EPTTL Chess Match 4 - Page 68
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
Ng5
702 Posts
This is why I mentioned b3-Qc2-f3-Bf2... With Nd2 already made at that time (after the move Qxd4) white would have retained a solid structure without undermining his position. Let me actually check how that game ended. Well I think it would have been cleaner for black with a5. No matter what happens there... If white lets a5-a4 then the b-pawn will be weak. No matter if there's an exchange of the b pawns or white pushes b4. That's more than enough for black to concentrate there and equalize - while he cannot be checkmated himself. Of course if the queens stayed on white would have more to worry about since in some of the lines black can get tricky due to the open line and the double c5 or c5-c6 push, but white had solid maneuvering moves up until or close to the TC. Well anyway... That's enough about the Svidler game. Maybe I'll stay up that late again tonight and will check out the last games. PS: Oooooh, so it's last games with Svid up a point. That's pretty obvious then. Relaxed line where he can hold onto the draw almost no matter what. I don't think he ever seriously thought about winning for more than about his ex-wives during that game... After all if he gets a draw with black he should be able to grab one as white too, and that puts him as champion ezpz. | ||
wuBu
United States83 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
Votes 10. Qa4: 24 (jdseemoreglass, BillMurray, hp.Shell, shackes, Raysalis, LaXerCannon, aphorism, Malli, Chezus, Mabilis, Malinor, TehForce, Ikari, Soluhwin, Mash2, Xaerkar, chesshaha, keyStorm, qrs, EnderSword, Archers_bane, itsjustatank, Misder, wuBu) 10. 0-0: 3 ( 10. Qc2: 1 (RAGEMOAR The Pope) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GZSo2.png) | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On September 19 2011 08:57 Bill Murray wrote: my post was definitely about the game he linked. get over it. It's a good thing I wasn't talking about you. Now I have nothing to get over  | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
On September 18 2011 17:03 qrs wrote: I don't see how you can consider the move in question any more threatening than + Show Spoiler + 10...Bxd2 11. Bxd2, forcing 11... BxB+ (unless Black wants to drop two pawns, or his Bishop) 12. QxB or NxB. Black can force the same position in the 10...Bxd2 line (unless we want to give up a piece for two pawns) by playing 11...Nxd2, so if 10...Nxd2 is threatening, 10...Bxd2 must be just as threatening. (I don't think either one is threatening.) Only threatening if + Show Spoiler + 11. Qxb4. | ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
| ||
|
popzags
Poland604 Posts
10. Qa4 Bxd2+ 11. Nxd2 Bd7 and... 12. Qc2 maybe? Anyway, in my opinion, this line leads to quite drawish endgame with opposite-coloured Bishops. Or maybe there's sth better for 12th move? | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On September 19 2011 19:41 popzags wrote: Again, we don't have to play + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + 10. Qa4 Bxd2+ 11. Nxd2 Bd7 and... 12. Qc2 maybe? Anyway, in my opinion, this line leads to quite drawish endgame with opposite-coloured Bishops. Or maybe there's sth better for 12th move? 11. Nxd2 to trade off our Knight. If you don't want to reduce to opposite-colored Bishops, then vote for 11. Bxd2 instead. This all may be academic, though, as Ng5 has hinted that he may sacrifice a pawn instead of going for a line where he keeps all his material. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On September 19 2011 20:17 qrs wrote: Again, we don't have to play + Show Spoiler + 11. Nxd2 to trade off our Knight. If you don't want to reduce to opposite-colored Bishops, then vote for 11. Bxd2 instead. This all may be academic, though, as Ng5 has hinted that he may sacrifice a pawn instead of going for a line where he keeps all his material. Yes, I'm waiting to see what Ng5 actually plays before I put too much time and effort into analyzing the two options there. If Ng5 does play for that line, I will probably do a write up on the pros and cons of each option. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
| ||
|
Sisyphus
3 Posts
