Let's play chess
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Karjakin's appeal got dismissed: https://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-dism ... kin-appeal
Apparently he can appeal again, though at this point I'd say 80% Ding Liren will be a candidate instead of Karjakin.
Apparently he can appeal again, though at this point I'd say 80% Ding Liren will be a candidate instead of Karjakin.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Ding Liren confirmed as a candidate: https://en.chessbase.com/post/ding-lire ... candidates
Karjakin's ban is justified assuming "Karjakin had cheered Russia's attack against Ukraine on social media" is true.
Karjakin's ban is justified assuming "Karjakin had cheered Russia's attack against Ukraine on social media" is true.
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Let's play chess
Yes. It is the winning method for such scenarios that was taught in the Russian chess school. But you do have to be sure the trade is tactically sound.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:15 pmTrading pieces is precisely what you should do when you're ahead in material. This increases the value of your material advantage. For instance, the impact of being up a bishop is a lot more when there are no other pieces on the board besides the kings and pawns rather than when all other minor pieces are still on the board.gips wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 10:45 am yesterday I was up a bishop and had a raging kingside attack against a 2350 player with plenty of time on the clock. my opponent offered an exchange of queens to blunt my attack and I thought a minute or so about it: If I accepted the trade, my attack would lose potency but, in the end, was sure I could simplify with queens off the board. I resigned about 15 moves later.
Re: Let's play chess
Random question - not sure if this is the place. Been dusting off my 20 year old chess game and found myself with King/Queen v. King/Rook. I could have sworn that was an easy mate, but I allowed myself to time out in a draw.
As I've been reading online for tactics, I see a lot of stuff about mating from the Phillidor, but getting them there is a whole different conversation. I've been trying to beat a "perfect" computer, and I'll be darned if I can't. I see stuff talking about how a grandmaster back in the 70s failed multiple times, and I'm wondering if I'm trying to master too complex of a mate.
Anyway, just curious if anyone has a good link to talk about the process of getting the opponent to the back rank and ideally Phillidor.
As I've been reading online for tactics, I see a lot of stuff about mating from the Phillidor, but getting them there is a whole different conversation. I've been trying to beat a "perfect" computer, and I'll be darned if I can't. I see stuff talking about how a grandmaster back in the 70s failed multiple times, and I'm wondering if I'm trying to master too complex of a mate.
Anyway, just curious if anyone has a good link to talk about the process of getting the opponent to the back rank and ideally Phillidor.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Slick trap by Levy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUVwu2ymiE
He's selling a terrible move as a good move, knowing the opponent is watching his streaming.
He's selling a terrible move as a good move, knowing the opponent is watching his streaming.
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Let's play chess
The fundamental endings such as that are covered in Averbakh’s Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge
https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Endings-Es ... 1857440226
Re: Let's play chess
it is not an easy mate against best play and some positions are drawn. against a human, without best play, it’s often not that hard.sureshoe wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 7:26 pm Random question - not sure if this is the place. Been dusting off my 20 year old chess game and found myself with King/Queen v. King/Rook. I could have sworn that was an easy mate, but I allowed myself to time out in a draw.
As I've been reading online for tactics, I see a lot of stuff about mating from the Phillidor, but getting them there is a whole different conversation. I've been trying to beat a "perfect" computer, and I'll be darned if I can't. I see stuff talking about how a grandmaster back in the 70s failed multiple times, and I'm wondering if I'm trying to master too complex of a mate.
Anyway, just curious if anyone has a good link to talk about the process of getting the opponent to the back rank and ideally Phillidor.
Last edited by gips on Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Let's play chess
i dont really agree you can make a blanket statement, up a piece in blitz with a raging attack, i should have tried for the mate or more material. in a more equal position, the correct technique as you state is to trade pieces.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 amYes. It is the winning method for such scenarios that was taught in the Russian chess school. But you do have to be sure the trade is tactically sound.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:15 pmTrading pieces is precisely what you should do when you're ahead in material. This increases the value of your material advantage. For instance, the impact of being up a bishop is a lot more when there are no other pieces on the board besides the kings and pawns rather than when all other minor pieces are still on the board.gips wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 10:45 am yesterday I was up a bishop and had a raging kingside attack against a 2350 player with plenty of time on the clock. my opponent offered an exchange of queens to blunt my attack and I thought a minute or so about it: If I accepted the trade, my attack would lose potency but, in the end, was sure I could simplify with queens off the board. I resigned about 15 moves later.
