|
Hand Knit posted:Elementary tactics are so exciting. It's really uncomfortable how I get at the board when, say, I see the opportunity for a smothered mate. I'm usually bad at mating in the middle game, and miss opportunities like these often because I don't look for them as a rule unless it's very obviously there. At first thought, such scenarios seem uncommon enough to avoid looking for it unless it's staring you in the face. But I've learned from other players that this is not the case - mating patterns like these occur common enough to watch out for them. I will need to practice more mating problems in the future. I had one 10 0 blitz game not too long ago where I had the opportunity to achieve both an epaulette mate and a 0-0-0 mate, and in my usual choking fashion missed it when it was staring me in the face! (although in this case I was up so much that I went on to win anyway.) Here's the silly game with me as black: 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Bc4 Nb6 5. Bb3 dxe5 6. Qf3 e6 7. dxe5 Nc6 8. Bf4 Bc5 9. c3 f6 10. exf6 Qxf6 11. Nd2 e5 12. Ne4 Qe7?? (12... Bxf2+ 13. Kxf2 Qxf4 14. Qxf4 exf4 = ) 13. Bg5!+- Rf8?! 14. Qh5+ g6 15. Qh6 Bxf2+ 16. Ke2 Bg4+ 17. Nf3 Nd4+?! 18. cxd4 Qb4 19. Nf6+ Rxf6?! 20. Bxf6 Bxd4 21. Kd3?? (21. Qxh7 Bxf3+ 22. Kxf3 Qf8 23. Qxg6+ Kd7 24. Qf5+ Kc6 25. a4 +- ) 21... e4+ 22. Kc2??(22. Kxe4 Bxf6+ 23. Ke3 O-O-O -/+ ) 22... Bxf6 23. Rac1?? exf3 24. Rhe1+ Be7 25. gxf3 Bf5+ 26. Kd1 Qb5 27. Qe3 O-O-O+! 28. Qd2 Rxd2+ 29. Kxd2 Bb4+? (29...Qd3#! :[ ) 30. Ke3 Bxe1 31. Rxe1 Nd5+ 32. Kf2 Kd7 33. Rd1 c6 34. Kg3 Qe2 35. Rd4 Qxb2 36. Rd1 Qf6 37. h4 h5 38. Rd2 Be6 39. f4 Qxf4+ {white resigns} 0-1 pgn: http://www.sendspace.com/file/6n0b2z In the future, I was wondering if there is an easy way to share chess games without resorting to lists or sendspace links. If there is a preferred format let the thread know, and I will edit out the long move lists on this posts and any others. edit: RobBorer posted:Hey here's a game I just played. Black to move Spotting that in Blitz is pretty impressive. Um, I believe After 1...Nf4+ both responses lose. 2. Kf1 loses to 2...Qh1# while 2. Kg1 loses to 2...Nh3+ 3. Kf1 Qh1+ winning a rook. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Jul 8, 2012 |
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
double post, delete
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 10:19
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Spotting that in Blitz is pretty impressive. Um, I believe After 1...Nf4+ both responses lose. 2. Kf1 loses to 2...Qh1# while 2. Kg1 loses to 2...Nh3+ 3. Kf1 Qh1+ winning a rook. 1...Nf4 2. Qg2#
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
colbamf posted:JeffKlein on Chess.com (I am lazy and used facebook) I was wondering why I out-of-the-blue got a challenge on facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
*snip*
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
McNerd posted:1...Nf4 2. Qg2# I don't think the white queen can get to g2?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
JDCorley posted:I don't think the white queen can get to g2? I read that as him saying that if 2. Kg1 then ..Qg2#. Just poorly typed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I read that as him saying that if 2. Kg1 then ..Qg2#. Just poorly typed. Yeah, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:In the future, I was wondering if there is an easy way to share chess games without resorting to lists or sendspace links. If there is a preferred format let the thread know, and I will edit out the long move lists on this posts and any others. Other than posting the pgns as lumpy text, the only other thing I can think of is colonizing as free public databse like chess5, and loading all games there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Here's a position from a game I just finished. Black to move: I dunno how elementary this is, but I was happy with it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Zugzwang posted:Here's a position from a game I just finished. Black to move: I suck at mating problems, but that knight is owning hard. My guess is: 1...Nf2 2. Qxf2 Rd1+ 3. Qe1 Qxe1# (3. Ke2 Qxf2 4. Kxf2 Rxh1) (2. Rg1 Rd1+ 3. Qxd1 Nxd1 with the unstoppable threat of Qf2#) Edit: upon further analysis it seems Ke2 saves the king temporarily but it's still over, black is up a queen for a rook CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jul 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
I mostly play 5 minute blitz games on chess.com, and I've been getting into some trouble lately when my opponents bring out their queen early. I understand that I can try to chase her around and gain tempo, but sometimes I blunder away a pawn, or more commonly get into trouble with my castled king. Obviously, not having enough time to think up a refutation is part of blitz, but does anyone (Hand Knit) have any general tips to help me out?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