Here is a line that allows white to get a small positional edge, but will still mostly likely be draw as blacks bishop will compensate . Qa4 BxN+ BxN(avoiding opposite colored bishops , our knight can head toward the c5 post) NXB NXN Bd7 Qa3 f6 f4 Qe7 QXQ(=ish ending ..qa3 tries for more)KxQ Nb3 Rhb8 0-0 a4 Rf2 Rb4 Rd1 After we get the knight to c5 white has a more straightforward position with the passed e- pawn imo, and the ability of the knight to remove any e6 blockaders Edit : although the position is a dead draw . But that cannot be helped, The game has already reached a drawish position. Kf1 a few moves back would have been more of a fighting game. Or castles instead of cxd4 several moves back . This line we have chosen is begging draw | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On September 20 2011 01:39 Sisyphus wrote: The moves in your line seem plausible enough (though surely not guaranteed), but how you can say that this leads to a "dead draw" is beyond me. Endgames are notoriously complex, to the extent that they demand years of study to master, and can baffle even the best of computers. Yes, there are certain endgames, such as those featuring opposite-colored Bishops, where, relying on centuries of theory, we can say things like "dead drawn", but when it comes to a more complicated endgame, like the one under discussion, I don't think we can say more than "this side has such and such advantage; it is unclear whether he can convert it to a win".+ Show Spoiler + Here is a line that allows white to get a small positional edge, but will still mostly likely be draw as blacks bishop will compensate . Qa4 BxN+ BxN(avoiding opposite colored bishops , our knight can head toward the c5 post) NXB NXN Bd7 Qa3 f6 f4 Qe7 QXQ(=ish ending ..qa3 tries for more)KxQ Nb3 Rhb8 0-0 a4 Rf2 Rb4 Rd1 After we get the knight to c5 white has a more straightforward position with the passed e- pawn imo, and the ability of the knight to remove any e6 blockaders Edit : although the position is a dead draw . But that cannot be helped, The game has already reached a drawish position. Kf1 a few moves back would have been more of a fighting game. Or castles instead of cxd4 several moves back . This line we have chosen is begging draw For a striking illustration of how complex endgames can be, consider the moderately famous "Stiller's Mate", discovered by Lewis Stiller 20 years ago: ![[image loading]](http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/stiller2.GIF) White to play and mate How would you assess the position in the diagram? Can you really see a difference between this and, let us say, the same board with the Black Knight on c2 moved to d2? Yet the latter position is dead drawn, whereas the position shown in the diagram is a win for White--though it takes him 262 moves to convert (this ignores the 50-move rule, which is necessary to chess precisely and only because of our human limitations at assessing positions like this). The only way that we are able to evaluate this positions at all is by use of an elaborate computer program that works backwards to solve the endgame from the bottom up--itself a remarkable thing, but the point here is that human intuition is irrelevant to an endgame like this. And there are only six pieces on the board here! When you look at a much more crowded board, such as the one in your line, and pronounce it "dead drawn": well, forgive me for being skeptical that your assessment is the be-all and end-all. | ||
|
EvilNalu
United States91 Posts
| ||
|
Cloud9157
United States2968 Posts
Should require little to no explanation, but I will give one if asked for it. | ||
|
Sisyphus
3 Posts
On September 20 2011 02:25 qrs wrote: The moves in your line seem plausible enough (though surely not guaranteed), but how you can say that this leads to a "dead draw" is beyond me. Endgames are notoriously complex, to the extent that they demand years of study to master, and can baffle even the best of computers. Yes, there are certain endgames, such as those featuring opposite-colored Bishops, where, relying on centuries of theory, we can say things like "dead drawn", but when it comes to a more complicated endgame, like the one under discussion, I don't think we can say more than "this side has such and such advantage; it is unclear whether he can convert it to a win". For a striking illustration of how complex endgames can be, consider the moderately famous "Stiller's Mate", discovered by Lewis Stiller 20 years ago: White to play and mate How would you assess the position in the diagram? Can you really see a difference between this and, let us say, the same board with the Black Knight on c2 moved to d2? Yet the latter position is dead drawn, whereas the position shown in the diagram is a win for White--though it takes him 262 moves to convert (this ignores the 50-move rule, which is necessary to chess precisely and only because of our human limitations at assessing positions like this). The only way that we are able to evaluate this positions at all is by use of an elaborate computer program that works backwards to solve the endgame from the bottom up--itself a remarkable thing, but the point here is that human intuition is irrelevant to an endgame like this. And there are only six pieces on the board here! When you look at a much more crowded board, such as the one in your line, and pronounce it "dead drawn": well, forgive