in longer time controls, it probably doesnt matter as our rating spread was about 150 points. at 300-400 points, i’d be very hesitant to try to grind out the win up a bishop…i mean we’re basically talking beating a gm at bishop odds.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
It's certainly true that the specific characteristics of a specific game trump any 'recommended approach', but unless there are compelling features to oppose this approach, it should be followed.gips wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:17 ami dont really agree you can make a blanket statement, up a piece in blitz with a raging attack, i should have tried for the mate or more material. in a more equal position, the correct technique as you state is to trade pieces.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 amYes. It is the winning method for such scenarios that was taught in the Russian chess school. But you do have to be sure the trade is tactically sound.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:15 pmTrading pieces is precisely what you should do when you're ahead in material. This increases the value of your material advantage. For instance, the impact of being up a bishop is a lot more when there are no other pieces on the board besides the kings and pawns rather than when all other minor pieces are still on the board.gips wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 10:45 am yesterday I was up a bishop and had a raging kingside attack against a 2350 player with plenty of time on the clock. my opponent offered an exchange of queens to blunt my attack and I thought a minute or so about it: If I accepted the trade, my attack would lose potency but, in the end, was sure I could simplify with queens off the board. I resigned about 15 moves later.
in longer time controls, it probably doesnt matter as our rating spread was about 150 points. at 300-400 points, i’d be very hesitant to try to grind out the win up a bishop…i mean we’re basically talking beating a gm at bishop odds.
The Sensible Steward
Re: Let's play chess
really the point of my post on this subject was that after some deliberation, i decided to follow the standard strategy of simplification and it failed, mostly because my opponent was too strong and in retrospect, i made the wrong choice.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:14 pmIt's certainly true that the specific characteristics of a specific game trump any 'recommended approach', but unless there are compelling features to oppose this approach, it should be followed.gips wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:17 ami dont really agree you can make a blanket statement, up a piece in blitz with a raging attack, i should have tried for the mate or more material. in a more equal position, the correct technique as you state is to trade pieces.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 amYes. It is the winning method for such scenarios that was taught in the Russian chess school. But you do have to be sure the trade is tactically sound.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:15 pmTrading pieces is precisely what you should do when you're ahead in material. This increases the value of your material advantage. For instance, the impact of being up a bishop is a lot more when there are no other pieces on the board besides the kings and pawns rather than when all other minor pieces are still on the board.gips wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 10:45 am yesterday I was up a bishop and had a raging kingside attack against a 2350 player with plenty of time on the clock. my opponent offered an exchange of queens to blunt my attack and I thought a minute or so about it: If I accepted the trade, my attack would lose potency but, in the end, was sure I could simplify with queens off the board. I resigned about 15 moves later.
in longer time controls, it probably doesnt matter as our rating spread was about 150 points. at 300-400 points, i’d be very hesitant to try to grind out the win up a bishop…i mean we’re basically talking beating a gm at bishop odds.
Re: Let's play chess
I think I am going to agree with gips here based on the context and watching my children's games when they play expert level players (Fide 2000+). Simply put if you are up material and your opponent is at the expert level and at least a tier above you (1800s playing 2000s, 2000s playing CMs, etc.) and they are offering a queen trade then they probably understand the position and and have a decent chance of outplaying you positionally in the remainder of the game.gips wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:01 amreally the point of my post on this subject was that after some deliberation, i decided to follow the standard strategy of simplification and it failed, mostly because my opponent was too strong and in retrospect, i made the wrong choice.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:14 pmIt's certainly true that the specific characteristics of a specific game trump any 'recommended approach', but unless there are compelling features to oppose this approach, it should be followed.gips wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:17 ami dont really agree you can make a blanket statement, up a piece in blitz with a raging attack, i should have tried for the mate or more material. in a more equal position, the correct technique as you state is to trade pieces.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 amYes. It is the winning method for such scenarios that was taught in the Russian chess school. But you do have to be sure the trade is tactically sound.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:15 pm
Trading pieces is precisely what you should do when you're ahead in material. This increases the value of your material advantage. For instance, the impact of being up a bishop is a lot more when there are no other pieces on the board besides the kings and pawns rather than when all other minor pieces are still on the board.
in longer time controls, it probably doesnt matter as our rating spread was about 150 points. at 300-400 points, i’d be very hesitant to try to grind out the win up a bishop…i mean we’re basically talking beating a gm at bishop odds.
For a more extreme example I did see Anish Giri comment the other day that he felt he could pretty much beat anybody without a queen if they were less than 2200.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
It's been months since I saw it, but IIRC, the reason it failed is, frankly, due to poor play on your part after the trade. The trade was not the problem.gips wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:01 amreally the point of my post on this subject was that after some deliberation, i decided to follow the standard strategy of simplification and it failed, mostly because my opponent was too strong and in retrospect, i made the wrong choice.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:14 pmIt's certainly true that the specific characteristics of a specific game trump any 'recommended approach', but unless there are compelling features to oppose this approach, it should be followed.gips wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:17 ami dont really agree you can make a blanket statement, up a piece in blitz with a raging attack, i should have tried for the mate or more material. in a more equal position, the correct technique as you state is to trade pieces.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 amYes. It is the winning method for such scenarios that was taught in the Russian chess school. But you do have to be sure the trade is tactically sound.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:15 pm
Trading pieces is precisely what you should do when you're ahead in material. This increases the value of your material advantage. For instance, the impact of being up a bishop is a lot more when there are no other pieces on the board besides the kings and pawns rather than when all other minor pieces are still on the board.
in longer time controls, it probably doesnt matter as our rating spread was about 150 points. at 300-400 points, i’d be very hesitant to try to grind out the win up a bishop…i mean we’re basically talking beating a gm at bishop odds.
