|
As someone who is literally in the process of obtaining a refund of my Kickstarter pledge for the Square Off Neo, I would recommend not giving that shitshow of a company money.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Mode 7 posted:As someone who is literally in the process of obtaining a refund of my Kickstarter pledge for the Square Off Neo, I would recommend not giving that shitshow of a company money. Well poo poo. I have two on order for myself and a gift. Can you elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Crossposting from the cursed images thread:boo_radley posted:how can we make chess worse, no wrong answers
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:Crossposting from the cursed images thread: Mods please change my name to Evil Boobs Cult
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
empathe posted:Well poo poo. I have two on order for myself and a gift. Can you elaborate? tldr; poo poo and frequently misleading communication, bunch of red flags for the health of the product and the company. Bit rambling because I'm tired but as near a summary I can recall: Production time for the Kickstarter has been blown out considerably. Originally, they were scheduled to deliver in June 2020. Obviously COVID has had an unprecedented impact on the world, impacting factories, shipping and pretty much all aspects of life, and that's fine and expected, but what's become clear over the last three years is that they drastically misrepresented how close to getting these boards into mass production they were. Most people were pretty understanding that COVID obviously delayed them starting production as they had planned, but as things got moving again their, updates started to focus on how they'd changed they designs of the board or discovered engineering problems that they were now working to correct. It felt like every monthly update came with a new engineering tweak or tolerance issue and it rapidly became clear that they hadn't actually finished developing the drat boards and the mechanical systems inside them. Communication from them became vague at this point and the only responses that backers got to questions were the same stock copy/pasted replies that didn't actually address any concerns. They then launched a separate crowdfunding campaign on IndieGoGo promising delivery of the boards in an impossibly short timeframe - when they did this, Kickstarter backers hadn't even been given a date that their boards would start shipping. Naturally that lead to a bit of a backlash - and Kickstarter backers flooding the IGG comments to warn people that there was no way they were getting their boards in that sort of timeframe given the yet-to-be-fulfilled Kickstarter. IGG eventually closed their campaign to stop them taking in additional backers but there's a number of IGG backers who are now stuck in the same boat as the Kickstarter folks and notably they've updated the campaign status to specify that they're in the prototype stage, not manufacturing. The founders then sold the company to an AI/robotics firm who were coming on board to take over development of the app component for the boards and help them with production. They began shipping the Square Off Neos to US backers, in batches of around 100 at a time. Their plan was to keep shipping out boards to the US and get feedback on how it was going, then use that feedback to improve the boards for the rest of the world. What if you were in the US and got one of the worse boards? Who knows? gently caress you I guess? By now, every update had some sort of shipping date that would inevitably be completely blown past with no comment or update and details were general or nonexistent. They also put up a google doc with the proof of shipping for some of the boards but then had to take it down because instead of redacting info they'd just covered it with black highlighter text so you could just highlight it to reveal a bunch of PII and business addresses so they had to take it down again  After ignoring and ducking the question for a while they finally admitted why deliveries were only going to the US and why nobody else had a board -- the boards have yet to pass EU