|
What's wrong with f4?
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Ernie. posted:What's wrong with f4? It opens lines for black without giving white anything. Black seizes the diagonal with Qh5+, and white isn't really threatening to take on e5 since he probably can't survive opening the line on the d3 pawn. Black will probably continue with some sort of Qg4=>Nh5=>Nf4 idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
To those that know chess notation by heart: Did you actively teach yourself it or did you just naturally learn it by playing the game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Highly Unnecessary posted:To those that know chess notation by heart: Did you actively teach yourself it or did you just naturally learn it by playing the game? It's not very complicated, so you pick it up very quickly once you're actually using it. Like most people, I imagine, I started by only remembering the piece names, then slowly looking over the coordinates when writing down my moves (with frequent mistakes). Now that I'm teaching, the notation lesson is quite early in the curriculum but the kids (as young as grade 2) seem to by and large understand it very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Assuming we're talking Algebraic, I had the same experience as Hand Knit. I barely know Descriptive, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
With modern notation, I can often visualize the board up to about 20 moves, depending on the position. Descriptive notation, however, requires me to have a board in front of me. It's a shame because some of the best annotated collections were written as 10. ... QBxKN, which makes me immediately go, "Wait, where was that goddamn king's knight again?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Descriptive isn't really any harder to learn, it's just super-hard to avoid mistakes because of how the coordinate system changes. But there isn't really much reason to learn it these days anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Highly Unnecessary posted:To those that know chess notation by heart: Did you actively teach yourself it or did you just naturally learn it by playing the game? I started my chess career using descriptive because that was pretty much the standard then. I switched to algebraic when I got my first chess computer and was really happy with the change. Also, I taught a chess class for a semester at a local grade school and one of the first things I did was to play a game of battleship with the kids using a chess board and white pawns for misses and black pawns for hits. They picked up the notation quickly after that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
I thought it would just be a matter of practice but after near-daily use of algebraic I still have to count squares for the middle of the board. Are there any exercises specific to memorizing the square names that would help?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Roflex posted:I thought it would just be a matter of practice but after near-daily use of algebraic I still have to count squares for the middle of the board. Are there any exercises specific to memorizing the square names that would help? Don't think of it as looking for a particular square but rather as the intersection of the rank and file. Get a board with the rank numbers and file letters printed on the border.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
dee eight posted:Also, I taught a chess class for a semester at a local grade school and one of the first things I did was to play a game of battleship with the kids using a chess board and white pawns for misses and black pawns for hits. They picked up the notation quickly after that. This is brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
For the first time in more or less ever, I'm studying tactics. I haven't been playing much, but I think it's paying off. First, a blitz game against an anonymous Bulgarian IM: 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Ng3 e6 7. Bd3 Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. Re1 b6 10. Ne5 Bb7 11. Bg5 Qc7 12. Qe2 Rfe8 13. Rad1 h6 14. Bf4 Nd5  15. Bxh6 Bxe5 16. dxe5 gxh6 17. Qh5 Nf8 18. Qxh6 f5 19. exf6 e5 20. Re4 Nf4 21. Bc4+ N8e6 22. Nh5 Qh7 23. Qg5+ Qg6 24. Rxe5 Qxg5 25. Rxg5+ Kh8 26. Rf5 b5 27. Bxe6 Nxe6 28. f7 Red8 29. Re1 Nf8 30. Rf6 Kh7 31. g4 Rd5 32. h4 Rad8 33. Re8 c5 34. g5 c4 35. Rh6# 1-0 I've also been trying to relearn the French Advance, and when black doesn't really know what to do things can get violent. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 e5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Nge7 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4 Nf5 9. Bb2 Bd7 10. g4 Nh6 11. Rg1 Rc8 12. Nc3 Be7 13. Na4 Qc7 14. Bd3 O-O 15. Rc1 Qb8 16. Nc5 Be8 17. Rc3 Nd8 18. Bc1 Qa8  19. Bxh6 gxh6 20. Bb1 f6 21. exf6 Bxf6 22. g5 hxg5 23. Nxg5 Bxg5 24. Rxg5+ Kh8 25. Rh3 Rc7 26. Bxh7 Rxh7 27. Rxh7+ Kxh7 28. Qg4 Nf7 29. Rg7+ Kh8 30.Qg6 1-0
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
I've decided to challenge everybody in the OP's list of chess.com players, and post the results as they come. I'll probably do it three or four at a time. I think it'll be a great opportunity to sharpen up my trash talk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Challenge me too! aggrosa My rating is hilariously inflated from playing ranked games again the same people over and over again, so I need it drop back down to reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
I've challenged eight people from the OP list but haven't heard back yet from six. Counting those as forfeits, and pencilling in the HandKnit match as a win for me (I'm down a piece and two pawns, but feeling quietly confident) then I'm currently 7 and 1. Not too shabby.Aggro posted:My rating is hilariously inflated from playing ranked games again the same people over and over again, so I need it drop back down to reality. Good attempt there, champ, but you'll have to try harder next time. code:Mr Matey fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Uggghh throwing a winning game to a perpetual check is the worst feeling. I'd rather blunder a queen.  e: the game (I was black) http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=88713276 Highly Unnecessary fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Aggro posted:Challenge me too! aggrosa Artificially-inflated ratings can be a killer. Wait, I meant the opposite...
