|
I'm jrmantei on chess.com if anyone wants to add me, I'd be interested in playing live sometime, especially with good people who could teach me why moves I make are bad. 
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
I just played an online game I'm really proud of. I made a few mistakes early on when I let my bishop get squeezed against my kingside castle and get taken, then lost a rook right after that, but after defending against the attack more or less I shifted over to attack my opponents queenside castle and managed to fork their king twice in a row with a knight taking one of their rooks and clearing a pawn out of the way so I could promote my own, which led to removing their other rook. They still had time left but I think they sort of gave up at this point as they mostly just let the clock run down while making a few pointless moves. I'd love any advice on where I went wrong earlier in the match though. 1.e4 e5 2.Bb5 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 d5 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd2 Bg4 8.f3 Bh5 9.Ne2 d4 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.Nf5 O-O 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Bg5 Qd6 14.Nd2 a6 15.Qe2 Nbd7 16.h4 Bh5 17.g4 Bg6 18.h5 Ne8 19.hxg6 Qxg6 20.Bh4 a5 21.Be7 a4 22.Bxf8 Kxf8 23.Bxf7 Kxf7 24.O-O-O h6 25.Qg2 Qe6 26.Kb1 a3 27.b3 Nc5 28.Qh3 Na4 29.Qh5+ Ke7 30.g5 Nc3+ 31.Kc1 Nxa2+ 32.Kb1 Nc3+ 33.Kc1 Nxd1 34.Kxd1 a2 35.Ke2 a1=Q 36.Rxa1 Rxa1 37.gxh6 gxh6 38.Qh4+ Qf6 39.Qg3 Ng7 40.b4 h5 41.Nb3 Rh1 42.Na5 Rc1
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
I just had an interesting game as black against a pretty decent opponent, it was pretty different than anything I've seen before. Comments would be appreciated. [Event "Live Chess"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2012.09.13"] [White "amudhan_bala"] [Black "jrmantei"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1209"] [BlackElo "1254"] [TimeControl "15|10"] [Termination "jrmantei won by checkmate"] 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Nbd2 Nb4 6.Be2 e6 7.h3 Bh5 8.c3 Nc6 9.Bb5 Qd6 10.Qc2 O-O-O 11.c4 dxc4 12.Bxc6 Qxc6 13.Ne5 Qxg2 14.Rf1 b5 15.b3 Bg6 16.Qc3 Nd5 17.Qa5 Rd6 18.Ba3 cxb3 19.Nxb3 Rb6 20.Bc5 Bxc5 21.dxc5 Rb7 22.O-O-O Qe4 23.Nc6 Qc2# 0-1 Rogue fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Sep 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
The Super-Id posted:I just played an online game I'm really proud of. I made a few mistakes early on when I let my bishop get squeezed against my kingside castle and get taken, then lost a rook right after that, but after defending against the attack more or less I shifted over to attack my opponents queenside castle and managed to fork their king twice in a row with a knight taking one of their rooks and clearing a pawn out of the way so I could promote my own, which led to removing their other rook. I'm an amateur, but what was the idea playing 14. ..a6? Also, ..h6 on move 14 or 15 would have cleared out that pesky bishop and prevented your own from getting trapped. This also would have allowed you to recapture his bishop (when he's forced to play Bxf7) with your queen, keeping your king position a bit safer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Rogue posted:I'm an amateur, but what was the idea playing 14. ..a6? Also, ..h6 on move 14 or 15 would have cleared out that pesky bishop and prevented your own from getting trapped. This also would have allowed you to recapture his bishop (when he's forced to play Bxf7) with your queen, keeping your king position a bit safer. When I played a6 I was planning on moving my c pawn forward while keeping the b pawn supported with a6, though in retrospect that plan would have taken too long to really be useful. I think I hesitated to do h6 because I was overly worried about disrupting the castle when he could just pull back. Maybe that's the lesson I should take away from this though, don't be so absorbed in a strong defense that you miss the proper offensive choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
I played a rather sharp blitz game recently where I sac'd the exchange and it looked like it would work but my attack kind of lost steam after move 20. Is there a way to get better at knowing what to play when sacrificing or should I just practice more tactics. I was under time pressure since I was trying to figure out how to make it work. In hindsight on move 19 I should have just sacrificed the bishop on f7, getting a knight into position just took too much time. I tried to play a distractor but that didn't work. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb3 a6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. f4 Be7 8. Bc4 Kf8 9. O-O Nc6 10. Kh1 b5 11. Bd5 Bb7 12. fxe5 dxe5 13. Bg5 Qc7 14. Qd2 Rd8 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Rxf6 gxf6 17. Qh6+ Ke7 18. Rf1 Qd6 19. Nc5 Bc8 20. Qg7 Rdf8 21. Bb3 Ke8 22. Rxf6 Qxc5 23. Bxf7+ Kd8 24. Bh5 Qe7 25. Rxf8+ Rxf8 26. Qg3 Rf1# 0-1
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
