|
On September 05 2011 01:52 MrProphylactic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2011 18:46 sleepingdog wrote:cxd4+ Show Spoiler +imo best move in this position. Bb4 is no real threat, we can defend with Bd2 and be fine. Black has no real way to threaten our central pawn position and we will have a slight positional advantage. Obviously you have not bothered to read any analysis ; several people provided very good in depth analysis of why bd2 was a very poor response to bb4 and nd2 was more or less forced , I am beginning to see why these teams games must be more or less impossible to win , and difficult enough to draw , even if we have a minority of strong players providing analysis.
I did my analysis with Houdini, the engine that destroyed Rybka and is probably the strongest engine right now.
Thanks for your kind words anyways.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I didn't realize that using engines wasn't allowed
|
7.Qe2
+ Show Spoiler +Could not find anything bad about it for white and I like the look of the positions that come from it. 0-0 also seems nice. On the other hand I dislike cxd4. It allows black to simplify the game so much, leading to much less interesting state. It is highly likely that he would refuse to simplify it as he would sacrifice one/two of his developed pieces for our undeveloped ones, but why risk it and even the state without big exchange seems ugly with our d4-e5 structure.
|
sleepingdog wrote:
I did my analysis with Houdini
DQed.
Tempting, though.
And thanks for the kind time to read and understand what I always say - that engines alone suck balls in the opening. 
Edit: Oh and that Houdini destroyed Rybka doesn't mean anything about proper chess. One can destroy an engine just by not making one particular mistake they do, or evaluation one particular kind of position better. But it's boring, just as two engines playing each other are.
|
qrs, in your last comment, I made a mistake which I fixed by spamming. You should, perhaps, read more carefully
|
Guys, please be nice.
Sarcasm is always better served with a smile than with a sledgehammer, too...
|
I found both of these games from Fischer playing black
+ Show Spoiler +1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5 Ne4 7. O-O d5 8. Nxd4
O-O 9. f3 Ng5 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Be3 f6 12. Kh1 Bxd4 13. Bxd4 fxe5 14. Bxe5 Ba6
15. Re1 Ne6 16. Na3 Qd7 17. Nc2 Rae8 18. b4 c5 19. Qd2 c6 20. Bg3 cxb4 1/2-1/2
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5 Ne4 7. cxd4 Bb4+ 8.
Bd2 Nxd2 9. Nbxd2 O-O 10. O-O a6 11. Ba4 d6 12. a3 Bxd2 13. Qxd2 Ne7 14. Rac1
Be6 15. Qf4 Bd5 16. Bc2 f6 17. exd6 Qxd6 18. Qxd6 cxd6 19. Nd2 Nc6 20. Bb3 Bf7
21. Bxf7+ Rxf7 22. Nf3 d5 23. Rfe1 g5 24. h3 h5 25. Kf1 Rd7 26. Red1 Re8 27. h4
g4 28. Ng1 Rde7 29. Rc5 Nxd4 30. Rxd5 1/2-1/2
|
7. cxd4
BTW, Ng5, are my votes counting already? Cause I picked a move while ago and it wasn't recognized in your summary. I'm not seeing my nick on participant list either. (Not like I'm complaining, just asking).
|
On September 05 2011 19:28 Bill Murray wrote:
qrs, in your last comment, I made a mistake which I fixed by spamming. You should, perhaps, read more carefully No, you should edit your mistakes. I was responding to that post, not to your later vote. Even if you later decided that it was a mistake, someone else might have taken it or the move seriously, and besides, you never did say that you thought it was a mistake. You just suggested a possible move for Black without comment and then later decided to vote for the original move for White anyway. For all I knew, you thought that for some reason it was a plausible move for Black, even if you were willing to go down that path.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 05 2011 17:35 indigoawareness wrote:
Your posts are hard to read MrProphylactic.
