regain your missing pawns without much trouble, whereas I wasn't able to find any active plans for us. That's why I was starting to lose interest: not simply because I thought I could predict where the game was going, but because I thought I could predict where it was going and couldn't think of anything to do. (I suppose it didn't help that everyone was off playing Skyrim, and almost no one else was posting analysis in the thread at the time either.)
I didn't like the Bb7 lines in most situations as far as I remember. And no many of these stories are often not personal, just interesting thing that can add to this thread.
I personally always was about interaction when playing with buddies. So I can usually talk a lot if I do so.
If this was a normal real time game, I probably wouldn't be able to concentrate fully because of me talking too much and telling tidbit stories. 
This is one thing that's nice about this. I can take half a day off an analyze a position, and then I can come here and share stories all evening. Especially when I have a fever and I cannot concentrate on my books and studies for more than 20 minutes straight.
I wanted to start analyzing this game earlier than it ends because I thought if the interest entirely dies out I might just let it go. Funny how fate revived it almost the exact day of my birthday. It's a present I'm very thankful for.
|
|
|
On December 09 2011 15:17 Ng5 wrote:
Wow I sound old.
Having a moment of wisdom? So what's your advice on getting better at chess?
|
The problem is when the moments of wisdom happen too often.. eh-eh.
As for chess... It greatly depends on how much time you have, how much effort you are willing to put in and what do you want out of it?
Do you want to play with friends, just have a good time, or what.
For just a hobby and if you don't want to get very-very good sites like chess.com or some hobby blitz site might work well for you (even in the longer run, for starters they might be good for anyone, just don't forget that it's not the high-high level of chess there) - even if I personally don't like them. Though I keep getting bugged by a friend to go over and stream for chesscube. Haha. My ass.
|
Also if I can finally get the time and mechanics and will to ever stream here again I would always be willing to talk and discuss about chess. I just have these up and downs when I feel like I don't want to play chess for years now. Sometimes I would much rather play LoL or even WoW just for a little relaxed fun with my friends or random people.
|
Well when I was younger (in high school) I played pretty competitively (hour minimum a day, long online games on ICC, chess instructor, uscf tournament once a month). I kind of want to get back to that point where I was (1800) and I think I can put an hour a day in and more next semester. It's just been hard for me to get back into it.
|
On December 09 2011 16:31 mastergriggy wrote:
I kind of want to get back to that point where I was (1800) On July 26 2011 09:03 mastergriggy wrote:
I'll join if you don't mind. Got a 1950 USCF rating. 
|
On December 09 2011 16:51 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 16:31 mastergriggy wrote:
I kind of want to get back to that point where I was (1800) Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 09:03 mastergriggy wrote:
I'll join if you don't mind. Got a 1950 USCF rating.
I was playing myself up a bit. I'm 1950 on standard on ICC. My chess rating for USCF was 1867 at peak. After that it started going down, but I considered myself better. Either way, it really doesn't matter to me. I'm looking to get better at chess and play for fun. Edit: And eventually get good enough to compete again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'll be able to close the voting properly today, but I am aware of it.
I will take a full three days and probably only update everything in the last minute or at most last day.
|
|
|
This is kinda forced now :S
exd5
|
On December 09 2011 08:59 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 07:14 mastergriggy wrote:On December 09 2011 05:38 qrs wrote:On December 09 2011 01:59 mastergriggy wrote:On December 08 2011 20:24 qrs wrote:On December 08 2011 15:25 mastergriggy wrote:I honestly feel like this game is lost for white, although I was one of the people who voted e4. Between working 50 hours a week, commuting back and fourth between towns twice a week, and skyrim, I ran out of time for chess  I feel very bad now. I don't understand all the pessimism. Suppose 26. dxe5. Where do you see the loss for White here? Give me a line. + Show Spoiler +Here is the line I see, 26. exd5 (I'm assuming this is what you meant) cxd4 27. Ne4 Bd3 28. Ng3 Bd6 is what I got so far. Black recovers both of his pawns and has a much better passed pawn than white. At worse I give an advantage to black. I'm looking over other variations to the line right now, and I will post them later. Thanks for the correction--yes, exd5 is what I meant. + Show Spoiler +I'm not sure what the goal behind Ne4 is--as your line shows, the Knight can be chased away without accomplishing very much. My mainline here is 27. Rc1, preventing 28...Bc5 (more robustly than 27. Ne4 does), threatening various pins and forks like Rc7+ or Rc6, and generally getting our Rook out of his defensive niche into an active position.