The Super-Id posted:I just played an online game I'm really proud of. Nice game, I like how the counter-attack had a feeling of inevitability about it. Once White gained material he got greedy, overextending and ignoring your own attacking chances but you pressed and punished it nicely. The lesson here is that it's not time to write the game off as won even if you are up substantial material, especially when the queens are on the board and the kings are not safe. Dynamic considerations, aka short-term considerations, may be more important than a big material plus. On the other hand material is the ultimate static (or long-term) advantage - it improves your chances at every stage of the game and grows with each exchange until your opponent spirals into destruction. Even if you are up an entire piece, it's a long painful grind to the win (in chess it always is). Here's a line of my preferred defense versus 1. e4 (..Nf6) where White gives up an entire rook for the initiative! 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6. fxe5 Nc6 7. Be3 Bf5 8. Nc3 e6 9. Nf3 Be7 10. d5!? exd5 11. cxd5 Nb4 12. Nd4!? Bd7 (12...Bg6? 13. Bb5+ +-) 13. e6 fxe6 14. dxe6 Bc6 15. Qg4 Bh4+ 16. g3 Bxh1 17. 0-0-0 Fritz 13 rates this position as equal (0.00) even though Black is up a whole rook. If you look you can probably see some of the reasons why: Black's king is sitting in the wide open center with pieces closing in on all sides. This is the kind of compensation that is needed to justify such a material deficit, which bring us to the next game... singe posted:I played a rather sharp blitz game recently where I sac'd the exchange and it looked like it would work but my attack kind of lost steam after move 20. Is there a way to get better at knowing what to play when sacrificing or should I just practice more tactics. It's interesting that in this game, the roles were reversed. This time your opponent gained material from your sacrifice, and did just what he was supposed to do - hunker down and defend knowing that if he succeeds he will win at the end. In terms of knowing when to sacrifice material for some other gain, that's one of the hardest questions to answer in chess. It basically comes down to creating a tally list of pluses and minuses to the decision, knowing that losing that much material is always a big minus that demands sufficient 'compensation' for the decision. Compensation is an important concept in chess and one of the hardest to master - even computers have trouble judging positions where one side is down material but has sufficient compensation from other factors. If you are considering this kind of decision and you don't see a clear line that wins the game, the decision has to be based on positional considerations or it shouldn't be executed. After the sacrifice, what are you gaining and what are you giving up? You're giving up a substantial long term advantage (material is the ultimate long term advantage, it wins you the game practically every time if you have it) for a short term advantage of attacking his king. If you can exploit his unsafe king, then you can potentially gain back what you lost, or even win right then and there. But if you don't actually see the way to win, then it's probably not wise to make this trade off unless you do see another thing that you gain - a big positional advantage. A great book for this topic is Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess your Chess. You'll get a run down of important positional concepts. Once you understand these, you'll have a better sense of when to sacrifice material because you will understand more about what you can gain by doing it, and whether what you gain justifies the substantial advantage you are giving up. For example in your games you doubled his pawns with your sacrifice, as well as opening some lines of attack. Let's just consider the doubled pawns. Is this enough to justify sacrificing the exchange? It's definitely worth something - doubled pawns are often cumbersome and count as a negative in the evaluation of his position, so it should be added to the tally list. But on its own it is not nearly enough to justify losing that much material. What about the lines of attack? Well you should think about two things - how many pieces can you get into this fight against his king, and how many can he move to defend? In this game, he had lots of pieces to help defend: his queen, two rooks, and even his two minors on the queenside had some influence. Generally speaking, to force a win somewhere on the board, you need a substantial number advantage (3 to 2 or even 3 to 1 in pieces/pawns) and/or a passed pawn that's in the danger zone. And even then, often without another weakness somewhere else, the defender can hang on. And this is bad for you because if he does, you lose - that's the risk you took. One last thing to remember is that if you sacrificed material for an attack, you pretty much never want to exchange your pieces. Every exchange brings you closer to a loss - as pieces come off the board his material advantage grows until it's there on the board and you have nothing left. In this game you took advantage of almost every opportunity to exchange pieces and didn't get anything that was worth it. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Sep 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Yea I felt like I had enough compensation, and computer analysis had me at +5,+6 at move 18 and 20 before I started exchanging poorly (and I was pretty much even or half a pawn down until the very last move where I blundered the mate on the back rank) but they were kind of tricky lines that weren't really natural. I'll look into that book. I guess what I'm asking is when I'm sure the sac has adequate compensation but don't have time to fully calculate are there general tips that I should employ to take advantage of it? The exposed king and the unconnected rooks along with the bishop pointing at the f7 pawn all seemed like assets that compensated for the material loss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