Sorry about that ; I am not the most skilled typist( one of those two fingers type of poeple) . I will try a little more to revise them in the future . I am 35 and grew up in the era when boys did shop and girls did home-ec and typing(back when you actually had typing class with a real Singer type-writer) . Incidentally a humorous demographic in America is not many Men my age can type well, but all the women can . I grew up in the pre-computer age , all we had was Apple 2e's with good ole Oregan trail ... lol
p.s Oh no !!! My brother got typhoid , and bandits are coming !!!!
P.P.S Some good, in depth analysis being provided by you guys, keep up the good work. Many of you have managed to change my opinion on several positions . And since we are not using engines Analysis is everything here, we must really think the entire 3 days on these positions. No one answered me by the way is database searching acceptable ?
|
I want to address this openly and close the argument once and for all.
Most Correspondence Sites
No, in 99% of the cases engines are not encouraged. There is a couple sites - ICCF, IECG, maybe a few more - that lets engine use to happen and give out titles, world championships, etc. (ICCF is basically the correspondence equal of FIDE or USCF, btw.) The rest of the hobby sites prohibit it (in the ToS that noone reads or cares about) and the biggest part of the QQ threads are about who is using it still (basically everyone in the top 5-10% on any given such site) and about how well they can moderate it.
Engine Using
I would like to underline something I must have said a couple times already. This is not 'correspondence' chess. Someone using engines is inevitable, but sad. And many others stated that they wish it wouldn't happen because it would ruin the event like it did almost ruin the last one.
This is a community event. Not about me winning or you winning. If I wanted to play that game of I must win by all means I would have chosen a different opening - maybe one that I have analyzed thirty moves deep - and trollololol myself through the midgame, or just got an easy endgame position. Which otherwise would have been insanely boring for the whole community and would have had no real use for the 95% of people who don't use engines.
I even went out of my way to encourage checking games and databases. Which is completely fine. But that doesn't equal using engines.
Engine Strength
There's like a handful of people in the whole world with enough knowledge about both chess and computer engines to make something better of combining the two, but mostly the end project comes as less than the sum of the elements...
Most people like to delude themselves that they understand why an engine offers or likes a particular move. But they don't. Engines offer a lot of bad or sub-optimal move. And you have to know exactly how they think or where they usually go wrong to make better use of them. And most people simply don't. Not even many titled players of ICCF.
Points like but they wtfpwn GMs, you're just talking out of your ass is invalid. Engine driven chess is different from normal chess, what those grandmasters do against each other. They just get good money and they may try to not look too bad when they are in a match against an engine. But in all honesty - they don't care. And noone really cares about them playing engines aside from people who want to claim chess is doomed because of engines. People care about the real tournaments... Especially so since you can turn on your engine and act like a professional trying to convince others that you're an awesome thinker in chat (strategy forums, anyone?).
Look at the difference between the following two statements:
No I don't suck I checked it with Houdini and it's awesome, you suck.
And...
Upon checking out the position and our possible answers I thought - why not just do this move instead of the ones I had found in books and databases. Upon giving it more thought I couldn't find any immediate refutation of my line and I can't see the long term weakness either. I even mustered up a short plan for some of the main lines I could think of. I double checked it with Houdini and while it didn't agree with all my plans, it does agree that the move itself seems solid and no short term threats are in the air. What do you guys think?
Which person would you trust when they say they won't be using it again in your event?
I do not want to derail the thread more, and go on about where and how engines suck. I stated a couple of times and I will probably do so a million times over in my streams. But this is not the place for it.
This is a community forming event. And I spend my nights on trying to find the lines about which you guys can argue the most, and ones that I might be able to pull up some fancy lines to entertain you. Not the ones that would give me the easiest time, the one that I know the most, the one that would win against an engine, or at least give an easy draw, making me look good. There are times I discard whole variations after hours (4+) of analysis simply because there is one line that might happen that looks kind of boring for you.
Please respect my night hours that I put into this event.