certification and so can't be shipped anywhere but the US for the moment. Frankly at this point I'm not convinced they'll even pass certification without another year of tweaking and delays. In this entire time there's been one single video of an actual end-product manufactured (Neo) board being played, and that's it. The Swap is an even more complex product and I don't think they've even managed to ship any of those yet. That hasn't stopped them putting up Facebook ads for the Neo and the Swap, again with completely impossible dates. Buried in a reply to a comment on their latest Kickstarter update they've finally confessed that as they suspect EU certification is 8 weeks away (I bet it'll be longer!) they're going to start shipping boards to fulfill the IndieGoGo US backers ahead of any non-US Kickstarter backers. What eventually made me pull the plug is that I suspect the company is barely keeping its head above water financially, even with the buyout from the AI/robotics group, given that they keep frantically trying to sell more and more boards before they've managed to produce more than 500 of one type of the two boards they originally took orders for. The board is entirely app driven - if Square Off fold, that app is likely going to wind up eventually falling by the wayside as it no longer receives updates, and eventually you'll just be left with a useless board. If you do demand a refund, they only return 80%, claiming the other 20% is for kickstarter fees, payment processing fees, and currency conversion charges. I would rather have 80% of my money back and no board than 0% of my money and no board, and at this point I suspect I'm going to be happier with 80% of my money back than the actual board itself if they do somehow manage to deliver.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 13:08
|
|
|
Mode 7 posted:tldr; poo poo and frequently misleading communication, bunch of red flags for the health of the product and the company. Yikes, wow, oof. Trying to cancel my orders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Playing a weekender. Here's my round 1 game annotated with immediate thoughts. This should copy/paste into a pgn reader. [Round "1"] [WhiteElo "1773"] [BlackElo "2124"] [ECO "B41"] {90 minutes plus 30 seconds per move} 1.e4 {All her white games in the database had been (Jobava) London.} 1...c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Be2 {Niekans/Kovalenko give this move a chapter in their book. They describe it as modern and extremely sharp. I've never reviewed it because I've never run into it before in a game, OTB or online.} 5...Nf6 6.Qd3 Qc7 {Cognizant of Qg3} ( 6...e5 7.Nb3 Nc6 8.c4 Nb4 9.Qc3 Nxe4 10.Qxe5+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Bxe7 12.Na3 O-O {Neikans/Kovalenko line (with c4). They prefer black because of activity. This position is very non-obvious to me.} ) 7.O-O Nc6 {Not particularly sure of this move, but I would like to challenge the centre quickly. I think my idea backfired, and I should try something else next time.} 8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.Be3 Bd7 10.c4 c5 11.Nc3 Be7 12.f4 {Black is very cramped, and I don't see an obvious way out. Since there's only one open file, I try to hold on to it.} 12...Rd8 13.e5 Bc6 14.Qc2 Nd7 ( 14...Ng8 15.g4 {I was worried about this idea, stopping the knight from getting to f5.} ) 15.Ne4 O-O {I played this hastily. I saw the Nxe5 tactic after.} ( 15...Nxe5 16.fxe5 Qxe5 17.Bd3 Bxe4 18.Bxe4 f5 19.Bf4 Qxe4 20.Qxe4 fxe4 21.Be5 {Maybe it is worth it to wait to castle, since black's king feels a bit loose in the centre and white can maybe recuperate both pawns.} ) 16.Rad1 Nxe5 17.Nc3 ( 17.fxe5 Qxe5 18.Bd3 Bxe4 19.Bxe4 f5 ) ( 17.Nxc5 {This seemed like the best shot for white. In fact, I think there's a chance that white's still a bit better by virtue of the queenside majority even if the attack is no longer critical.} 17...Nd7 ( 17...Ng6 18.g3 ) ( 17...Bxg2 18.Kxg2 Bxc5 19.Bxc5 Qxc5 {Black no longer recaptures with check.} 20.fxe5 ) 18.Ne4 Nf6 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.b4 {I feel like black has decent pressure up the middle and towards the king, but I'm not sure if that's enough to manage white's queenside pawns.