singe posted:Yea I felt like I had enough compensation, and computer analysis had me at +5-6 at move 18 and 20 before I started exchanging poorly (and I was pretty much even or half a pawn down until the very last move where I blundered the mate on the back rank) but they were kind of tricky lines that weren't really natural. I'll look into that book. I guess what I'm asking is when I'm sure the sac has adequate compensation but don't have time to fully calculate are there general tips that I should employ to take advantage of it? The exposed king and the unconnected rooks along with the bishop pointing at the f7 pawn all seemed like assets that compensated for the material loss. I didn't check the computer evaluation, but if the computer rated the position positively, congratulations on a sound sacrifice. If I had to judge the exchange, I think it would be playable in a blitz game because complicated situations like that almost always favor the attacker and are too complicated for the defender. I would be extremely hesitant about playing it in a longer game. I guess the other critical point is that creating tactical complications is always double-edged - the game can swing back the other way in just one half move. The computer's evaluation after the game isn't really relevant to the game as it was played. In games between humans, even at the GM level, computer positional advantages can swing back and forth because humans don't have anywhere close to the ability of computers to solve lines. If you can't personally see a way to convert that positional +1 or +2 to a won game during the game, then the evaluation by the computer at the end is irrelevant. That is just one more thing to consider before sacrificing a piece and not having calculated the path to victory. Is it worth it to get complicated? And that is the concept of practical play - a kind of meta game where you decide against it because you have decided the chances of it swinging the other way are too great, or maybe you don't have the time on the clock to work it out. And of course, watch out for blunders and avoid exchanges. In this case, seeing that after 20. Bxc6 Qxc6 21. Nd5+! is winning is very hard, and the fact that your knight is hanging after f7 is adequately defended is easy to forget. And death by your own back rank is a threat in many attacking games. edit: lmao I just checked one of the computer lines after Nxc6 - just look how ridiculous this move looks! 21. Bxc6! Qxc6 22. Nd5+! Kd8 23. Rd1! Rhg8 24. Qh6 Qd6 25. Ne3!!!!!!!!xinfinity .....Qxd1+ 26. Nxd1 And this is Black's best way to go apparently. He's a fast one, this Fritz 13! I wish I could spot stuff like this all the time. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Sep 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
I'm thinking of learning the smith-morra gambit as a response for the sicilian. I know Esserman's book (Mayhem in the Morra) has been highly regarded so I think I'll pick it up. It seems like a neat constant attacking style that might mix up the monotony of the constant Najdorfs I've been facing. Does anyone have any experience with it? I've been playing a couple games on chess.com blitz and it seems to be working out well but I don't know how it'll hold up in standard OTB situations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
The Morra gambit is fine in blitz. Once you reach a strong club level of play, I wouldn't expect it to hold up OTB against a prepared opponent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
singe posted:I'm thinking of learning the smith-morra gambit as a response for the sicilian. I know Esserman's book (Mayhem in the Morra) has been highly regarded so I think I'll pick it up. It seems like a neat constant attacking style that might mix up the monotony of the constant Najdorfs I've been facing. Does anyone have any experience with it? I've been playing a couple games on chess.com blitz and it seems to be working out well but I don't know how it'll hold up in standard OTB situations. Black can force white into an Alapin, and will in fact often choose to do just that. After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 both 3... Nf6 and 3...d5 are very popular. If you want to screw around in the Najdorf, there's a line that starts 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 Nf6 4.Bd3. That will get you both a different setup and a reasonably dynamic game. fe: If you want to be a dick, 4.Be2 is also a move. You'll win a few cheapos after 4...Nxe5 5.Qa5+.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 11:30
|
|
|
Oh poo poo you're badnewsbears on chess.com. I'm not surprised I'm getting my rear end handed to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:If you want to screw around in the Najdorf, there's a line that starts 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 Nf6 4.Bd3. That will get you both a different setup and a reasonably dynamic game. Blocking in the d pawn temporarily just looks bad to my untrained eye, but there are probably lines. If anyone wants to play me in some blitz games my username is amacing on chess.com
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
singe posted:Blocking in the d pawn temporarily just looks bad to my untrained eye, but there are probably lines. The bishop retreats to c2 fairly quickly, and then you (usually) play d4 giving you a e4-d4-c3-Bc2 setup that you sometimes see in closed Ruy Lopezes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 10:28
|
|
|
Here's an interesting ending to a game I just finished against The Super-Id (Khasai). "Interesting" because I didn't see the win coming until it was in my lap. Full PGN here, if you care. So here I am, white with a slight material advantage, wondering what to do next. HEY I KNOW code:code:code:code:code: And only then, at the very last minute, does it occur to me that this is a game-changer. As far as I can see, black has no good options and can't prevent checkmate in less than 3. (If somebody sees an escape for black, I'd like to know.) There is probably nothing to be learned here for better players, and I'm not even sure what I can take away from it - maybe "position can be better than material" or more likely "look at the entire board, stupid."