Off the top of my head, two things come to mind. The first is that 5 minutes is actually quite a while, and it's quite okay to burn a minute or two early to get an easy-to-play position. The second is that even if you lose a pawn it's quite okay to be utterly shameless. Not only is there value is getting to 'define' the game, but you can sometimes get away with absolute crap. Just yesterday I offered my opponent a draw in a dead lost position and he accepted. There is no shame in shamelessness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
How do most people feel about Threechess? Not 3D chess, 3P chess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-player_chess My brother and I play with an old friend of our fathers and 1 on 1 he almost always beats either of us but 3chess is frequently anyone's games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
I've picked up chess again after quite some time, and my first 'live' game left me happy if somewhat confused. It was a G/15 against someone rated 1300 on chess.com, as follows: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 a6 5.O-O b5 6.Bd5 Bb7 7.d3 Nf6 8.Bf4 Nxd5 9.exd5 Nd4 10.a3 b4 11.Ne4 Bxd5 12.Qe1 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 f5 14.c4 bxc3 15.Nxc3 Bxf3 16.Qe3 Bc6 17.f3 h6 18.Rae1 e5 19.b4 Qe7 20.bxc5 exf4 21.Qxf4 {Black resigns} 1-0 The final position (r3kb1r/4q1p1/p1bp3p/2P2p2/5Q2/P1NP1P2/7P/4RRK1 b kq - 0 21) seems an odd one to resign on. Black's position isn't nearly as good as it was earlier, but they're also up two bishops for a knight (a fair material advantage), White was starting to have time trouble, and the position doesn't look like it's won. Is there something here I'm not seeing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
E4C85D38 posted:White was starting to have time trouble, and the position doesn't look like it's won. Is there something here I'm not seeing? I found on chess.com it seems a lot of people somehow have this notion that taking the queen is the goal of the game, and so they resign if they lose or are about to lose their queen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Apsyrtes posted:I found on chess.com it seems a lot of people somehow have this notion that taking the queen is the goal of the game, and so they resign if they lose or are about to lose their queen. The notion that the game isn't over when your queen dies is pretty advanced for the lowbie blitz crowd. Situations like 3 minors vs Queen or 2 rooks or Rook + Minor + Pawn vs Queen are not comprehended.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
E4C85D38 posted:I've picked up chess again after quite some time, and my first 'live' game left me happy if somewhat confused. It was a G/15 against someone rated 1300 on chess.com, as follows: Maybe he had to go eat dinner and couldn't keep playing online chess
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
Does anyone else play on Chesscube? Just played a fun game. [Event "ChessCube Game"] [Site "www.chesscube.com"] [Date "2012.07.15"] [Round "-"] [White "masterp@chesscube.com"] [Black "tehk@chesscube.com"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1715"] [BlackElo "1793"] [ECO "B02"] [Time "18:06:26"] [TimeControl "300"] 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d3 d6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. exd6 cxd6 7. Be2 Nc6 8. a3 g6 9. O-O e5 10. h3 h5 11. hxg4 hxg4 12. Ng5 f5 13. f4 Bh6 14. Ne6 Qh4 15. Nc7+ Kd8 16. Nxa8 g3 17. Nxb6 Qh2# 0-1 http://chesspo.st/G4uL Kind of a cool fishing pole position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Off the top of my head, two things come to mind. The first is that 5 minutes is actually quite a while, and it's quite okay to burn a minute or two early to get an easy-to-play position. The second is that even if you lose a pawn it's quite okay to be utterly shameless. Not only is there value is getting to 'define' the game, but you can sometimes get away with absolute crap. The problem is that even if you have an easy position, with time controls that low (and skill level presumably not very high) it's a simple thing for your opponent to create enough complications for you that converting the game difficult. As your time runs low he gains an enormous advantage - all he needs is one pawn on the board when your time runs out to win, and anything else is a draw. Until you gain the skill / confidence to very quickly convert easy positions, you will be in this perpetual blitz purgatory where unsound play gets better results on average. I personally find that no easy position (short of being up piece or something) is truly easy to convert, because creating complications especially with a queen on the board is so easy. This is a problem for times around 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 until you get really good at the Blitz metagame and converting. While a big increment more or less negates them but who plays with more than a 1 or 2s increment in Blitz? Almost no one. On chess.com, my pieces lag and it takes more than 2s to move them, so the only way to use my increment is make risky premoves. This is why I hate Blitz with a fury, yet I continue to play it for some reason. Maybe I hate myself more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