Again, the specifics of a given position are supreme, but unless there is a compelling reason to keep pieces on the board, trading pieces when you're materially ahead is recommended by chess teachers often.
The Sensible Steward
Re: Let's play chess
Anyone playing Alekhine’s Defense?
Rating 1350 on Chess.com
Rating 1350 on Chess.com
“And how shall I think of you?' He considered a moment and then laughed. 'Think of me with my nose in a book!” |
― Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Re: Let's play chess
lol, the compelling reason here to not trade was the rating spread between players. let's say you're playing nakaumura and he gives you a bishop, starting position, is your strategy to trade down? cause I can guarantee that's never, ever going to work . (Well, honestly, no strategy is every going to work against Nak but one could choose a player with a smaller rating spread). Now take all the pieces off board except his king and a rook. You can obviously beat him by trading down. So how much material advantage do you need to beat him? How much before trading down is the right strategy? again, the point of my post wasn't if trading down is a good strategy, obviously at my rating level I know the theory, the point is where does it make sense based on the rating spread spectrum with a good attacking position.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:57 amIt's been months since I saw it, but IIRC, the reason it failed is, frankly, due to poor play on your part after the trade. The trade was not the problem.gips wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:01 amreally the point of my post on this subject was that after some deliberation, i decided to follow the standard strategy of simplification and it failed, mostly because my opponent was too strong and in retrospect, i made the wrong choice.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:14 pmIt's certainly true that the specific characteristics of a specific game trump any 'recommended approach', but unless there are compelling features to oppose this approach, it should be followed.gips wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:17 ami dont really agree you can make a blanket statement, up a piece in blitz with a raging attack, i should have tried for the mate or more material. in a more equal position, the correct technique as you state is to trade pieces.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 am
Yes. It is the winning method for such scenarios that was taught in the Russian chess school. But you do have to be sure the trade is tactically sound.
in longer time controls, it probably doesnt matter as our rating spread was about 150 points. at 300-400 points, i’d be very hesitant to try to grind out the win up a bishop…i mean we’re basically talking beating a gm at bishop odds.
Again, the specifics of a given position are supreme, but unless there is a compelling reason to keep pieces on the board, trading pieces when you're materially ahead is recommended by chess teachers often.
not sure how you would have seen my game? In any case, whether I played poorly or well is immaterial, the decision to simplify based on how well I expect to play is captured in our rating spread. In fact, my opponent had a clever idea in the ending which won the game (though I haven't looked at it in a while). Also, I'm sure the clock, which should also be considered in these decisions, played a role as I've gotten much slower as I've aged and was probably feeling time pressure.
here's another example, when I was 16 I played against a much higher rated player in a tournament. I had found/prepared an unusual trap in the Sicilian and he fell for it. I was up a pawn, he couldn't castle and I had a good attacking position. He offered me a draw. I was already beating players up a pawn by trading down but a) this would have been my first draw with an expert b) a draw would guarantee me some sort of trophy and small cash prize and c) I wasn't sure I could simplify against someone rated so much higher. In the end, I ran five minutes off my clock thinking it over, was not an easy decision but decided to play on. My point is that it's not always about the position on the chess board and theory which leads us to a strategy.
best,
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:07 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Maybe it should be mandatory to post your chess rating before giving advice to +2200 players on this thread
I thankfully get to play an almost USCF expert that is 2200 liches blitz in weekly OTB blitz (3m 2sd) chess at the brewery.
Can't count the number of up material games I've lost when I've attempted to simplify. That endgame technique gap only gets larger at master and above.
Me: Patzer @ 1400 USCF / 1900 lichess blitz and hoping to grab some OTB wins next month.
I thankfully get to play an almost USCF expert that is 2200 liches blitz in weekly OTB blitz (3m 2sd) chess at the brewery.
Can't count the number of up material games I've lost when I've attempted to simplify. That endgame technique gap only gets larger at master and above.
Me: Patzer @ 1400 USCF / 1900 lichess blitz and hoping to grab some OTB wins next month.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
I'm pretty confident that in a battle between King and two pawns vs. King, two pawns, and a bishop, any decent player would win the latter side.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
I think you should play gips on lichess and settle this once and for all. The Bogleheads Chess Championship.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:47 pmI'm pretty confident that in a battle between King and two pawns vs. King, two pawns, and a bishop, any decent player would win the latter side.