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
The worst part is I saw that pawn and realized the threat of it queening and my king being unable to capture it before you had two queens there, but I totally missed the pawn supported queen mate. Especially bad because I literally won a game against my friend the other day with a pawn supported queen mate, albeit earlier in the match.  Anyway, well played.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Whether there's "anything to learn" or not, it was a fun thing to check out, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Yeah it was cool. i enjoy playing against both of you and you should send me a challenge whenever you feel like it. I've been holding back because I don't want to overload people. I think Rbe3 holds out longest in that positiom and I can't see a mate, but I presume it's still losing Also surely the lesson here is "respect the passed pawn"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 09:12
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:I think Rbe3 holds out longest in that positiom and I can't see a mate, but I presume it's still losing This is what I was thinking. The rook and king already cover the mating square. Then getting the other rook back in the game attacks the passed pawn and queening square.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
If ...Rbe3, Qxe3. Then White has a queen and a 7th rank pawn versus a rook. ...Rbf3 holds out longer; it looks to reduce to a queen versus rook situation. So, still won for White, but not as won as queen + monster pawn vs. rook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
Zugzwang posted:If ...Rbe3, Qxe3. Then White has a queen and a 7th rank pawn versus a rook. ...Rbf3 holds out longer; it looks to reduce to a queen versus rook situation. So, still won for White, but not as won as queen + monster pawn vs. rook. Oh right. Somehow I missed that the queen attacked e3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Correspondence chess is interesting. Sometimes I play much, much better than OTB, and other times I'll play half a game without realizing I'm down a piece. Anyways, I sent out a few challenges on chess.com just to see how I'll fare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Tiax Rules All posted:Correspondence chess is interesting. Sometimes I play much, much better than OTB, and other times I'll play half a game without realizing I'm down a piece. Anyways, I sent out a few challenges on chess.com just to see how I'll fare. Are you thechessgoat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Greattobeirate
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Rogue posted:Are you thechessgoat? No that's me
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 12:04
|
|
|
More news about the Behting Study: it's sound! http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8523 I posted a previous chessbase article about this study in this thread a little while back. Dr. Nunn was wondering if it was unsound because of White's alternative move 2. Ng7+ (alternative to the insane move 1. Kc6!!!!) but it turns out that at a key movement Black has the incredible triangulation 1 Ng7+ Kg5 2 Nf3+ Kg4 3 Nf5 h3 4 Ke4 g1Q 5 Nxh6+ Kh5 6 Nxg1 h2 7 Nf3 h1Q 8 Nf5 Kg4 9 Ne3+ Kg3 10 Nf5+ Kf2 11 N5d4 11...Kg2!! So it turns out this study has actually contained two stellar moves the whole time. This is the study that has confounded computers and continues to confound computers. The article concludes with some astronomy which I thought was appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
It's somewhat similar to a video that kingscrusher posted a couple weeks ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i_4mTeFlDs In this scenario engines have a difficult time evaluating the position so the queen sac is not even considered, and the evaluation mysteriously switches after it occurs. I guess humans are generally better than computers in evaluating a position in a general intuition type of manner, so although we don't necessarily have to see x number of moves deep, we can get a sense of who has the advantage based on the shape of the pieces. This is probably akin to why computers have such a hard time with Go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
I don't know if anyone uses the Chess Time app, but my user name is DrGonzo90 if anyone is looking for a game. I'm probably just barely above beginner status but I'm looking for people who actually want to play a real game. Half my wins are against people who quit in the middle of a game (or before) and another 1/4 are just me punishing people who were trying to scholar's mate me and had no skill beyond that. I'll probably post a couple of my current games for criticism once they're completed if people would be kind enough to give me pointers. e: Just realized chess.com has a mobile app, so I'm DrGonzo90 on there too. DrGonzo90 fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
One thing I've been learning from both computer analysis of my losses and from hammering on the tactics trainer, is that I'm still overly reluctant to sacrifice pieces, especially the queen. Several of my losses have come from passing up a queen trade, even one where I would come out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