I just joined chess.com a couple months ago as Ambignostic. I'm a very mediocre, blunder-prone, slow thinker, so I prefer correspondence. I just sent chess.com challenges to two of you (CowOnCrack and BIGFOOT PEE BED) because you guys sound like you make the kind of mistakes I do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Vogelfrei posted:I just joined chess.com a couple months ago as Ambignostic. I'm a very mediocre, blunder-prone, slow thinker, so I prefer correspondence. I just sent chess.com challenges to two of you (CowOnCrack and BIGFOOT PEE BED) because you guys sound like you make the kind of mistakes I do. Should work out great, I just played a correspondence game with colbamf / Jeff Klein and hung my bishop right after winning a pawn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Vogelfrei posted:I just joined chess.com a couple months ago as Ambignostic. I'm a very mediocre, blunder-prone, slow thinker, so I prefer correspondence. I just sent chess.com challenges to two of you (CowOnCrack and BIGFOOT PEE BED) because you guys sound like you make the kind of mistakes I do. Get on it, then... My rating is pretty great now since I have one finished game that lemonslol, with. 1400+ rating, abandoned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
I thought I'd post his in here. This, right here, is most fascinating article I've ever read on ChessBase, and chess ever period: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8332 If you aren't familiar with ChessBase, they made the ChessBase database program and Fritz 13 which are quite popular. Their website is also a great chess news website. The article is about how computers still are not invincible in Chess, and how human minds can still handle a number of situations almost infinitely better than computers. Particularly, the article brought up this study: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/c-behting-1908---white-to-draw First of all, the solution will completely blow your mind, but what will blow the remnants of your previous mind into bit-sized pieces is how computers handle it. I put this position into my copy of Fritz 13, and even after the 3 consecutive brilliant moves the computer still thinks I'm losing! I can play it out as long as I want until I draw in 50 moves, and at the end Fritz still evaluates the position as -6 pawns! I don't think I'll ever again believe that this game can't surprise and amaze me, no matter how much I study and play it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Wow, that's a really interesting article. It does blow my mind a bit that my phone can play chess better than my big ole Apple IIe back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:The problem is that even if you have an easy position, with time controls that low (and skill level presumably not very high) it's a simple thing for your opponent to create enough complications for you that converting the game difficult. As your time runs low he gains an enormous advantage - all he needs is one pawn on the board when your time runs out to win, and anything else is a draw. Until you gain the skill / confidence to very quickly convert easy positions, you will be in this perpetual blitz purgatory where unsound play gets better results on average. It seems like you're assuming that your opponent has a handle on the complications they induced. Don't do that. Make the natural move and force them to prove that they have any idea what they are doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:Man there's a lot of idiots playing 1. e4 2. Qh5 in sub-1000 blitz world I don't remember ever seeing 2. Qh5 before. But sure enough, the day after I read this thread, some dude slung it on me -- in correspondence! I didn't handle it particularly well -- I went for the immediate threat (2. .. Nf6) and ended up gaining no real advantage in development as the queen and knight chased each other around for a few turns. I wish I'd taken zugzwang's advice instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Nakamura has played 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 before, at the 2600+ level. I can only imagine the look on his opponent's face. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
I'm still trying to figure out the colorado counter. I'm not so sure about my decision to queen side castle, moving king up and rook over seems safer but would require an additional move. I happened to win but that could just be because my opponent may have played poorly (we're around 1650 ELO). 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 d5 4. Bb5 Bxf5 5. Bxc6+ bxc6 6. O-O Qd6 7. b3 e6 8. Re1 O-O-O 9. a4 h5 10. Ba3 Qd7 11. h3 Nf6 12. Bxf8 Rdxf8 13. Ne5 Qd6 14. d4 g5 15. c3 Nd7 16. Nd2 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Qe7 18. Nf3 g4 19. hxg4 hxg4 20. Nd4 Qh4 21. Kf1 Bd3+ 22. Kg1 0-1