Re: Let's play chess
maybe, but thats why i said “starting position”. anyhow, i think we’ve made our points, i’m moving on.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:47 pmI'm pretty confident that in a battle between King and two pawns vs. King, two pawns, and a bishop, any decent player would win the latter side.
best,
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
That doesn't change the overall situation though.gips wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:09 pmmaybe, but thats why i said “starting position”willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:47 pmI'm pretty confident that in a battle between King and two pawns vs. King, two pawns, and a bishop, any decent player would win the latter side.
When you're ahead by a bishop, for instance, but your opponent still has three minor pieces, the value of your material advantage is much less than in the scenario I described above, where the same material advantage is huge.
This isn't something novel I'm talking about here. As noted above, it's the recommended practice by most chess teachers. For instance, Jeremy Silman explicitly recommends it.
The behavioral problem with being ahead in material is that it's very easy to get lazy and think that the game will basically win itself for you.
The Sensible Steward
Re: Let's play chess
personally, I wouldn't recommend Alekhine’s for a beginner. It can be tricky to defend and the principles of undermining white's center in a hypermodern opening take some time to understand. I'd suggest learning kings pawn games first, then Sicilian or maybe vice versa.
anyhow, how are you doing with it?
best,
Re: Let's play chess
It has been a while since I perused Silman's endgame book but my recollection is that he recommends that one knows their theoretical endgame positions so that one knows not only how but when to trade down into a winning (or drawn if one is down material) endgame. As being a bishop up can lead to drawn endgames it would certainly be the material condition that I would be most concerned about and least trustful of my advantage holding out over an expert or greater level player who was also much higher rated than me. If we have traded down to a position where I was up a bishop and there only a few pawns on the board it is quite likely they have lured me into a drawn endgame.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:13 pm ...This isn't something novel I'm talking about here. As noted above, it's the recommended practice by most chess teachers. For instance, Jeremy Silman explicitly recommends it...
Winning endgames even with a material advantage against 2000+ rated players is simply no small feat for lesser rated players. And, this failure to convert a material advantage in the endgame against superior, expert rated players is something I actually see quite frequently watching my children's tournaments. The discrepancy in "tactical" endgame skill really shows up at these levels. One can't simply rely on being material up. One also needs a sound strategy on how to implement it and one has to avoid many tactical pitfalls.
Re: Let's play chess
I’m about 50-50gips wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:37 pmpersonally, I wouldn't recommend Alekhine’s for a beginner. It can be tricky to defend and the principles of undermining white's center in a hypermodern opening take some time to understand. I'd suggest learning kings pawn games first, then Sicilian or maybe vice versa.
anyhow, how are you doing with it?
best,
I think the other players also find it difficult to convert their centre pawns to an attack, because we’re at the same level
“And how shall I think of you?' He considered a moment and then laughed. 'Think of me with my nose in a book!” |
― Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Re: Let's play chess
that’s pretty good! if you can learn the ideas behind the opening as opposed to memorizing lines (which unfortunately you’ll also have to do), it will be a rewarding experience. as white i play positionally against it. good luck!Tellurius wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 7:59 amI’m about 50-50gips wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:37 pmpersonally, I wouldn't recommend Alekhine’s for a beginner. It can be tricky to defend and the principles of undermining white's center in a hypermodern opening take some time to understand. I'd suggest learning kings pawn games first, then Sicilian or maybe vice versa.
anyhow, how are you doing with it?
best,
I think the other players also find it difficult to convert their centre pawns to an attack, because we’re at the same level
best,
Re: Let's play chess
the silman book is excellent, i’ll often trade down in equal positions for a theoretical endgame advantage like bishop vs knight with pawns on both flanks or knight vs bishop in a closed position and trust that tactics will flow.halfnine wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 12:19 amIt has been a while since I perused Silman's endgame book but my recollection is that he recommends that one knows their theoretical endgame positions so that one knows not only how but when to trade down into a winning (or drawn if one is down material) endgame. As being a bishop up can lead to drawn endgames it would certainly be the material condition that I would be most concerned about and least trustful of my advantage holding out over an expert or greater level player who was also much higher rated than me. If we have traded down to a position where I was up a bishop and there only a few pawns on the board it is quite likely they have lured me into a drawn endgame.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:13 pm ...This isn't something novel I'm talking about here. As noted above, it's the recommended practice by most chess teachers. For instance, Jeremy Silman explicitly recommends it...