Back in the days Tal sacrificed a pawn and people went 'zomg pawnsacrifice!', now someone sacrifices a pawn and they go '-0.91, blunder'.
|
On September 05 2011 13:12 noclaninator wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Why cxd4 is bad: after 7. cxd4 0-0 we cannot play the material winning move Qe2 anymore because after 8. Qe2 d5 9. exd6 black can safely recapture the pawn with Nxd6 and we play cxd4 leaving us even in material. Qe2 on the other hand leads to the land of happiness after 7. Qe2 d5 8. exd6 when the knight is pinned and hanging and we have a nuisance pawn on d6 that is going to cause some more damage. Play might continue Bf5 9. Nd2 where black really really wants to play Qe7 to break the pin but trollpawn is there to put a stop to that. 7. Qe2 will lead to a more open attacker's game while cxd4 simplifies the position significantly (and doesn't take advantage of the mass brainpower we have). I could go on but no one would read my full post.
Oh come now. I think that it has been shown pretty well that there are enough of us who would read your full post and value your input regardless of whether or not we agree with your analysis or conclusions.
How many minds might be changed (or check back later to see if their minds might be changed) is a different question; regardless, I think my point stands.
Incidentally, while I agree with your conclusion (I also don't particularly like 7. cxd, see my earlier post or just read qrs' analysis and where billmurray ultimately ends up), I don't agree with your analysis as to the whys:
Edit: I nuked my earlier post because it was full of very... erroneous thoughts. It doesn't change my gut feeling, but certainly the analysis was... uh... bad. Yeah. Let's go with the generous "bad".
I'll edit in thoughts on cxd in this post when I've got them organized. Sorry about that.
+ Show Spoiler +
After 7. cxd if black castles, then why don't we just capture the strong dark-squared bishop? Then as far as I care, we can trade pawns till the cows come home and still be up a minor piece, while also robbing black of his strong bishop.
That being said, I also think that now is not the time for castling as + Show Spoiler +black will cheerfully just keep on munching up pawns with that d-pawn as I discussed when we talked about move 5. The tempo we would need to take to stop that pawn, probably via:
7. 0-0 dxc
8. Nxc3 Nxc3
9. bxc3 0-0
and black will have the tempo to castle himself. He can now basically play conservatively and look to a superior endgame (Queenside pawn structure? What queenside pawn structure?).
Aggressively trying to buy time by executing the latent trade threat of the Ruy Lopez with
8. Bxc6 won't help up as
8. ... cxb just forces up to give that tempo right back.
7. Bxc6 looks interesting, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around it. I'm going to look at the lines proposed here a bit more and edit in my thoughts when they are more coherent.
Similarly 7. Nbd2.
7. Qe2 seems safest, but I'm not voting on it just yet. I've finally got some real time this weekend. Let me think on it for real and I'll edit in my vote soon.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Guys, please read the other poster's analysis before you try to argue against a move. I'm trying to provide some helpful analysis here, and I'm still reading posts like picklesickle's suggesting lines which are inferior to ones I already offered. If you think your variation is better than the one I offered, at least explain why.
I'm gonna bump my previous post for anyone who didn't catch it.