} ) 17...Nd7 {I think my position is still stuck passive enough that white has some measure of compensation, but there also doesn't seem to be any attacking chances for white anymore. Black should eventually consolidate and win, unless black's so passive that white has something with g4-f5.} 18.Bf3 Nf6 19.Ne4 h6 {A waiting move. I'm happy to exchange minors but don't want to end with white's queen on e4.} 20.b3 b6 {I'm not thrilled at this move. I thought a dark-squared bishop endgame was likely, and I didn't want my far pawns fixed on dark squares for that.} 21.Bc1 {I would like to play Qb7 and use good trades to end up with Bd4, controlling the centre.} 21...Rxd1 {This is partially based on a calculation error, though I wanted to trade one pair of rooks.} ( 21...Qb7 22.Rde1 {I didn't want to go into the R+B endgame that would follow from the simplifications on e4.} 22...Nxe4 23.Bxe4 Bxe4 24.Qxe4 Qxe4 25.Rxe4 Bf6 26.Be3 Rd3 {I think black should win this endgame, but I thought the line I had was better.} ) 22.Rxd1 Rd8 $2 {I missed that white can take on f6 first.} ( 22...Qb7 23.Nd2 Rd8 ) 23.Nxf6+ ( 23.Rxd8+ Bxd8 24.Nxf6+ Bxf6 {Big difference if the bishop ends on f6 or d8.} ) 23...Bxf6 24.Rxd8+ Bxd8 25.Bxc6 Qxc6 26.Bb2 Bc7 ( 26...Qd6 27.Be5 Qd7 28.Qe4 f6 {White's bishop is going to be a bit loose wherever it goes.} ) ( 26...Bh4 27.g3 Be7 {I was tempted to try keep the bishop on this diagonal just to meet Qc3 with Bf6, but if white doesn't play that the bishop is just passive.} ) 27.Be5 $2 {I think the queen endgame is quite straightforwardly lost as the remaining pawn on e5 is very weak.} 27...Bxe5 28.fxe5 Qd7 29.Qe2 ( 29.Qe4 Qd4+ 30.Qxd4 cxd4 31.Kf2 f6 32.exf6 gxf6 33.b4 Kf7 {The pawn endgame is simply winning.} ) 29...Qd4+ 30.Kf1 h5 $5 {Not just taking space but securing g4 for my queen.} 31.g3 ( 31.Qxh5 Qa1+ 32.Kf2 Qxa2+ 33.Kg1 Qxb3 {The a-pawn will convert.} ) 31...Qg4 32.Qb2 ( 32.Qxg4 hxg4 33.Ke2 f5 34.Ke3 g5 {White's king can't defend on the queenside for fear of f4.} ) ( 32.Qd3 Qf5+ 33.Qxf5 exf5 34.h4 f6 35.exf6 g6 36.Ke2 Kf7 37.Kf3 Kxf6 38.Kf4 Kf7 39.Kg5 Kg7 40.a3 a5 41.Kf4 ( 41.a4 Kf7 42.Kh6 Kf6 43.Kh7 g5 ) 41...Kf6 42.a4 g5+ 43.hxg5+ Kg6 ) 32...Qf3+ 33.Kg1 Qe4 {White is stuck.} 34.Qa3 a5 35.Qa4 Kh7 {Black takes a2 with check, so this makes sure white can't recapture another pawn with tempo.} 36.Qe8 Qb1+ 37.Kg2 Qxa2+ 38.Kh3 Qf2 39.Qb8 g5 0-1
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 04:48
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Playing a weekender. Here's my round 1 game annotated with immediate thoughts. This should copy/paste into a pgn reader. I just created a new study chapter called "Hand Knit v. Small Child" just to check these out. I find reading annotated games super enlightening so thanks for sharing it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:15.Ne4 O-O {I played this hastily. I saw the Nxe5 tactic after.} ( 15...Nxe5 16.fxe5 Qxe5 17.Bd3 Bxe4 18.Bxe4 f5 19.Bf4 Qxe4 20.Qxe4 fxe4 21.Be5 {Maybe it is worth it to wait to castle, since black's king feels a bit loose in the centre and white can maybe recuperate both pawns.} ) I don't understand why 15...Nxe5 would be good! It looks good for black in your analysis line, but stockfish says white should play 17. Bf3, not 17. Bd3, and that's like +4 I think 15...O-O was a good move
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:I don't understand why 15...Nxe5 would be good! It looks good for black in your analysis line, but stockfish says white should play 17. Bf3, not 17. Bd3, and that's like +4 After 17.Bf3 I had planned to play f5 but I guess it doesn't work. Does white have 18.Bf4 or something? e: I see I missed Qc3. Just as well she believed me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:I just created a new study chapter called "Hand Knit v. Small Child" just to check these out. I find reading annotated games super enlightening so thanks for sharing it! Here's the next one. Not quite as successful but I guess it's fair since I swindled him hard last year. [WhiteElo "2124"] [BlackElo "1860"] [ECO "A18"] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Bb5 {This was about as far as I remember the line.