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Anybody want to play a few games? I'm jawaka (or Capuano) on chess.com. I prefer Live games, but I'll play correspondence, too! Just shoot me a friend request.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
More fun blowing people up in the French Advance. I don't know what this person was going for in the opening - maybe to shut down white's light-squared bishop? 1. e4 d5 2. d4 e6 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 a6 6. Bd3 f5 7. O-O cxd4 8. Nxd4 Nxe5 9. Bxf5 exf5 10. Re1 Bd6 11. f4 Ne7 12. fxe5 Bc5 13. Kh1 Bxd4 14. cxd4 Nc6 15. Qh5+ g6 16. Qh6 Qc7 17. Nc3 Be6 18. Bg5 Nxd4 19. Rac1 Nc6 20. Ne2 Qf7 21. Nf4 Rc8 22. Rc5 Rc7  23. Rxd5 Bxd5 24. e6 Bxg2+ 25. Kxg2 Qf8 26. Nd5 Re7 27. Qh4 h6 28. Bxe7 Nxe7 29. Rc1 g5 30. Nc7+ Kd8 31. Qd4+ Kc8 32. Nb5+ Nc6 33. Rxc6+ Kb8 34. Qa7# 1-0
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Gawd I hated playing against the french. I almost swore off 1.e4 because of it. Here's one of my fave chessic things, the Estonian 5 Krooni note: 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
dee eight posted:Gawd I hated playing against the french. I almost swore off 1.e4 because of it. It really is horrible. I avoided it with a King's Indian Attack for several years, and am just now moving back to the Advance line because I think it gives white better chances of winning. I'm now playing through a themed correspondence tournament (thus the goofy move order to start) for practice.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
I enjoy playing against the French. I've started playing the Alekhine-Chatard Attack in the classical 3.Nc3 variation.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Should you reasonably be expected to checkmate in a Queen + King vs King endgame? I played one game today and the endgame was basically two knights and 3 pawns versus the same. I had the queen and we had to leave before we finished.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Yes, Q+K (and R+K) vs K are elementary mates and you can learn them pretty easily. Others include B+B+K and B+N+K, but B+N+K is quite difficult to learn and much more difficult to master.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Chessnetwork has a good video on B+N+K endings.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Kheldragar posted:Should you reasonably be expected to checkmate in a Queen + King vs King endgame? I played one game today and the endgame was basically two knights and 3 pawns versus the same. I had the queen and we had to leave before we finished. Learning how to do this was the first step for me having even an inkling of an understanding of chess. That and just drilling basic tactics. King plus rook, also.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
What do you all think of studying endings as a way for the average club player (1200-1800) to improve? This method was advocated by Capablanca and a few other masters. It seems some modern players agree. For example, the book Amateur to IM by IM Jonathan Hawkins is basically an endgame manual. However, I rarely reach positions resembling those analyzed in endgame manuals. The endgame for me usually consists of a bunch of pawns and one or two minor pieces for each side. Knowing, for example, the details of how to draw or win K v K+P hasn't ever helped me. GM Svidler says basically the same thing starting at about 2:40 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paHdsGkP7nI. (I stole that link from the review of Hawkins's book here, which has some discussion of studying endgames as an improvement method.) I've been convinced by Svidler's argument and am now studying mostly tactics and calculation exercises, with a little blindfold training thrown in for fun. What are your thoughts? buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 02:00 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
As far as books on the endgame, I liked Averbakh's Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge. It's more focused on theory than practice and I found it sharpened up my endgame play in a rather broad spectrum way rather than in specific endings like K+B+P v K+N+P. http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Endings-Essential-Knowledge-Averbakh/dp/0080118224
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:What do you all think of studying endings as a way for the average club player (1200-1800) to improve? This method was advocated by Capablanca and a few other masters. It seems some modern players agree. For example, the book Amateur to IM by IM Jonathan Hawkins is basically an endgame manual. First get to the point where you can reliably get to an endgame with equal material, then begin studying endgames. The confidence alone will get you a long ways.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Focus on what is costing you the most games. If it's middle game tactics, then do those. If you're giving away results in the end game, study that.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice. I recently downloaded SCID in order to analyze my games. What does the "rating" of a game mean? I'm baffled. It's not anything to do with player ELO. 