Winning endgames even with a material advantage against 2000+ rated players is simply no small feat for lesser rated players. And, this failure to convert a material advantage in the endgame against superior, expert rated players is something I actually see quite frequently watching my children's tournaments. The discrepancy in "tactical" endgame skill really shows up at these levels. One can't simply rely on being material up. One also needs a sound strategy on how to implement it and one has to avoid many tactical pitfalls.
given inflation and the latest market news, this thread feels a little like fiddling while rome burns, otoh, it’s a good distraction and its not like we can do anything about it.
best,
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Came across YouTube recommendations, this person has some fascinating endgame puzzles & explanations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Hi389Re1Q
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
About the only way that being a bishop up does not lead to a win is if the opposing side can trade off all the pawns. The big exception is the 'wrong colored rook pawn'. Other than that, being up a bishop is nearly always winning and generally with ease.halfnine wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 12:19 amIt has been a while since I perused Silman's endgame book but my recollection is that he recommends that one knows their theoretical endgame positions so that one knows not only how but when to trade down into a winning (or drawn if one is down material) endgame. As being a bishop up can lead to drawn endgames it would certainly be the material condition that I would be most concerned about and least trustful of my advantage holding out over an expert or greater level player who was also much higher rated than me. If we have traded down to a position where I was up a bishop and there only a few pawns on the board it is quite likely they have lured me into a drawn endgame.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:13 pm ...This isn't something novel I'm talking about here. As noted above, it's the recommended practice by most chess teachers. For instance, Jeremy Silman explicitly recommends it...
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
What...not if you're playing Nakamura...that's the point gips made.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:22 pm About the only way that being a bishop up does not lead to a win is if the opposing side can trade off all the pawns. The big exception is the 'wrong colored rook pawn'. Other than that, being up a bishop is nearly always winning and generally with ease.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
To borrow a term coined by Pandolfini, you can't defy gravity, no matter how light you are.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:30 pmWhat...not if you're playing Nakamura...that's the point gips made.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:22 pm About the only way that being a bishop up does not lead to a win is if the opposing side can trade off all the pawns. The big exception is the 'wrong colored rook pawn'. Other than that, being up a bishop is nearly always winning and generally with ease.
The Sensible Steward
Re: Let's play chess
Yes, if you can get there. But my original point is you likely cannot. You can't always just "force" trades with a superior, expert level player down to the endgame of your choosing. Most likely you will get to an endgame of their choosing in which case, yes, you've ended up with the wrong coloured bishop. And, even if you could get a favourable theoretical endgame, you will likely have to get through a very tactical endgame first and you are underestimating how crafty high level players can be. Odds are likely you are going to find yourself forked, skewered and down the exchange, or simply just dropping pawns. When there are fewer pieces on the board players at the expert level and above are very good at aligning their pieces so that they work together and if you have simply been forcing trades when the opportunity presented itself than your pieces aren't likely nearly well as placed. It is simply just not easy to beat a superior level player with a "passed pawn" strategy if that strategy is implemented the second you have a material advantage.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:33 pmTo borrow a term coined by Pandolfini, you can't defy gravity, no matter how light you are.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:30 pmWhat...not if you're playing Nakamura...that's the point gips made.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:22 pm About the only way that being a bishop up does not lead to a win is if the opposing side can trade off all the pawns. The big exception is the 'wrong colored rook pawn'. Other than that, being up a bishop is nearly always winning and generally with ease.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
What's the alternative you're proposing? You think that leaving as many pieces on the board against an 'expert level player' will provide you with better winning chances? I certainly don't.halfnine wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:56 pmYes, if you can get there. But my original point is you likely cannot. You can't always just "force" trades with a superior, expert level player down to the endgame of your choosing. Most likely you will get to an endgame of their choosing in which case, yes, you've ended up with the wrong coloured bishop. And, even if you could get a favourable theoretical endgame, you will likely have to get through a very tactical endgame first and you are underestimating how crafty high level players can be. Odds are likely you are going to find yourself forked, skewered and down the exchange, or simply just dropping pawns. When there are fewer pieces on the board players at the expert level and above are very good at aligning their pieces so that they work together and if you have simply been forcing trades when the opportunity presented itself than your pieces aren't likely nearly well as placed. It is simply just not easy to beat a superior level player with a "passed pawn" strategy if that strategy is implemented the second you have a material advantage.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:33 pmTo borrow a term coined by Pandolfini, you can't defy gravity, no matter how light you are.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:30 pmWhat...not if you're playing Nakamura...that's the point gips made.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:22 pm About the only way that being a bishop up does not lead to a win is if the opposing side can trade off all the pawns. The big exception is the 'wrong colored rook pawn'. Other than that, being up a bishop is nearly always winning and generally with ease.