} 7...Nxc3 {I don't think this was covered in the file. I took back with the b-pawn because I don't remember white ever taking dxc3, but it seems like it might be reasonable here.} ( 7...Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.d4 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.Be3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Na5 13.Qb1 Bg6 14.Bd3 Qd7 15.Bg5 $14 ) 8.bxc3 a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.d4 Be7 11.O-O {I'm not completely what to do here. I decided to play for exchanging the dark-squared bishop, because I think once black's bishop pair is gone white has a slight advantage by virtue of the central and kingside control, along with the pawn structure, being better than black's control of the b-file.} 11...O-O 12.Bf4 {I'm not completely what to do here. I decided to play for exchanging the dark-squared bishop, because I think once black's bishop pair is gone white has a slight advantage by virtue of the central and kingside control, along with the pawn structure, being better than black's control of the b-file.} ( 12.Qa4 Bd7 13.Ba3 c5 ) ( {[%cal Ge1d3] } 12.Ne1 {I considered rearranging the knight to d3, but I think getting the bishop pair off first is right.} ) 12...Bf5 13.Qd2 Rb8 14.Bg5 Rb6 15.Rfc1 {Cognitive error. I decided to play Rac1 but ended up playing Rfc1 by accident. I don't think there's a huge difference in evaluation, but I think having my rooks central-kingside is preferable to leaving a rook on a1 to defend a2.} 15...Bxg5 16.Nxg5 h6 ( 16...f6 17.exf6 Qxf6 18.Nf3 {I'm not completely sure how to evaluate this. I think white is still better because Rb2 doesn't promise much for black and white will eventually bring the rooks through the e-file. However, black's immediate attack looks intimidating and maybe there's an idea with c5 and Rg6/h6.[%cal Gf3e5]} ) 17.Nf3 Be4 18.Ne1 {Black effective gives white the tempi to play a plan I wanted to play anyway.} 18...f6 19.Nd3 ( 19.f3 Bf5 20.c4 dxc4 21.Rxc4 Be6 {[%cal Ge6d5] Despite the bad c-pawns, I thought that black's bishop stood very well on d5.} ) 19...Bxd3 20.Qxd3 fxe5 ( 20...Rb2 21.Rc2 ) 21.dxe5 Qg5 22.Re1 ( 22.Qe2 Rf4 {[%cal Gf4e4] } ) 22...Re8 {I suspect white is winning with best play from here, but I'm very unsure how to proceed. I tried to aggressively take space with the e-pawn, but that ended up failing for tactical reasons. Is there a standard setup/plan for converting such positions?} 23.Qe2 Reb8 24.e6 {Trying to tie black to the defence of the e-pawn.} ( {[%cal Gf2f4] } 24.g3 {Maybe the slower approach is better. Rb2 does not seem to promise black very much, as white can just play Re2.} ) 24...c5 $1 {I didn't see this idea at all. Now black's offside rook is participating again. I still think white is better.} 25.Rad1 Rd6 26.Rd3 Re8 27.e7 Qf5 28.Rf3 Qe4 29.Re3 Qg6 30.Re5 {I played this move lacksadaisically because I thought I was easily comfortable with the rook active. Because black ends up with a tactical defence after the Q is on f7, maybe another move was better.} 30...Qf7 31.Qd3 ( 31.g3 d4 32.Rxc5 ( 32.Qd3 c4 ) ( 32.Qe4 d3 33.Rf5 Rxe7 34.Rxf7 ( 34.Qxe7 Qxe7 35.Rxe7 d2 ) 34...Rxe4 35.Rxe4 d2 ) 32...d3 33.Qe3 d2 ) ( 31.g4 Rg6 {The idea of g4 was tempting but I ended up feeling that white's kingside quickly because too loose. But maybe it works concretely.} ) 31...Rd7 ( 31...d4 {This is very challenging and I'm not sure how to meet it.} 32.Rf5 ( 32.c4 Rd7 33.Qe4 d3 34.Rf5 Rdxe7 ) ( 32.cxd4 cxd4 33.g3 {This lets white maintain the blockade, but now black has connected passers.} ) 32...Rxe7 ) 32.g3 {I played this to release the back rank threats and also because I thought the Q endgame would be better for me. However, white's endgame prospects are worse than I thought, because the 'extra' pawn doesn't count for much and the queenside pawns are more vulnerable than expected.} 32...Rdxe7 33.Rxe7 Rxe7 34.Rxe7 Qxe7 35.Qxd5+ Kh7 36.Kg2 Qe1 37.Qd3+ ( 37.Qxc5 Qe4+ 38.f3 ( 38.Kh3 Qe6+ 39.g4 Qxa2 ) 38...Qc2+ 39.Kh3 Qxa2 ) 37...Kh8 38.h4 a5 39.Qe3 ( 39.a3 {Maybe this first to set up, since I want to be able to take on c5 or a5 in a way that defends both pawns.} ) 39...Qb1 40.a3 c4 41.Qe5 Qb7+ 42.Kh2 Qf3 43.Kg1 a4 {I think there now isn't a good way to stop black playing Qb3, at which point white has to bail out. I decide to play h5 to at least secure the draw.} 44.h5 ( 44.Qd4 Qf8 45.Qxc4 Qxa3 46.Qxc7 {White has won a pawn but black has the further-advanced passer.} ) 44...Qd1+ 45.Kg2 Qb3 1/2-1/2