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:It seems like you're assuming that your opponent has a handle on the complications they induced. Don't do that. Make the natural move and force them to prove that they have any idea what they are doing. Well, I actually kind of think the opposite - they don't at all have a handle on their complications, but they don't really need to because that's not the logic behind making them. It's more like, neither player will be able to figure it out with the time allotted, but the one who chooses to take time to work through them often ends up at a disadvantage because they run low on time, and you have to be way ahead of your opponent (like, 10 moves from mating him) or else you lose if he has 1 pawn on the board. Therefore, the dominant strategy (might) be for both players to create mindless complications and hope their opponent either 1) tries to solve them and runs out of time or 2) plays ball, and then the outcome is just very random. In other words, chances are you won't be able to figure it out completely either. Once positions get very tactical, even GMs in with classical time controls can get lost. Creating them and forcing you to think your way out of it is a sort of gambit - if you can do it and then convert the game in the small time allotted with no mistakes, then you win. If try to do it but are not completely successful, you get behind on the clock and now you are at the time disadvantage. Then, when you run out of time, you pretty much always lose no matter how good your position is. It's like the style of World Champion Mikhail Tal, except on a smaller scale where it's even more brutally effective. For those not familiar, Tal was notorious for launching unsound attacks that ended up working because his opponents couldn't see through all the complications and find the refutation. By creating complications early and often, lowbie blitz players have effectively introduced a degree of randomness to the game where they can prevail against stronger players and it's all possible because of the time control. All this being said, if you're tactical prowess and positional insight is just plain better, their gambit will probably cause them to lose. But I find that in Blitz, you must be significantly stronger than your opponent, if you choose to try and play sound chess and not play ball with mindless complicated quick moves. Also, if you ever play 2 1 time controls you will truly know the meaning of Bizarro Chess. You have to rely on pre moves so much that a frequent strategy is to 'hang' a rook/queen so when your opponent makes his premove you snatch his rook/queen with yours. If you stop to consider his moves, then you lose the time considering his move and you lose extra time moving the piece which can sometimes take 10 seconds when playing laggy overseas players. It would be painful if I cared at all about the results anymore, which thankfully I don't. Zugzwang posted:Nakamura has played 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 before, at the 2600+ level. I can only imagine the look on his opponent's face. I like Nakamura a lot because he does this kind of stuff all the time at the highest level. He said himself that he has only one life to live and he's going to use it to play crazy games. It does backfire from time to time though. Also, it's nice to know that there's still one really good US player in existence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Zugzwang posted:Nakamura has played 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 before, at the 2600+ level. I can only imagine the look on his opponent's face. Did he win? I've been experimenting with the Bongcloud Attack bigfoot again fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:Did he win? 0.5/2 There's also this failure. CowonCrack posted:It's more like, neither player will be able to figure it out with the time allotted, but the one who chooses to take time to work through them often ends up at a disadvantage because they run low on time, and you have to be way ahead of your opponent (like, 10 moves from mating him) or else you lose if he has 1 pawn on the board. Therefore, the dominant strategy (might) be for both players to create mindless complications and hope their opponent either 1) tries to solve them and runs out of time or 2) plays ball, and then the outcome is just very random.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
I joined ICC. My name there is mandelsnut. I am a newbie who wants to get lots of games in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:Did he win? Goddamn, this is even better than the king-go-round¹. It almost makes me wish I played blitz. ¹ One color plays f3, d3, Kf2, Ke3, Kd2, Ke1 E4C85D38 fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Jul 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
I had forgotten about Bongcloud. Bongcloud forever. 420 Bongcloud erryday. "i'm bakc dueds and cleened up man. it was a bad severil monthes man. i'm cleen now dueds and gettin serioous with chest, man! doent forgit to sey hello to the bong-mastir dueds." Edit: I just got to the place in that Bongcloud thread where someone points out that Bongcloud is the only "book opening" that works exactly the same both in regular chess and in Fischer random chess. 