On September 05 2011 07:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:After looking through some grandmaster games, I saw that O-O was more commonly played in this position than either cxd4 and Qe2. I decided to take a more thorough look at the move, and here is the conclusion I reached: + Show Spoiler +7. O-O has a distinct advantage over 7. cxd4Black has essentially two options in this position. He can play 7. ... d5, or 7. ... dxc3![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xNd8H.png) Let's look at d5 first. If we play 8. cxd4, we are in a position very similar to the one in the original 7. cxd4 lines. The principle difference between 7. O-O and 7. cxd4 is that we prevent black from having the option of simplifying material. As a general principle, you want to avoid trading off pieces when you have a spatial advantage or an attack going. This reduces the pressure on your opponent and makes equalizing easier. If we played 7. cxd4 Bc4+, black can either trade off our knight, or our bishop, or both. Of course, we shouldn't be too reluctant to trade our "bad" dark squared bishop for blacks dangerous centralized knight, so playing Bd2 isn't much of a problem. After 7. ... d5 8. exd6ep Nxd6 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Qa4, black can't defend the pawn and the threat of Re1+. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SOCk7.png) 10. ... O-O 11. Qxc6, threatening the rook and the bishop. Black must play: 11. ... Nb7 12. cxd4 Bb6 13. Nc3 Rb8 14. Be3, and we are safely a pawn up. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8WbKX.png) Playing castle instead allows us to retain all of the pieces on the board, unless black goes for the dangerous variation: 7. O-O dxc3. This is the primary difference that can arise from playing castling BEFORE cxd4. The rest of the plans by black will reach similar positions with simply an inversion of moves. So let's take a closer look at this possibility. 7. O-O dxc3 8. Qc2![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kepCV.png) Black's best plan here is to secure a material advantage and try to survive white's coming attack. He should play: 8. ... Nxf2 9. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 10. Qxf2 cxb2 11. Bxb2 O-O![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YBcDO.png) Black is up material, but he is behind in development, and all of white's pieces are lining up for a dangerous king-side attack. To clarify the position, let's look at three follow-ups: 12. Nc3. + Show Spoiler +After 12. ... d6 (or d5) 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Nd5, this move grants the knight outpost of d5, and also provides the dangerous tactic later on, Nf6+!![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NfgHK.png) For example, if black plays a normal developing move: 14. ... Be6? 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. Nf6+! gxf6 17. Qg3+ Kh1 18. Qh4, and black can't defend against Bxf6.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MPSLG.png) Another example: 12. ... Ne7? 13. Nf6+! gxf6 14. Bxf6, with Qg3 to follow. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DmEzd.png) Blacks best defense would be to play 12. ... f6, which further weakens his kingside and creates light-square weaknesses. 12. ... d6 (or d5) 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Ne4, setting up the same threat of Nf6+, while also attacking the potentially weak d-pawn to regain material. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qN4AC.png) This move prevents either d6 or d5, because of the threatened mate in 1 at g7 after white's pawn moves, and increases pressure on the king. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yIc8m.png) I think white is favored in these lines. I also think they are more exciting and interesting to play. We can shift our attack to instigate new weaknesses and concessions from black. For these reasons, I've decided to change my vote to: 7. O-O
|
Six more hours guys.
About the roster and everything. Aside from taking off people when they PM me about their leave I sometimes only add new members when I do the final counting after the deadline.
I'm thinking of possible new events for you guys, but I do not want to rush into something I cannot finish. Between this game and my planned stream it will eat up quite a bit of time, so stay tuned!
|