The point of the above quote is that even players like Nakamura cannot pull a win out of thin air. Being up something like a bishop when there are still multiple pawns on the board is almost certainly a winning advantage that not even a computer can come back from against reasonably accurate play.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:07 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Your over-the-board and online ratings?willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:16 amWhat's the alternative you're proposing? You think that leaving as many pieces on the board against an 'expert level player' will provide you with better winning chances? I certainly don't.halfnine wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:56 pmYes, if you can get there. But my original point is you likely cannot. You can't always just "force" trades with a superior, expert level player down to the endgame of your choosing. Most likely you will get to an endgame of their choosing in which case, yes, you've ended up with the wrong coloured bishop. And, even if you could get a favourable theoretical endgame, you will likely have to get through a very tactical endgame first and you are underestimating how crafty high level players can be. Odds are likely you are going to find yourself forked, skewered and down the exchange, or simply just dropping pawns. When there are fewer pieces on the board players at the expert level and above are very good at aligning their pieces so that they work together and if you have simply been forcing trades when the opportunity presented itself than your pieces aren't likely nearly well as placed. It is simply just not easy to beat a superior level player with a "passed pawn" strategy if that strategy is implemented the second you have a material advantage.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:33 pmTo borrow a term coined by Pandolfini, you can't defy gravity, no matter how light you are.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:30 pmWhat...not if you're playing Nakamura...that's the point gips made.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:22 pm About the only way that being a bishop up does not lead to a win is if the opposing side can trade off all the pawns. The big exception is the 'wrong colored rook pawn'. Other than that, being up a bishop is nearly always winning and generally with ease.
The point of the above quote is that even players like Nakamura cannot pull a win out of thin air. Being up something like a bishop when there are still multiple pawns on the board is almost certainly a winning advantage that not even a computer can come back from against reasonably accurate play.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
Ad hominem much?slicendice420 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 11:02 amYour over-the-board and online ratings?willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:16 amWhat's the alternative you're proposing? You think that leaving as many pieces on the board against an 'expert level player' will provide you with better winning chances? I certainly don't.halfnine wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:56 pmYes, if you can get there. But my original point is you likely cannot. You can't always just "force" trades with a superior, expert level player down to the endgame of your choosing. Most likely you will get to an endgame of their choosing in which case, yes, you've ended up with the wrong coloured bishop. And, even if you could get a favourable theoretical endgame, you will likely have to get through a very tactical endgame first and you are underestimating how crafty high level players can be. Odds are likely you are going to find yourself forked, skewered and down the exchange, or simply just dropping pawns. When there are fewer pieces on the board players at the expert level and above are very good at aligning their pieces so that they work together and if you have simply been forcing trades when the opportunity presented itself than your pieces aren't likely nearly well as placed. It is simply just not easy to beat a superior level player with a "passed pawn" strategy if that strategy is implemented the second you have a material advantage.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:33 pmTo borrow a term coined by Pandolfini, you can't defy gravity, no matter how light you are.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:30 pm
What...not if you're playing Nakamura...that's the point gips made.
The point of the above quote is that even players like Nakamura cannot pull a win out of thin air. Being up something like a bishop when there are still multiple pawns on the board is almost certainly a winning advantage that not even a computer can come back from against reasonably accurate play.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Well, if you have opportunities to trade down, that's fine.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:16 am What's the alternative you're proposing? You think that leaving as many pieces on the board against an 'expert level player' will provide you with better winning chances? I certainly don't.
The point of the above quote is that even players like Nakamura cannot pull a win out of thin air. Being up something like a bishop when there are still multiple pawns on the board is almost certainly a winning advantage that not even a computer can come back from against reasonably accurate play.
If you play Nakamura with a bishop handicap, he won't accept trades; he will try to destroy you tactically with the remaining pieces. Someone also mentioned skewers & forks; those are common ways not to trade down while going for material advantage.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
Precisely. An experienced player who is down in material knows that trading pieces is highly likely to hurt them. They want to keep as many pieces on the board as possible to maximize their ability to bring superior tactical play into action.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:50 pmWell, if you have opportunities to trade down, that's fine.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 8:16 am What's the alternative you're proposing? You think that leaving as many pieces on the board against an 'expert level player' will provide you with better winning chances? I certainly don't.
The point of the above quote is that even players like Nakamura cannot pull a win out of thin air. Being up something like a bishop when there are still multiple pawns on the board is almost certainly a winning advantage that not even a computer can come back from against reasonably accurate play.
If you play Nakamura with a bishop handicap, he won't accept trades; he will try to destroy you tactically with the remaining pieces. Someone also mentioned skewers & forks; those are common ways not to trade down while going for material advantage.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Let's play chess
Regardless of relative strength of players, you should do the best you are able to evaluate the position and your moves on their merit and not assume that because your stronger opponent is allowing a trade or whatever to happen that it must be inferior to execute the trade or do whatever is being allowed.halfnine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:37 am Simply put if you are up material and your opponent is at the expert level and at least a tier above you (1800s playing 2000s, 2000s playing CMs, etc.) and they are offering a queen trade then they probably understand the position and and have a decent chance of outplaying you positionally in the remainder of the game.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Yes, although what gips was saying is somewhat different.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 7:01 pm Precisely. An experienced player who is down in material knows that trading pieces is highly likely to hurt them. They want to keep as many pieces on the board as possible to maximize their ability to bring superior tactical play into action.