JDCorley fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jul 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
I finally scrounged up enough money to get a USCF membership and go to a tournament. 0-6 with a brand new shiny rating of 900. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
E4C85D38 posted:I finally scrounged up enough money to get a USCF membership and go to a tournament. As long as you've analyzed those games, you're on your way!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
McNerd posted:As long as you've analyzed those games, you're on your way! I did a post-game debrief with all of the players (double round-robin with 4 people total), and while (because of the time control used) I don't have the full games, I definitely got some great insights in responding to the English and openings/midgames in general, especially from the 1900. If I think of it as a really long coaching session, it was definitely worth the $20 entrance fee. Now the only thing I need to do is keep drilling tactics until I see material gains in my sleep and keep studying in general. I'm way more optimistic than I should be about this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
E4C85D38 posted:$20 entrance fee. You have no idea how jealous I am.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
I'm lucky enough to have a solid chess club nearby. There are rated tournaments year round. They occur in 6-round cycles, which usually last around 2 months because there is 1 game per week plus random disruptions to the schedule. The entry fee for one cycle is only $5, but there are no prizes - it's basically just an opportunity to play rated games and practice. I just got home from playing a game where I was white. I felt like I could have won, but it ended up being a draw. The player I was facing was much higher rated than I was, although my rating jumped almost 150pts from last month. Here's the pgn data (which is more compact than a long rear end list): [Event "APCC July 2012"] [Site "?"] [Date "2012.07.31"] [Round "2"] [White "C,B"] [Black "J, P"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D17"] [WhiteElo "1272"] [BlackElo "1624"] [Annotator "B,C"] [PlyCount "114"] 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. Nxc4 Nb6 8. e3 e6 9. Bd3 Nxc4 10. Bxc4 Bb4 11. O-O O-O 12. Qb3 a5 13. Na2 Qb6 14. Nxb4 Qxb4 15. Qxb4 axb4 16. Bd2 Nd5 17. Bxd5 exd5 18. Bxb4 Rfe8 19. Bd2 Ra6 20. Rfc1 Rea8 21. a5 Bd7 22. b4 b6 23. Ra3 f5 24. Kf1 Kf7 25. Rca1 b5 (25... g5 26. axb6 $1 Rxa3 27. Rxa3 Rxa3 28. b7 Ra1+ 29. Ke2) 26. Ke2 Re8 27. f3 Re6 28. g3 Bc8 29. h4 Ra7 30. Kd3 Ba6 31. Re1 Rae7 32. Bc1 h5 33. Ra2 Rg6 34. Rg2 Bb7 35. e4 fxe4+ 36. fxe4 dxe4+ 37. Rxe4 Rxe4 38. Rf2+ (38. Kxe4 c5+ 39. d5 Re6+ 40. Kd3 Rd6) 38... Ke7 39. Bg5+ $4 (39. Kxe4 c5+ 40. d5) 39... Ke8 $2 (39... Rxg5 40. Kxe4 c5+ 41. Kd3 Rxg3+) 40. Kxe4 c5+ 41. Kd3 (41. Kf5 Rd6 42. dxc5) 41... cxb4 42. Rb2 Ra6 43. Rxb4 Rxa5 44. Bd2 Ra3+ 45. Bc3 Bc6 46. d5 Bxd5 47. Rxb5 Be6 48. Rxh5 g6 49. Re5 Kf7 50. Rc5 Bf5+ 51. Ke3 Ra4 52. h5 Rg4 53. h6 (53. Kf3 Kg8 54. h6 Kh7 55. Bg7) 53... Rxg3+ 54. Kf4 Rh3 55. Rc7+ Ke6 56. h7 g5+ (56... Rxh7 57. Rxh7 g5+ 58. Kxg5 Bxh7) 57. Kxg5 Bxh7 1/2-1/2 I won an easy pawn early from an oversight by him, but converting a game to an actual win is always difficult. In the middle of the game there was a tactic where both players made errors, evening out. I could have been more aggressive but I was low on time, but it turns out being more aggressive would have won easily. Finally in the end as my pawn was about to promote, a nice tactic by him saved the draw. I have found that it is very hard to win when up just one pawn while pieces (especially rooks) remain on the board. I am not strong enough to do it without a very large amount of time. The time controls at this club are 60 minutes per player per game with no increment, because they only can use the community center for 2 hours max. A good amount of time, but in practice probably 1/3 of the time or less than classical time controls. Towards the endgame there often really isn't much time to force the win with a minor material advantage. In the future I suppose I will have to leave myself at least 30 minutes for the endgame. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Aug 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 05:23
|
|