A conceptual hurdle to get over would be to not think of a queen trade as a queen "sacrifice." Learning to play with the queens off is a huge advantage as a lot of players are, if not worse at endgames, certainly afraid of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Vogelfrei posted:One thing I've been learning from both computer analysis of my losses and from hammering on the tactics trainer, is that I'm still overly reluctant to sacrifice pieces, especially the queen. Several of my losses have come from passing up a queen trade, even one where I would come out ahead. I know I've used this against you in more than one game. Not the current game where you're killing me. Other games. Also Hand Knit or others, I had a question. i was watching a kingscrusher video about Aronian and he was saying he doesn't really understand Aronian games compared to other people's. Is that because Aronian's a particularly deep positional player (and I guess maybe Carlsen too), or something else? bigfoot again fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Is it anything in particular? Aronian's game right now is defined by extremely sharp, practical play. I would compare him to Topalov from half a decade ago where he's able to win games purely through creative home prep. This means that a lot of his play will (a) violate principles, which will make it especially inaccessible to a weak master like KC and (b) if his goal is to make the position unnavigable to high 2700s then we shouldn't expect a 2200 to understand it. The other possibility is that Aronian has hosed up a couple games recently so maybe it was that? Carlsen's play is much more straightforward. He's actually a very basic player.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:I know I've used this against you in more than one game. Not the current game where you're killing me. Other games. Do you happen to remember which video this was that you were watching? I'd be interested in seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Thanks, it was this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdjVGgSsfT8
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Here's a game I just played OTB 45/G time controls with 5 second delay. His rating is almost 2000. I was down on time the entire game, and to make matters worse he played the opening almost instantaneously. I recently switched to being a c4 player from e4 so I hadn't really looked at 1 ...f5 only really at lines where black replies with e6, e5, c5, or Nf6.code:I'm trying to make the transition to being a more positional player. I wasn't sure if g4 worked, and h4 seemed really weakening, but I thought I'd be ahead after I trapped the rook as long as I could avoid getting mated. Also I'm not sure how sound my idea of delayed castling was. I wanted him to try to split his forces so he couldn't have a good king or queen side attack and then capitalize on a temporary material imbalance if he moved all his attacking pieces to one side. Edit: Looking at the game again it seems like I did have some queen side chances especially when he played a5, Qb3 followed by b4 would eventually win the pawn on b2, but his queen gets h4 and there just seems to be a ton of pressure so I just kind of disregarded it. Is that a human move to play because retreating the queen to help against the king side attack especially if I lost both the g h pawns seemed more sensible. singe fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Oct 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
What do people think about using the analysis board in chess games? Is it just plain bad for your chess development, or can it help teach you to work through variations? I try not to use it too much but it's tempting, and sometimes really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 13:35
|
|
|
I'm definitely addicted to it. And I would say it definitely pushes my rating up much higher than it would be OTB. I would say in my experience it has helped me grow a lot as a player but at the same time it's not really developing my ability to visualize positions a few moves down the line since I rely on looking at them in the analyze tool so much. Or in other words I think it's helped my instincts and my ability to find and employ tactics and strategy but also become a crutch for my capacity to look ahead. It's also happened more than once now where I will develop a line that works, then my opponent will mostly follow along except make a small variation in their response and I go ahead with my plan without examining how their response changes the outcome and find myself in a pretty desperate position because of it. I think I would probably benefit from taking a break from using analyze for a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
Houdini 3 was recently released, and Chessbase had an article about Houdini's win over Rybka awhile back where the engine played like a Romantic-era blitzer and defeated the then #1 Engine in the world. In the game Houdini sac'ed 3 pawns (and was at one point down 4 pawns) and ended up winning. Article here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8591 Video about the game here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWdMqvGMxF4 Chess never ceases to surprise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Hello, fellow chess goons! I am Hoff38 on chess.com if anyone wants to play some time. I typically play correspondence chess (I guess they call it "online chess"), but would also be up for a medium length timed game. I guess I am somewhere between a beginner and intermediate skill level... I feel like I have a good eye for careful play and I have been playing a lot lately, but I still have a long way to go in terms of theory. Anyway I would love to get some games going, feel free to add me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 01:20
|
|