On September 06 2011 06:47 jdseemoreglass wrote:Guys, please read the other poster's analysis before you try to argue against a move. I'm trying to provide some helpful analysis here, and I'm still reading posts like picklesickle's suggesting lines which are inferior to ones I already offered. If you think your variation is better than the one I offered, at least explain why. I'm gonna bump my previous post for anyone who didn't catch it. Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 07:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:After looking through some grandmaster games, I saw that O-O was more commonly played in this position than either cxd4 and Qe2. I decided to take a more thorough look at the move, and here is the conclusion I reached: + Show Spoiler +7. O-O has a distinct advantage over 7. cxd4Black has essentially two options in this position. He can play 7. ... d5, or 7. ... dxc3Let's look at d5 first. If we play 8. cxd4, we are in a position very similar to the one in the original 7. cxd4 lines. The principle difference between 7. O-O and 7. cxd4 is that we prevent black from having the option of simplifying material. As a general principle, you want to avoid trading off pieces when you have a spatial advantage or an attack going. This reduces the pressure on your opponent and makes equalizing easier. If we played 7. cxd4 Bc4+, black can either trade off our knight, or our bishop, or both. Of course, we shouldn't be too reluctant to trade our "bad" dark squared bishop for blacks dangerous centralized knight, so playing Bd2 isn't much of a problem. After 7. ... d5 8. exd6ep Nxd6 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Qa4, black can't defend the pawn and the threat of Re1+. 10. ... O-O 11. Qxc6, threatening the rook and the bishop. Black must play: 11. ... Nb7 12. cxd4 Bb6 13. Nc3 Rb8 14. Be3, and we are safely a pawn up. Playing castle instead allows us to retain all of the pieces on the board, unless black goes for the dangerous variation: 7. O-O dxc3. This is the primary difference that can arise from playing castling BEFORE cxd4. The rest of the plans by black will reach similar positions with simply an inversion of moves. So let's take a closer look at this possibility. 7. O-O dxc3 8. Qc2Black's best plan here is to secure a material advantage and try to survive white's coming attack. He should play: 8. ... Nxf2 9. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 10. Qxf2 cxb2 11. Bxb2 O-OBlack is up material, but he is behind in development, and all of white's pieces are lining up for a dangerous king-side attack. To clarify the position, let's look at three follow-ups: 12. Nc3. + Show Spoiler +After 12. ... d6 (or d5) 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Nd5, this move grants the knight outpost of d5, and also provides the dangerous tactic later on, Nf6+!For example, if black plays a normal developing move: 14. ... Be6? 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. Nf6+! gxf6 17. Qg3+ Kh1 18. Qh4, and black can't defend against Bxf6.Another example: 12. ... Ne7? 13. Nf6+! gxf6 14. Bxf6, with Qg3 to follow. Blacks best defense would be to play 12. ... f6, which further weakens his kingside and creates light-square weaknesses. 12. ... d6 (or d5) 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Ne4, setting up the same threat of Nf6+, while also attacking the potentially weak d-pawn to regain material. This move prevents either d6 or d5, because of the threatened mate in 1 at g7 after white's pawn moves, and increases pressure on the king. I think white is favored in these lines. I also think they are more exciting and interesting to play. We can shift our attack to instigate new weaknesses and concessions from black. For these reasons, I've decided to change my vote to: 7. O-O
Seriously, I feel some people just want to get on the bandwagon and vote what's popular. They really need to think about the move. Maybe we need a rule for next TL chess match, requires at least 3 lines of explanation or something to be a counted vote... I know you might agree with someone 100%, but at least rephrase what their points.
|
Fair enough. I will be sure to not post half-finished thoughts in the future with the intent of future editing.
re. cxd
+ Show Spoiler +
I still don't like this for reasons that we've talked about on previous moves, for reasons given and nuked by myself on this move and for reasons given by numerous others, which all amount to the same basic idea:
If we allow Bb4+ now, we'll simplify at a time when we'd rather keep our pieces so that we can keep the pressure on and thus keep the initiative.
re. Bxc6
+ Show Spoiler +
Too early. White still enjoys a solid development lead, but our pieces aren't quite ready yet. Allowing Black to recapture with the d-pawn might result in fewer threats to our advanced e-pawn, but activates Black's light-squared bishop and queen. Material will equalize after the likely
7. Bxc6 dxc6
8. 0-0 0-0
9. cxd
although 8. cxd seems playable as well.
The result of this seems to be an equal game, but one where our (significant) advantage in initiative and development has evaporated but our (relatively minor) material disadvantage has been recouped.