If 27....Bd6, I think we're fine playing 28. BxB.
If 27. Bxa3, we can play 28. Rc7+, which is interesting. + Show Spoiler +First just to get it out of the way, in response to 27. Rc1 Bd6, I believe it weakens black as one of his main advantages is having the double bishops, so I strongly doubt he will play that, i.e. 28. Bxd6 Kxd6 29. Ne4+ Ke5 (29...Kxd5 30. Nxf6+ winning another pawn)30. Nc5 Be2 (because of the fork) 31. a6 Ra2 32. a4 is very strong for white.
On a side note real quick, I looked at 26...c4, but it's rather pointless after 27. Rc1
Alright, on to the main line 26...cxd4 27. Rc1
Then
27...Bxa3 28. Rc7+ Ke8 (moving to the 6th rank loses a Bishop, and I'm not sure if e8 or d8 is better) 29. Rxh7 Bb4 and I hit a wall for white. If we move our knight, it gets dangerous (such as 30. Ne4 Rb1+ 31. Kf2 Rf1+ 32. Kg3 Be1+ winning a piece). 30. Nf3 makes it impossible to stop the pawn without giving up a piece. Alternatively to moving the knight is 30. Ra7 Bxd2 31. Bxd2 Rxd2 Rxa6 looks better for white than the other lines, although it's basically an equalization of the position imo. It could be there is a better 29th move for white also? I'm not immediately seeing one.
I think there are a lot more lines for black after Bd6, so maybe it's not as weak as I thought it was originally (although it still looks bad for black).
Edit: I guess this is important too, concerning 26. Rc1 + Show Spoiler +26. Rc1 Bd6 27. Bxd6 Kxd6 (Rxd2 dxc5 with advantage to white) 28. dxc5 Kc7 (...Kc6 29. ed5+ wins a pawn) doesn't look great for white since his knight is basically dangling around. Black's bishop is slowing or stopping all of white's pawns and white's isn't providing any help. On the plus side for white, he has his passed c pawn which for the moment he can hold onto, but in the long run he will lose it.
For now, my vote is 26. exd5 + Show Spoiler + to give us opportunities in the middle of the board with our passed pawn and not going for drawish lines Lol, I kind of want to look at Rb1, but I don't think it does anything for white. Edit 2: I never address my idea behind + Show Spoiler +Ne4...I wanted white to take initiative in the center of the board and get his pawn moving. One of the possibilities I looked at was getting it to e6, but more importantly I wanted to prevent black from playing Bd6. In retrospect, I realize black can play Re2, which shuts down white's ideas (with the possible transposition of Ng3-f5). A lot of things to address here: + Show Spoiler [following 26. exd5] +- 26. exd5 cxd4 27. Rc1 Bd6 28. Bxd6: we've agreed that this looks fine for White, so nothing to talk about.
- 26. exd5 cxd4 27. Rc1 Bxa3 28. Rc7+ Kd8 (moving to the 6th rank is not merely suboptimal but illegal, by the way) 29. Rxh7 Bb4 30. Ra7 Bxd2 31. Bxd2 Rxd2 Rxa6 was your main line, leading to this position. You called it "basically an equalization of the position", but to me it looks very good for White: we've now eliminated the Bishop pair and are two clear pawns ahead of Black (instead of one of those extra pawns being doubled). What's Black's plan to stop us from reducing to an ending where we have a Rook and two pawns against his lone rook?
- Another interesting possibility is 26. exd5 cxd4 27. Rc1 Bxa3 28. Rc7+ Kd8/Ke8 29. Ra7, temporarily ignoring the h-pawn in favor of pressuring the Bishop immediately. I think this is even better than 29. Rxh7.
- After most Black moves we can still play Rxh7 afterwards, with the advantage of having first worsened the position of Black's Bishop.
- If 29...Bb4, 30. Rxa6 Bxd2 is an improved version of the 29. Rxh7 Bb4 30. Ra7 Bxd2 line, imo.
