| |
Main
Date: 11 May 2006 05:33:30
From: Martin S
Subject: Need tactical example
|
I need a (or more than one) combinational position on the theme "attack
along the h-line" as in this extract.
White:Kc1 Qd3 Rd1,h1 Bf2 Ne2,g5 Pa2,b2,c4,d5,e4,h4
Black:Kg8 Qe7 Ra8,f8 Bg7 Nc7,f6 Pa7,b7,c5,d6,h6
(One hour game)
Black played 20... h6 with the thought that white plays Nf3 and then black
retakes on e4."Of course" white played 21.e5 instead. I just recently saw
the theme in another game (take the night on g5 and suffer badly) so my
idea went 21... hg5 22.ed6 (22.ef6 Qf6 with a threat of mate on b2) Qd6
23.Bg3 Qd7 24.hg5 (or perhaps 22.hg5). Instead black played 21....Qe5
22.Bg3 Qe7 23.Nc3 Rfe8 24.Rde1 Qd7 25.Nge4
(game isn't really important here)
We recently did a poll among our junior players and they don't like
combination training exercises. So I need a couple of these positions to
illustrate the point that tactics can play a big part in "solving"
positional problems (they like positional problems excercises).
tin
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 04:15:08
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties"
> >> will
> >> still be in his book.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the master
> > will still win most of the time.
>
> How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?
>
> > Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll
> > win even more.
>
> How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?
You've missed the point.
This example disproves your claim that the first mistake is the crucial
one. It disproves the notion that outplaying your opponent in the
opening is sufficient.
>
> > I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle
> > before:
> >
> >
> > 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O
> > 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13.
> > Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 *
>
> Is that a trap? My engine has White over a pawn to the good.
>
>
> > Of for those who prefer FEN:
> >
> > 5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16
>
> I was able to visualize it without a board.
Really? Was your chess engine, too? Because it looks to me like you put
it in your computer to get an evaluation.
Computers do rate this position as about +1 for white. They're wrong.
> I've played this as White and not done poorly with it. I don't play 9.
> O-O-O anymore, however, so I wouldn't get into this line.
>
> Unless Black has a forced win here, I'd take white in a heartbeat.
> >Imagine you're black here.
> > You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap.
>
> My engine says White is comfortable, and my eyes agree.
You're wrong.
> My computer says Black *should* lose from the resulting position.
Your computer is wrong.
> 16. Rd2 looks pretty damn strong for White.
Try it against a strong player some time, when your computer is turned
off.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 04:47:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
>> >> If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties"
>> >> will
>> >> still be in his book.
>> >
>> > So what?
>> >
>> > Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the
>> > master
>> > will still win most of the time.
>>
>> How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?
>>
>> > Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll
>> > win even more.
>>
>> How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?
>
> You've missed the point.
The point that a stronger player can get away with a weak line against a
weaker player and come back to win isn't much of a "point."
> This example disproves your claim that the first mistake is the crucial
> one.
As long as you throw in the qualifier "if the guy making the first mistake
is 400 points stronger or more."
>It disproves the notion that outplaying your opponent in the
> opening is sufficient.
"DisPROVES?" Not exactly. There's also the issue of what happens when you
don't have a strength imbalance.
>> > I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle
>> > before:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3
>> > O-O
>> > 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13.
>> > Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 *
>>
>> Is that a trap? My engine has White over a pawn to the good.
>>
>>
>> > Of for those who prefer FEN:
>> >
>> > 5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16
>>
>> I was able to visualize it without a board.
>
> Really? Was your chess engine, too? Because it looks to me like you put
> it in your computer to get an evaluation.
Only after visualizing it. I've played that particular position with White
before, as I used to play 9. O-O-O against the Dragon.
> Computers do rate this position as about +1 for white. They're wrong.
Well, glad that's settled!
>> I've played this as White and not done poorly with it. I don't play 9.
>> O-O-O anymore, however, so I wouldn't get into this line.
>>
>> Unless Black has a forced win here, I'd take white in a heartbeat.
Still waiting for the forced win.
>> >Imagine you're black here.
>> > You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap.
>>
>> My engine says White is comfortable, and my eyes agree.
>
> You're wrong.
So instead of showing a variation that supports his claim, he says "you're
wrong."
>> My computer says Black *should* lose from the resulting position.
>
> Your computer is wrong.
Again, with no variations to back up his claims, when HE is the one who spit
out the variation in the first place.
>> 16. Rd2 looks pretty damn strong for White.
>
> Try it against a strong player some time, when your computer is turned
> off.