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Skipped round 3 to nap. Here's round 4, where I actually punted the game but won anyway. [Round "4"] [WhiteElo "2124"] [BlackElo "1611"] [ECO "A18"] {Opponent seemed to be extremely ill. He just about coughed up his lung on the table. As a result I spent very little time at the board, looking at the game instead on one of the display screens. There were a couple points where I feel like that was to the detriment of my play, even if the game was quite simple.} 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 Nf6 ( 2...d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Be7 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Nge2 h6 9.Bh4 Nh5 {Opponent played this in round 1 and lost quite badly. I suspect he tried to change move orders to avoid this, but was clearly unprepared for 3.e4.} ) 3.e4 d5 {Opponent spent around 10 minutes on d5, and another 10 on Nd7.} 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e5 Nfd7 6.d4 c6 7.f4 Bb4 8.Nf3 Nb6 {Black is trying to play this like a QGD but is very far behind. Meanwhile I'm on autopilot.} 9.Bd3 N8d7 10.O-O Qc7 11.f5 ( 11.Ng5 Nf8 {I didn't see anything better than going for f5 and Bf4 here, and I think it's better to do that before Ng5.} ) 11...Nf8 12.Bf4 g6 13.Ng5 Qe7 14.e6 fxe6 {I had planned to play f6, and only now realized that it's no longer supported. However, black is so far behind in development that the e6 break must still be correct.} 15.fxe6 Bxe6 16.Re1 ( 16.Qe2 {This is more precise, meeting 0-0-0 with immediate Qe5.} ) 16...O-O-O 17.Qe2 Re8 18.Qe5 Bd6 19.Qxd6 Qxd6 20.Bxd6 {Black played on until mate.} 1-0
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Bad one to close out the tournament. Oh well. Still tied for 2nd. Better luck next time. [WhiteElo "1962"] [BlackElo "2124"] [ECO "B41"] {Not in a great headspace for this one. I think I overprepared, and was not properly engaged for the game itself.} 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Qc7 7.a3 {What I had anticipated him playing. While I've done okay playing hedgehog in the past with Nbd7, I wanted to try the Neikans/Kovalenko style with Nc6. I think it would've gone well if I hadn't screwed up, but I find I make mistakes in the Neikans/Kovalenko hedgehog lines a lot.} 7...b6 8.Be3 Bb7 9.f3 Nc6 10.Be2 Be7 11.O-O Bd6 $2 {I had to review to find my mistake. I am not supposed to play this until white has played Qd2. Now Nxd4 gives white a free move.} 12.f4 Nxd4 13.Qxd4 Bc5 14.Qd3 O-O {I think this is mostly just a careless mistake. I thought I would be able to break with d6 easily, but I never got my knight off of e8.} 15.e5 Ne8 16.Ne4 Bxe3+ ( 16...Bxe4 17.Qxe4 Bxe3+ ( 17...d5 18.cxd5 exd5 19.Qf3 Rd8 {Considered as a way to open e6 for the knight but ultimately it seemed too slow, and the d5 pawn seemed seriously weak. Also a6 is loose.} ) 18.Qxe3 d6 {I was worried that I can never get a good break on e5, since black's knight stays restrained. g6-Ng7 could be met by g4.} ) ( 16...d6 17.Nxc5 dxc5 ) ( 16...f5 17.Nxc5 bxc5 ) ( 16...f6 17.Nxc5 bxc5 {Again worried about e5, but also I thought that opening the f-file would be bad for me.} ) 17.Qxe3 d6 ( 17...f5 18.Nc3 {Considered but rejected because again it didn't solve the knight problem.} ) 18.Ng5 h6 19.Nf3 Rb8 {My plan is now to clear the c4 pawn to open d5 for the knight. This was to prepare b5. I felt shortly after, however, that maybe I didn't need it and could've pushed d5 immediately.} ( 19...d5 20.Rac1 {I was worried about defending b6.} ) 20.Rad1 d5 ( 20...dxe5 21.fxe5 Qc5 22.Qxc5 bxc5 23.Rd7 {I saw this far and was worried about white infiltrating. However, entring the game now I see black is fine.} 23...Bxf3 24.Bxf3 Rxb2 25.Ra7 g6 {The c-pawn will be tough to defend but the knight is getting out.