It was a situation where gips was up in material, but trading down ended up watering down their attack and allowed a comeback. This is why they were asking if they should've kept the pieces instead of trading down.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 12:47 amYes, although what gips was saying is somewhat different.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 7:01 pm Precisely. An experienced player who is down in material knows that trading pieces is highly likely to hurt them. They want to keep as many pieces on the board as possible to maximize their ability to bring superior tactical play into action.
It was a situation where gips was up in material, but trading down ended up watering down their attack and allowed a comeback. This is why they were asking if they should've kept the pieces instead of trading down.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
I don't think anyone claims gips played perfectly. In fact chess is full of mistakes, even for someone like Carlsen as he can't beat Stockfish.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:33 am I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down.
It'd be super interesting if gips could post the PGN of the game or something so we can all analyze.
Re: Let's play chess
I've read and participated in many of will's forum threads, he's smart, detail oriented and his reasoning is nuanced. Here, for whatever, reason I don't think Will is open to honest debate as evidenced by comments like "'I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down." It's self-evident my play was imprecise as is likely against a player rated 200 points higher and I'm sure he knows this.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:57 amI don't think anyone claims gips played perfectly. In fact chess is full of mistakes, even for someone like Carlsen as he can't beat Stockfish.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:33 am I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down.
It'd be super interesting if gips could post the PGN of the game or something so we can all analyze.
I suggest we all move on.
Last edited by gips on Sun Jun 12, 2022 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
I'm on Ubuntu and just realized someone packaged Stockfish; I just needed to install via apt and edit the engine list in xBoard to start using it
It's version 14.1, not 15 but it is strong enough
It's version 14.1, not 15 but it is strong enough
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:07 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Chess is its own universe and outside skills just don't translate.gips wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 12:23 pmI've read and participated in many of will's forums threads, he's smart, detail oriented and his reasoning is nuanced. Here, for whatever, reason I don't think Will is open to honest debate as evidenced by comments like "'I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down." It's self-evident my play was imprecise as is likely against a player rated 200 points higher and I'm sure he knows this.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:57 amI don't think anyone claims gips played perfectly. In fact chess is full of mistakes, even for someone like Carlsen as he can't beat Stockfish.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:33 am I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down.
It'd be super interesting if gips could post the PGN of the game or something so we can all analyze.
I suggest we all move on.
Debating someone who will not provide a rating when they invoke "Russian chess school" is just a waste of time.
Next session with my coach is going to cover Scotch 4 Knights from the black side. Thankfully usually face Italian from the kiddos or Ruy from the old timers.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
The Candidates Tournament starting next Friday. Any guesses as to who the challenger will be?
My guess is Ding Liren; for some reason I don't feel Alireza would win this thing.
My guess is Ding Liren; for some reason I don't feel Alireza would win this thing.
Re: Let's play chess
i play scotch 4 knights as white quite a bit, fairly easy to defend as black but easy to go wrong. we had some conversation about the opening upthread if you want to scroll back a couple of pages or search.slicendice420 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 1:25 pmChess is its own universe and outside skills just don't translate.gips wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 12:23 pmI've read and participated in many of will's forums threads, he's smart, detail oriented and his reasoning is nuanced. Here, for whatever, reason I don't think Will is open to honest debate as evidenced by comments like "'I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down." It's self-evident my play was imprecise as is likely against a player rated 200 points higher and I'm sure he knows this.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:57 amI don't think anyone claims gips played perfectly. In fact chess is full of mistakes, even for someone like Carlsen as he can't beat Stockfish.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:33 am I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down.
It'd be super interesting if gips could post the PGN of the game or something so we can all analyze.
I suggest we all move on.
Debating someone who will not provide a rating when they invoke "Russian chess school" is just a waste of time.
Next session with my coach is going to cover Scotch 4 Knights from the black side. Thankfully usually face Italian from the kiddos or Ruy from the old timers.
Re: Let's play chess
smart money (betting) is on ding liren, then fc. i really dont follow gm chess and as such, dont understand playing styles of the top players but completely awed by nakamura’s play against the coffee chess gang on youtube. seems like a good guy and would love to see him win but very unlikely.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 1:28 pm The Candidates Tournament starting next Friday. Any guesses as to who the challenger will be?
My guess is Ding Liren; for some reason I don't feel Alireza would win this thing.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
I'm always open to debate, but when masters who teach for a living like Pandolfini and Silman clearly recommend a particular course of action, it's hard for me to be dissuaded otherwise by other novice players.gips wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 12:23 pmI've read and participated in many of will's forum threads, he's smart, detail oriented and his reasoning is nuanced. Here, for whatever, reason I don't think Will is open to honest debate as evidenced by comments like "'I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down." It's self-evident my play was imprecise as is likely against a player rated 200 points higher and I'm sure he knows this.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:57 amI don't think anyone claims gips played perfectly. In fact chess is full of mistakes, even for someone like Carlsen as he can't beat Stockfish.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:33 am I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down.
