|
I would assume that if we go 2 ...Bc5 they will counter with 3. Nf3, assuming they don't do that with moves 1 or 2. Going for early checkmate is not going to work.
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
I'm OK with d5 this turn, but moving forward I have issues with sending the queen gallivanting around the board (which I concede is all hypothetical  at this point):1. ...d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. c4 Qe5+ 4. Bf2 Bg4 5. Nf3  Queen's in danger & they're set to king-side castle. Anything that moves the queen off the E rank frees up that bishop, except anywhere we move it is probably going to be chased down by pawns. They're also set up for Qa4+ that forces either c6 or Nc6 (pinning the knight in the process either way) or us to move our king and prevent us from castling. That said, what's our plan if they decide to go with 2. e5? Or 2. d4? They aren't required to take our bait pawn, after all. Also if you want to draw on a board I recommend lichess
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Dr. Snark posted:Er...supporting the Scandinavian Defense doesn't mean that we have to do that. There are plenty of other viable moves we can make from that position with our freed bishop and our knights. We don't have to, but if we don't we're giving them a pawn for nothing. At which point they don't have to chase our queen around but considering that they can do so very easily without really sacrificing long-term layout (i.e. they aren't moving pieces into inconvenient locations) they'd be foolish not to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Shall we discuss contingencies on non-exd5 moves? Such as d4, e5, or Bb5+
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:I'm not educated enough on Chess to draw up plans based upon such contingencies. We need threat assessments of all of these moves in order to keep up our momentum. I don't think it'd be a bad idea for everyone to take a potential White move & look it over for what openings it leaves us (and some thought towards why White would leave us those particular openings). We all ranked ourselves on a scale of 1-10 and were organized into teams based on those numerical rankings. If we can pull our group of 1-5s into the 6-10 range it can only improve our situation. IMO the more we discuss chess strategy the better; even if 99+% of them turn out pointlessly hypothetical, it gets everyone thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
I'm not sure why we bothered with the sicilian if we weren't going to Qxd5. Anything else gave away a pawn for literally nothing unless a very particular set of moves is made that makes White get in their own way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
 We're two moves in literally nothing is in the bag
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
I'm pretty OK with Bg4 but I'll listen to counter-arguments. One thing we need to be wary of is how much free reign their bishops have right now with their central pawns out of the way. Opening that up seems to be their goal with that d4 move just now; we should figure out why.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
uh, goons? 5. ...Bxd1 6. c7+
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
gently caress 5. ...Bxd1 6. c7+ Qd7 7. c8Q++ OK this is playable we aren't dead but holy poo poo we could've very easily just walked into checkmate right there. StupidSexyMothman fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What? Do you mean Bxf7? What game are you playing? Forgive it for being upside down compared to ours: 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Talow posted:Honest question: what's stopping cx6 from being viable? It's viable, but it puts our pawn in the way of our knight. That's not the end of the world, but it means that either our b8 knight is relatively useless or we have to spend 2+ moves to get it somewhere useful later in the game and generally there are better things to be done with 2+ moves than getting a knight unstuck from its home base. Basically if we're willing to concede that the b8 knight is going to be useless for most of the game by moving the pawn in its way, we may as well move the knight instead & either it gets captured (no loss, we were conceding it anyway) or White goes on the defensive and we've gained significantly in positioning with a knight at c6 instead of a pawn.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Even in the event of Davin Valkri posted:...white would play 8. Bxc6+ xc6 9. Bf4 we could still queenside castle. You can move the rook through danger, just not the king. Also queenside castling puts our king on the c rank which kind of sucks and I'd rather leave him where he is all things considered.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Qd5 is an interesting idea. Worst case is a queen exchange with our knight in pretty good position offensively on d5. Best case they retreat their queen and we gain positioning and tempo. I'd expect Qd3 to be their reply. I'm also ok with e6 to get our bishop out & open up castling on the king side. There is also the option of trying for Qd6-Ng4-Qxh7# if they were to castle king-side but it requires them to castle and make one other move that doesn't put us in check, put anything in the way of our queen & gets their queen away from g4 so it doesn't just capture the knight.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Just a reminder that queenside castling puts our king on the c rank, and therefore Qc3 re-pins our knight. I'm ok with either a6 or e6. The moves those lead white into making are the least advantageous.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
If we Qc7, what's our counter to Bf4? It looks like our choices are either run away & concede the center, or Bd6 and block our queen in yet again. I think I like h5 the best out of all our options. They have overloaded the king's side of the board, let's march the pawns and box them in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Rxd4 forces them to either exchange rook for bishop (giving us the knight forking their queen & remaining bishop), or it gives us a rook in the middle that's in position to defend the set up for Ng4-Qxa2# if they misplay it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
My concern with Ng4: what is our plan if they counter with Qf5+
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Qxe5 is met by what, Nxa7, Rxd8, Bg5, these are all the plausible moves I can see. Maybe Bf4. In the case of Nxa7, we'd be placed in check and forced to move our king closer to a relatively undefended corner which I'm not keen on, plus they can pick off our C6 pawn. That risk alone makes me thing we should not even consider Qxe5. "Risk" is underselling it: Qxe5 leads to Qxc6+ Kb7 Bxa7# or Qxc6+ Qc7 Qxc7#, so it's an outright loss. Nxh2 is nice if they Kxh2 but if they don't we're in a lot of trouble. Nxe5 is countered by Qf5+ and attempted playthroughs of that don't look too great for us either. EDIT: as far as loving up their plans I feel like g6 does a really remarkable job of gumming up their offensive. StupidSexyMothman fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Stalemate is literally zero legal moves, we are miles away from stalemate traps at this point just based on the number of pieces we still have on the board.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Kb7, stay off the dark squares to avoid that pesky bishop & makes sure there's nowhere they can move that knight that the king can't capture.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Yeah, Nxd7, save the rook. What's our counter to Rd1, since moving the knight means we no longer control the D?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
I'm tempted to offer Bb4 just to see if they'd waste a turn chasing it with pawns & give us the opening we need to rookstack but the way they've been playing making a move based on hoping they blunder is a mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Pawns are there to be sacrificed. I like fish's reasoning; anything they do on their next turn helps us. It's high time we made a move that does that instead of having those moves made on us. c5
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2017 21:54
|
|