} ) 21.cxd5 Bxd5 22.Nd4 Qb7 {Over the board I thought I might finally be approaching equality here} 23.Qg3 f5 {I played this because I felt I had to stop f5, but I didn't appreciate how hard it was to defend e6. I thought I would always have Qf7 but the pawn on a6 hangs.} ( 23...Be4 24.Bd3 {I thought black would be unable to stop the kingside attack.} ) 24.Qg6 Qd7 25.Bf3 ( 25.Bxa6 b5 ) 25...Qf7 ( 25...Nc7 26.Bxd5 Qxd5 27.Kh1 $3 {Apparently my opponent didn't see this over the board, so Nc7 might've been my best practical chance. After Kh1 white has no answer to the thread of Nxf5.} ) 26.Qxf7+ Rxf7 27.Bxd5 exd5 {This should be objectively losing but I've maintained material equality. My dream for counterplay, I think, is to play g5, isolate a pawn on f4, and get my knight to either e6 or h5.} 28.e6 Rf6 29.Nc6 Rb7 {I missed the Nd8 fork. Ra8 may be a better try, but seems too passive.} 30.Rxd5 Rc7 ( 30...Rxe6 31.Nd8 ) 31.Nd4 g6 32.Re1 Kf8 33.Rd7 Rc4 ( 33...Rxe6 34.Nxe6+ {comes with check} ) 34.g3 b5 35.Kf2 Nc7 {Missing a concrete move one last time.} 36.e7+ Ke8 37.Rd8+ Kf7 38.e8=Q+ Nxe8 39.Rdxe8 Rxd4 40.R1e7# 1-0
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/5uDM3fPeNFM
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Love to sacrifice all my material to setup a checkmate and blunder by fatfingering the screen one square. Still pissed at this two days later. I wonder if my opponent even knew how close he was to losing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
stratdax posted:Love to sacrifice all my material to setup a checkmate and blunder by fatfingering the screen one square. Okay, I'm bad at this but Isn't queen to G7 just straight up a checkmate, since the king can't capture due to Bishop at H6? The way you say "setup a checkmate" makes me think I'm missing something
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 10:48
|
|
|
Yeah it's a checkmate - they set it up and blundered in the final move due to a finger slip 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 10:52
|
|
|
stratdax posted:Love to sacrifice all my material to setup a checkmate and blunder by fatfingering the screen one square. lmao thats very upsetting! thanks for sharing
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:After 17.Bf3 I had planned to play f5 but I guess it doesn't work. Does white have 18.Bf4 or something? yeah i remember stockfish said it was Qc3. Can I ask why you didn't use a computer to do the post-game analysis? I never do analysis without the computer, but I'm only 1500-strength (on a good day), so that might be part of why my rating is lower than yours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:yeah i remember stockfish said it was Qc3. Can I ask why you didn't use a computer to do the post-game analysis? The main goal of the analysis I posted here—from my perspective, at least—is to capture my thinking in the immediate postgame. When you're reviewing a game, one of the things that's particularly important is what you were thinking at a specific time. Part of getting that down on paper is not crossing yourself up with computer lines. That comes later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:The main goal of the analysis I posted here—from my perspective, at least—is to capture my thinking in the immediate postgame. When you're reviewing a game, one of the things that's particularly important is what you were thinking at a specific time. Part of getting that down on paper is not crossing yourself up with computer lines. That comes later. thanks for that insight. for me, the main goal of analysis is to reveal things i failed to notice during the game (and there's always lots). so without the computer's help, i never get to find out about all that stuff. i find it indispensable for that reason. sometimes, the things i missed are ideas i could have figured out, with the right kind of attention. but sometimes, its just some weird computer move that humans can't be expected to find. Helianthus Annuus fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Nov 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