re. 0-0
+ Show Spoiler +I see the point that both jdseemoreglass and Mr. Prophylactic have made re. the simplification on f2 after Qc2. I'll note that it is rather the same as my concern that I raised when we were debating 5. d4 vs 5. 0-0 as 6. e5 Ne4 being a response, but this position is better for White than the one I outlined at that time. As jdseemoreglass puts it Black is up material, but he is behind in development, and all of white's pieces are lining up for a dangerous king-side attack. I don't know that I'd castle as Black immediately following the simplification, though. You're quite right about that king-side attack. Castling into where your opponent's pieces are pointing isn't the best idea. Admittedly, neither is leaving one's king in the center when the center files are half-open! Black's in a dangerous spot. He's actually got fewer pieces than White [I'm using the distinction of pieces vs pawns here] so while he'd love to trade away and end up at some kind of king+pawns vs king+fewer pawns endgame, that'll be hard. But he has a few pawns he can give up to weather the storm, specifically to get rid of that pesky advanced e-pawn. It seems that he'd rather preserve his Knight and then try to exchange off his d-pawn with the e-pawn to open up lines for his light bishop. Play for Black is going to be on the queenside and he's going to want to get his king over there. However, what if Black plays 7. 0-0 dxc 8. Qc2 f5 ? White can take en passant, but that extricates Black's Knight (admittedly to the much weaker f6 square). The e-file is now open and Black's going to want to get his king off it in a hurry (with the Knight no longer on e4, the f2 pawn is pretty secure). 9. Re1+ can be met with either Ne7 (preserving the other Knight) or Be7. Black gives up his advanced pawn, retains his 1-pawn material lead and tries to catch up in development. This is very similar to the scenario above, only Black has a much smaller pawn lead (1) but retains his pieces. If White does not capture en passant, then what? The goal here, as I understand it, is to retain the initiative and keep Black underdeveloped for a long as possible while mounting a strong kingside attack. Black's lack of queenside development will mean that he has no good way to defend and will either lose in the midgame or be forced to make so many concessions that at worst, material will equalize for the endgame with us in possession of spacial control and at best we'll just have an all-round better endgame. Is that in keeping with other people's direction here? If so, then it seems that again, it is too early for the exchange on c6 for all the same reasons as above. The pawn on c3 is still a problem, so capturing it would be my vote. In keeping with our goals, Nxc3 might be best to put pressure on the e4 Knight. This could transpose into the lines you & Mr. Prophylactic have discussed this move and I voiced on previous moves... or there could just be a Knight exchange on c3 followed by a bishop retreat to either b6 or e7. It is true that the g8-a2 diagonal is weak with this line and that castling kingside is dangerous business for Black.
re. Qe2
+ Show Spoiler +
This move develops the queen into the center and directly attacks the Knight putting the question to Black. Supporting the forward Knight is tricky for Black and likely involves giving back the pawn in order to open the e-file to support it either via Qe7 or Bf5.
After 7. Qe2 a pawn advance is treacherous for Black as either d5 or f5 can be met with
8. dxpawn en passant, attacking the critical e7 square and pinning the Black knight.
A knight sacrifice on f2 gains little for Black in this scenario without the support of the dark bishop, and material will at least equalize.
re. Qc2
*This move is a blunder* My bad.
re. Nbd2
Sorry, this still kinda intrigues me but I honestly haven't thought about it a whole lot. It seems to be a weaker version of Qe2 on the surface, though.
+ Show Spoiler +It seems, ultimately, that 7. 0-0 is a solid option with a lot of intricate, tactical attacking options. I now go back to my very old opinion (back from move 5) that Qe2 is a solid, aggressive move that develops along our goal lines and looks to regain material and perhaps play for a longer game. I think cxd and Bxc6 are both premature and deviate too much from what I see as the plan; ultimately, they will allow black to catch up in development before we can really bring anything to bear. I have nothing solid to say about Nbd2.
Dinner is over and my vote has been cast on the next page.
Cheers.
Edited for content: some revised opinions and some just downright idiocy removed.
|
-deleted-
for those who read this before I deleted it, I stand by what I said as I read, in context, that chesshaha's comments were directed at me. In retrospect, however, it is likely that they were not and that it was a concurrence of events that led me to believe that the object of both posts was the same.
For taking it more personally than I should have, I apologize.
Since chesshaha makes some good points, I do not want to undermine them defending myself from a likely non-existent accusation and wish for them to stand on their own merit to be read and considered by all.
Cheers.
|
7. 0-0
+ Show Spoiler +I don't like cxd4 for many of the reasons noted above: it gives black ample opportunity to simplify the board. Playing 0_0 can give us a fun, tactical game to play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