- 29...Bd3 defends the h7 pawn, but at the cost of moving Black's light-squared Bishop away from the Queenside and blocking the path of his d-pawn. After this move, 30. a6 looks very, very good for us, imo.
Presumably, Ng5 is going to move tonight, so we'd better be ready. In my opinion, we should take a closer look at one of the lines that we brushed over before:
+ Show Spoiler +26. exd5 cxd4 27. Rc1 Bd6. If 27....REDACTED, I think we're fine playing 28. REDACTED. mastergriggy wrote First just to get it out of the way, in response to 27.... REDACTED, I believe it weakens black as one of his main advantages is + Show Spoiler +, so I strongly doubt he will play that, i.e. [ sic] + Show Spoiler +28. Bxd6 Kxd6 29. Ne4+ Ke5 (29...Kxd5 30. Nxf6+ winning another pawn)30. Nc5 Be2 (because of the fork) 31. a6 Ra2 32. a4 is very strong for white. I think there are a lot more lines for black after REDACTED, so maybe it's not as weak as I thought it was originally (although it still looks bad for black).
Now, I still think that this line probably works out all right for us, but I'm not sure, and with Ng5 about to move, it's probably time to take a closer look. In particular, consider the following branch, which no one's even talked about:
+ Show Spoiler +26. exd5 cxd4 27. Rc1 Bd6 28. Bxd6: The only move we've really considered so far. This move is basically our automatic response to ...Bd6--otherwise, Black gets to force our Bishop to a worse location with tempo.28...Rxd2: The line that mastergriggy gave before had Black recapturing our Bishop, but what if he takes the Knight instead? At first glance, I didn't think this was a particularly strong move for Black, as we can withdraw our Bishop from danger with tempo and cover the path of Black's pawn by playing 29. Bb4/Bf4, after which we can go on the offensive with moves like 30. Rc6. Surely we can deal with the passed pawn that has only two pieces left to support it, particularly since when it reaches d2, we can bring two pieces to bear and Black can bring only one.29. Bb4: As mentioned, this move both extricates our Bishop and covers the path of Black's pawn, while limiting Black's options by forcing him to move his Rook immediately. The two moves that accomplish this are 29. Bb4 and 29. Bf4; at first glance, Bb4 seems slightly more solid as it defends our Queenside pawns as well, holding together our position.29...Rb2: Obviously, the Rook has to move, since it's being attacked by our Bishop. It goes to b2 where it threatens the Bishop instead (though the Bishop is defended).
At a glance it might seem that we have a fairly strong position here: Black does not threaten a single one of our pieces. Moreover, our Rook has the potential to become fairly active at last, and wreak havoc on Black's isolated pawns. All Black has is the threat of ...Bb7 (attacking our d5 pawn) and a single passed pawn that dreams of becoming a Queen...Maybe this really is a strong position, but we can't treat the Little Pawn that Could too lightly. Here's an example of how easily the wheels can come off for us:30. Rc6: Our most active move, and at first glance it seems to be a pretty good one. We aggressively chase Black's Bishop, with an eye to our own threat of a6 if the Bishop moves. If Black decides to push the pawn instead of saving his Bishop, no problem: our own Bishop is covering its path. A Bishop for a Bishop + the passed pawn looks like a pretty good trade for us.30...d3: Black pushes the pawn anyway.31. Rxa6: Almost the only logical continuation. If we rush back to defend against the pawn, then Rc6 was simply a wasted move (unless pushing the pawn gives Black some sort of weakness, which I don't see).31...Rxb4!: Black kills our only piece that was in position to block the pawn, and all of a sudden our game is looking worse. We can't kill the Rook, or 32...d2 and Black will get his Queen.32. Rxf6?: Hoping to defend via Rf1-d1, and grabbing one more pawn on the way.32...d2 33. Rf8 Rc4!: Threatening Rc1, and there is nothing that we can do.34. Kf2: Getting out of the way of the potential pin on the 1st rank, and lunging for the pawn on d2...34...Rc1 35. Ke2 Rxf1 36. Kxd2 and Black will scoop up our isolated pawns and win the game. Here's the whole line in a PGN editor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qcNmX.png)