As I get better I'm going to try what Hand Knit says and capture my thinking about positions first. Just doing the computer lines miss those intangibles that come up during the game, and could also help identify when my thinking is just plain wrong. My latest correspondence game (the one I was doing my attention seeking behaviour about on discord :P ) kind of brought this home to me. This was the second of two matches with the same opponent (chess.com team tournament stuffs) and I had noticed this individual really really loved pawn hunting, so I made a plan to swing my queen to the opposite side of the board where it made a nice battery with my remaining rook and from whence I could assault the king and threaten mate. They let me do so while hoovering up my pawns, but interrupted my mating threat by taking yet another pawn and offering a queen trade. This allowed me to fork their king and rook, taking it after their forced king move. The computer however hated this and wanted me to basically overextend my queen defending those two remaining pawns. This made me realize that "playing the player" is something the computer just can't do. Whether this is sound play longer term vOv but I now know to document my thinking when doing the evaluations to test it at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:thanks for that insight. for me, the main goal of analysis is to reveal things i failed to notice during the game (and there's always lots). so without the computer's help, i never get to find out about all that stuff. i find it indispensable for that reason. Gotta figure out the questions before you go looking for answers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
I am only like 1000elo , but I am trying to study my games occasionally without help, and sometimes with just the analysis bar so I know where poo poo changed. I find it really easy to just go 'oh yeah that's what happened' when the full computer analysis tells me what I should have played. It doesn't feel like I learn much doing that unless it's just trying to remember what to do in that specific position in the future. It's the whole 'the move feels obvious once you know what it is' thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Gotta figure out the questions before you go looking for answers. OK! I'll post one of my idiot blitz games, and I'll annotate my thoughts like you did. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 { My light square bishop is already on the loose, so why not play solid? } 5...d6 6. O-O Be7 7. c4 { Now, black will never get to play d5. 😈 } 7...Bd7 8. Nc3 O-O 9. h3 { Nothing better to do than stop Ng4. } 9...Rb8 10. a3 { Nothing better to do than stop Nb4. } 10...Re8 11. b4 { Realized a3 allows me to play b4, which gives me control of more squares and lets my Bishop come to b2. } 11...Bf8 12. Bb2 Ne7 13. Re1 { The rook is better on e1. I would want to keep it f1 if i needed to support a f4 push, but my knight on f3 is in the way, and he can't go anywhere good. } 13...Bxa4 14. Qxa4 Ng6 15. g3 { Just stopping Nf4. The computer thinks I should pull back my queen instead. } 15...Qd7 16. Qxd7 { My queen is on a weird square, this trade helps me. } 16...Nxd7 17. Kg2 { Light square bishop and queens are gone, time to move the king up. Maybe bring my rook back to h1 later? } 17...c6 18. d4 { A disastrous gently caress up. The thinking was: time to improve my position by trading pawns and letting my knight come to d4, and maybe later he comes to f5 to harass d6. Maybe f4 can be played after that. Except the computer points out this is a blunder because the pawn on c4 can't be defended. } 18...exd4 19. Nxd4 Nge5 20. c5 { c4 can't be defended, so move him up to c5! Computer says this wastes a move because I still end up losing a pawn. } 20...dxc5 21. bxc5 Nxc5 22. f4 { I'm losing, but I wanted to play f4 earlier, so here it is now. Computer says f4 makes my situation even worse, and to instead play Re2 to get ready for Nd3. } 22...Ned3 23. Re2 Nxb2 24. Rxb2 Nxe4 25. Nxe4 Rxe4 26. Nxc6 Bd6?? 27. Nxb8 { Black resigns. } 1-0
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
Funnier if this had been the Hans game. https://twitter.com/MagnusCarlsen/status/1594051303176810496