me for being skeptical that your assessment is the be-all and end-all. Yeah a little early to put "dead" in there. But with optimal play the position already seems drawish if he exchanges down, and that is what I was reffering to . I may have over embellished a little lol You are correct the position after the exchanges isn't completely " dead" ... yet . I mainly meant the current lines after cxd4 are being more drawish as opposed to the kf1 lines. The KF1 lines, and the lines of castling instead of of playing cxd4 gave us more of a fighting position imo. I also prefer having the dynamic game of a knight versus bishop for any attempt at trying to squeeze a win out of this , that is the main points you should focus on from that post . However , as long as one pair of heavy pieces remain, the opposite colored bishop ending can lead to attacking chances for one side, as opposing color complexes will be weak, however in this position i find this to be very unlikely . P.S I really was not trying to start an argument of semantics, the position may not be technically "dead" after all the exchanges, but I really do not see any ways for either side to make progress with optimal play . The reason I prefer a knight on bishop imbalance for the ending is so we have any chance of removing a future e6 blockade and steer toward a KVK ending where we could get winning chances. But with pawns on both sides the bishop will retain a slight edge toward overworking our knight, at least in theory. However once again, the c5 post is a fairly advanced post and does hit the critical e6 square . As far as your diagram is concerned that is a position that a table-base can solve, and I have not been looking at it for days as I have this one; as far as I know there are not any 26 piece table-bases in existence  ; programs are notorious for not understanding how to evaluate endgames very well( as far as a + or - goes in value as they tend to overvalue material advantages over positional ones). EXAMPLE: Like some programs will have itself up 3 points or something in a blind bishop ending where it is up an entire bishop, but it is dead drawn if I have the queening square. Until the position hits its table-base, or gets within it's horizon it will go on thinking it is winning in a blind bishop ending.As a matter of fact you could put as many bishops as you wanted as long as they are all blind in color, it could be up 40 bishops and still would be a draw . It really just depends on the program, and how well setup it is. Also have a rook and two pawns fortress versus a queen and many programs will think it is winning with the queen and try forever to progress (any program without tablebases would think it was winning). It was even worse before table-bases advanced so much. pps one of my all time favorite endgame techniques I ever learned was how to mate with a knight and bishop . I highly recommend learning this for anyone that hasn't yet, it really helped me learn how to use a knight and bishop together. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
timh
Netherlands47 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On September 20 2011 04:01 Sisyphus wrote: We don't have to call it an "argument", but this is exactly why we should clarify our semantics, so that it's clear what each of us means when we say something.P.S I really was not trying to start an argument of semantics, the position may not be technically "dead" after all the exchanges, but I really do not see any ways for either side to make progress with optimal play. Arguably, from the starting position of the game one can't see a clear way for either side to make progress with optimal play, but no one would call the starting position "dead drawn". Both sides still have the ability to make meaningful plans. I'd argue that that's the case here as well. As far as your diagram is concerned that is a position that a table-base can solve, and I have not been looking at it for days as I have this one; as far as I know there are not any 26 piece table-bases in existence I think you may have been missing the point I wanted to make with that diagram: of course it's beyond the ability of any human to solve it, and yes, the endgame we may face, with many more pieces on the board, is presumably much more complicated than that. That was my point: if even such a relatively simple position cannot be assessed as "won" or "drawn" at a glance, then surely we can't write off a complicated endgame like the one in question as certainly "drawn". If, then, for all we know the endgame is technically won, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable to think that we might find a way to win it. Yes, we are only human, and won't have tablebases, but the same goes for our opponent. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
| ||