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 04:55 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Hmmmm, I would guess it's some kind of extra system where you can rank how much you liked the games listed.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
 I just got this position playing the black pieces in a 5/2 game on Chess.com against some dude (dudette maybe, I have no idea) rated 1234. Being very, very bad I roll at just under 1000 most times. I knew I wasn't losing at all, but I have a habit of executing quite solid plans extremely poorly, so I wasn't confident of a win. I was certain they'd play a4 and we'd end up trading down a bunch taking the queens off the board and I might end up swapping both bishops for a rook and that knight, but then my king safety is utter garbage and they're holed up in a fianchetto fortress so I didn't think I was ahead by much. But then they played Nf5 and I couldn't stop grinning. It's too good a feeling when you've got such a simple attack that doesn't look that devastating until you realise that their Queen has absolutely nowhere to go. They tried a couple of desperate checks with that knight, but once those ran out they just disconnected, I assume in a big old huff.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
How do you guys get better at blitz chess. I'm forever stuck in ELO hell for 3 minute ICC. I'm pretty good at slow chess it's just that I don't know my openings that well and I can't calculate quickly, both which doesn't bode well for me. I get good wins against 1800+ in 3 minute but I also get flagged by 1200 :/.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:
Just making sure, you're saying Ba5, right? They can at least sac their rook...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Just making sure, you're saying Ba5, right? They can at least sac their rook... Yes, but after ...dxc3 if Qc1 then ...c2, Rf1 Rxe2, Be3 Bd2, then the best they've got is Bxe2, their Queen dies anyway and I'm just gobbling material. That knight's hosed. If bxc3 then ...c4, g4 (I guess) cxd3, exd3 Rxe1+, Qxe1 and I assume either Bxb7 and again I'm munching on pawns like nobody's business, or Bf1 Qf3 and we're just going to trade down to an endgame where I'm up a rook and a couple of pawns. Nf5 cost him a good 7-8 points of material at the very least, and he's properly hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Yes, but after ...dxc3 if Qc1 then ...c2, Rf1 Rxe2, Be3 Bd2, then the best they've got is Bxe2, their Queen dies anyway and I'm just gobbling material. That knight's hosed. If bxc3 then ...c4, g4 (I guess) cxd3, exd3 Rxe1+, Qxe1 and I assume either Bxb7 and again I'm munching on pawns like nobody's business, or Bf1 Qf3 and we're just going to trade down to an endgame where I'm up a rook and a couple of pawns. Nf5 cost him a good 7-8 points of material at the very least, and he's properly hosed. Ba5 Rc3 dxc3 bxc3 c4 d4 Still great for you, no question, down effectively a rook, but at least it's not a rook and multiple pawns? Anyway, yeah, definitely Ba5 is the best move there and it's winning.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Why would they have played d4 though? That gives away the knight with Qxf5.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why would they have played d4 though? That gives away the knight with Qxf5. *shrug* I'm rusty? 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Just finished a weekend tournament where, in my games, black went +4. I'll try to have the games up soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 03:21
|
|