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Just lost a blitz game on time because I wasted nearly a minute in the middle thinking about what to do on this move. My spidey sense was tingling that I could sac the queen and the rook and get a forced mate after bringing over the rook on f8. But no, there was nothing. I should stop doing tactics puzzles. Edit: f8, not c1 Inferior Third Season fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Play Rfc8 to bring your rook into the attack and also create the threat of sacrificing the rook for the knight. Then play a5 to crack open the queenside. The tactics are all there, you're just a couple moves early. Bring your pieces into the attack first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
Kh3? Looks like white can only delay immediate checkmate with Rf2 for a couple of moves
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Every king should lead from the front. e: If you like former glory's position, make sure to check out Short-Timman 1991.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
jesus WEP posted:Kh3? Looks like white can only delay immediate checkmate with Rf2 for a couple of moves Yep. It had a pass rate of 13%! Hand Knit posted:Every king should lead from the front. Awesome one. I imagine you don't see a king walk like that with queens on the board too often.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Every king should lead from the front. Crazy, I have two different engines on my tablet (Chiron and Komodo) and at move 32, neither considers Kg3 in their top 3 lines, and both score the game as around +1.5 for white. Move that king to g3 though, and after chewing a bit they see significant advantage for white that they hadn't seen before... What an awesome move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 05:32
|
|
|
I read an interesting article about a neural network a research group had built to play Stratego. It's a game of incomplete information, which chess isn't, but what interests me is the setup phase where you initially place your pieces. Has anyone done some thought about Chess960 but where each player can choose their piece ordering in secret before the game? It would be an interesting exercise to try to come up with an ideal ordering that works best against an arbitrary opponent configuration. I wonder if the ideal ordering would be the same for white and black - it may well not be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Stratego This one word unleashed a flood of memories. Holy crap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 07:13
|
|
|
Stratego still holds up yeah, one of the classics that isn't pretty awful as a game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
stratdax posted:This one word unleashed a flood of memories. Holy crap. same, have not thought of it forever now I am running through my list of bomb and large mustached general pieces
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Apparently it's very difficult to build a good Stratego engine. Many of the techniques that work for chess engines like Leela and Stockfish NNUE can't deal with the vast state space of Stratego. It's a much more complicated game in terms of the number of states, in fact much more so than even Go or poker. This particular engine, DeepNash, uses a novel game theory approach that avoids having to make an explicit model of what the opponent's pieces might be. Despite this engine performing in the high 90s to 100% win percentage over the other top engines, it's still beatable by the best humans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
the previous top engines are apparently just human amateur level and the paper claims that against top human players it gets an 84% win-rate. being a game of imperfect information it wouldn't really be possible to be completely unbeatable by the best humans since you ultimately have to make gambles
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
i remember in the ian m. banks sci-fi novel player of games, the protagonist only plays games with some kind of random components because in a setting in which every person is essentially a present day supercomputer, and the future supercomputers are gods, any game without imperfect information is essentially solved before play starts
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:14
|
|