Which proves nothing theoretically. This line was called a "well known
trap" that White seems to have to avoid.
The guy calling it this offers no analysis to support that claim.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 16:09:58
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The guy calling it this offers no analysis to support that claim.
I don't. I merely offer the opinion of multiple grandmasters. Look it up
in any book if you doubt me.
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 12:16:29
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
>> The guy calling it this offers no analysis to support that claim.
>
> I don't. I merely offer the opinion of multiple grandmasters. Look it up
> in any book if you doubt me.
I trust engines over grandmasters.
If that position is a win for Black, post the win.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 12:07:53
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
(responding to Ron)
> The point that a stronger player can get away with a weak line against a
> weaker player and come back to win isn't much of a "point."
>
>>This example disproves your claim that the first mistake is the crucial
>>one.
>
>>It disproves the notion that outplaying your opponent in the
>>opening is sufficient.
Ray, ... I'm aprox 500 point higher than you and in some of my games I
have lost won positions and I have win lost positions, ...
Do you mean that at your level, you have won all the games you obtained
an avantage in the opening??
I have seen at my level (and at any level belov mine) many games when
the eval�uation of the game changes many times. Only as example: I
posted here a game of a local junior that you commented, and the
evaluation changed like (all that aproximately and if there are no
mistakes in my analysis):
= (after move 2w)
+= (move 2b)
= (move 4w)
+= (move 4b)
+/ (move 9b)
+- (move 15b)
+/ (move 25w)
= (move 26w)
+/ (move 28b)
+= (move 29w)
-+ (move 30w)
+/ (move 30b)
= (move 31w)
/+ (move 34w)
-+ (move 35w)
(I think I miss another mistakes between moves 30-34, ... )
Impressive, is not it?
I remember Ron advice to study tactics (advice made by many strong
players too) better than to study openings memoristically (advice only
done by Ray Gordon, weak player who can not prove Has improved).
In that case the strongly tactical caracter of the game has produced
those turning points, in more quieter games there are also strategical
mistakes which produced turning points and in endings it happens a very
similar sutuation.
That seem to prove the need to study tactics, strategy (IQP included),
endings, ...
Ray, ... please be serious and understand that! Do not confuss people!
Antonio
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 11:25:13
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
>> The point that a stronger player can get away with a weak line against a
>> weaker player and come back to win isn't much of a "point."
>>
>>>This example disproves your claim that the first mistake is the crucial
>>>one.
>>
>>>It disproves the notion that outplaying your opponent in the
>>>opening is sufficient.
>
> Ray, ... I'm aprox 500 point higher than you and in some of my games I
> have lost won positions and I have win lost positions, ...
> Do you mean that at your level, you have won all the games you obtained an
> avantage in the opening??
Of course not. My claim is that front-loading one game has the best
LONG-TERM impact on one's chess rating, since it lays the best foundation
for improvement.
> I have seen at my level (and at any level belov mine) many games when the
> eval�uation of the game changes many times. Only as example: I posted here
> a game of a local junior that you commented, and the evaluation changed
> like (all that aproximately and if there are no mistakes in my analysis):
There were some glaring errors in those games, definitely.
> = (after move 2w)
> += (move 2b)
> = (move 4w)
> += (move 4b)
> +/ (move 9b)
> +- (move 15b)
> +/ (move 25w)
> = (move 26w)
> +/ (move 28b)
> += (move 29w)
> -+ (move 30w)
> +/ (move 30b)
> = (move 31w)
> /+ (move 34w)
> -+ (move 35w)
> (I think I miss another mistakes between moves 30-34, ... )
Possibly.
> Impressive, is not it?
I don't know the ratings of the players involved, but if people play slow
chess like that, I'm encouraged.
> I remember Ron advice to study tactics (advice made by many strong players
> too) better than to study openings memoristically (advice only done by Ray
> Gordon, weak player who can not prove Has improved).
USCF can prove my rating evolution; it's in their records I know since I
still get postcards with my rating on them from Goichberg, or did until a
few years ago.
I also have studied tactics and endgames, but only to round out my game.
> In that case the strongly tactical caracter of the game has produced those
> turning points, in more quieter games there are also strategical mistakes
> which produced turning points and in endings it happens a very similar
> sutuation.
But weak openings poison those positions; if you don't have a poisoned
opening, you can count on the position occurring repeatedly, and this will
help your rating more.
> That seem to prove the need to study tactics, strategy (IQP included),
> endings, ...
That doesn't prove anything except how to beat a weak player. I'm trying to
beat the world's strongest players, not the weak ones.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
|