It'd be super interesting if gips could post the PGN of the game or something so we can all analyze.
I suggest we all move on.
The Sensible Steward
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Let's play chess
I didn't invoke that term.slicendice420 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 1:25 pm Debating someone who will not provide a rating when they invoke "Russian chess school" is just a waste of time.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Let's play chess
Nakamura is a great guy, based on few YouTube clips I've seen.gips wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:12 pm smart money (betting) is on ding liren, then fc. i really dont follow gm chess and as such, dont understand playing styles of the top players but completely awed by nakamura’s play against the coffee chess gang on youtube. seems like a good guy and would love to see him win but very unlikely.
Surprises can and do happen at the Candidates though, I don't think people expected Nepomniachtchi to win the last tournament either.
As far as FC, I don't think his form is that good at the moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5V-UUeazUU
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Let's play chess
Pandolfini and Silman will also tell you that it is a general guideline, and cannot be applied rigidly to every position, and certainly not to one that you have not seen and with which you are unfamiliar. The queen trade may have been an error or may have been an efficient way to win the game. We can say that, much more often than not, it is an efficient winning plan, but that does not apply uniformly to every position.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 4:08 pmI'm always open to debate, but when masters who teach for a living like Pandolfini and Silman clearly recommend a particular course of action, it's hard for me to be dissuaded otherwise by other novice players.gips wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 12:23 pmI've read and participated in many of will's forum threads, he's smart, detail oriented and his reasoning is nuanced. Here, for whatever, reason I don't think Will is open to honest debate as evidenced by comments like "'I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down." It's self-evident my play was imprecise as is likely against a player rated 200 points higher and I'm sure he knows this.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:57 amI don't think anyone claims gips played perfectly. In fact chess is full of mistakes, even for someone like Carlsen as he can't beat Stockfish.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:33 am I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down.
It'd be super interesting if gips could post the PGN of the game or something so we can all analyze.
I suggest we all move on.
Also, if it is a blitz game, and you are behind on time, continuing an attack to play for mate could be the best winning plan, again, depending on circumstance.
Re: Let's play chess
we've all said this in so many different ways, Will's constant refrain is "but pandoflini says...". I know you are well-meaning here, but really, I suggest we all just move on.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 6:52 pmPandolfini and Silman will also tell you that it is a general guideline, and cannot be applied rigidly to every position, and certainly not to one that you have not seen and with which you are unfamiliar. The queen trade may have been an error or may have been an efficient way to win the game. We can say that, much more often than not, it is an efficient winning plan, but that does not apply uniformly to every position.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 4:08 pmI'm always open to debate, but when masters who teach for a living like Pandolfini and Silman clearly recommend a particular course of action, it's hard for me to be dissuaded otherwise by other novice players.gips wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 12:23 pmI've read and participated in many of will's forum threads, he's smart, detail oriented and his reasoning is nuanced. Here, for whatever, reason I don't think Will is open to honest debate as evidenced by comments like "'I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down." It's self-evident my play was imprecise as is likely against a player rated 200 points higher and I'm sure he knows this.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:57 amI don't think anyone claims gips played perfectly. In fact chess is full of mistakes, even for someone like Carlsen as he can't beat Stockfish.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:33 am I'm not convinced that the problem in that game was that the 'attack was watered down' as much as imprecise play after trading down.
It'd be super interesting if gips could post the PGN of the game or something so we can all analyze.
I suggest we all move on.
Also, if it is a blitz game, and you are behind on time, continuing an attack to play for mate could be the best winning plan, again, depending on circumstance.
Re: Let's play chess
And, refering back to that previous conversation, there were a few extra little tidbits I was going to add but never got around to it. One additional recommendation from the GM for those who wanted to avoid memorizing lots of theory was against the sideline 4...Bb4. The most forcing recommended response starting with 5.Nxe5 with the most critical line for white to be prepared against being 5...Nxe4 6.Qg4 Nxc3 7.Qxg7 Rf8 8.a3 Nxd4 9.axb4 Nxc2+ 10.Kd2 Nxa1 11.Kxc3 Qe7 12.Bc4 a5 13.Re1 Qxb4+ 14.Kd3 Qxe1 15.Bxf7+ Ke7 16.Qg5+ Kd6 17.Nc4+ Kc6 18.Qd5#gips wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:35 pmi play scotch 4 knights as white quite a bit, fairly easy to defend as black but easy to go wrong. we had some conversation about the opening upthread if you want to scroll back a couple of pages or search.slicendice420 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 1:25 pm
...Next session with my coach is going to cover Scotch 4 Knights from the black side. Thankfully usually face Italian from the kiddos or Ruy from the old timers...