| |
Main
Date: 11 Jun 2008 23:25:40
From: Sanny
Subject: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
Here is a game where Master Level has 2 Rooks left with 6 pawns and
Help Bot has Rook and Knight and 7 Pawns.
So Help Bot had Knight+Pawn vs Rook. So Master Level was at advantage
at Rook is equal to Knight + 2 Pawns while Help bot had only 1 extra
pawn.
But Help Bot advanced its pawns and killed many pawns of GetClub.
End Game is very weak So GetClub lost many pawns and in end Help Bot
got the Queen & win.
Till 25th move GetClub was at advantage of 1 Pawn. But after that what
happened that it lost the game?
Please tell me which were the wrong moves and what should GetClub had
done to get a win.
Game Played between help bot and master at GetClub.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
help bot: (Black)
master: (White)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM20686&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White -- Black
(master) -- (help bot)
1. d2-d4{1320} Ng8-f6{14}
2. Nb1-c3{4382} d7-d5{16}
3. Ng1-f3{2716} e7-e6{38}
4. Nf3-e5{2414} Nb8-d7{78}
5. a2-a3{1808} Nd7-e5{62}
6. d4-e5{1752} Nf6-d7{24}
7. e2-e4{2850} d5-e4{112}
8. Bc1-f4{1520} Bf8-e7{184}
9. Nc3-e4{2134} Ke8-g8{34}
10. Bf1-d3{1974} Qd8-e8{260}
11. Ke1-g1{2426} Nd7-b6{182}
12. Qd1-g4{1738} Kg8-h8{30}
13. Ne4-f6{1762} Be7-f6{500}
14. e5-f6{1448} g7-g6{44}
15. Bf4-h6{1974} Rf8-g8{448}
16. Ra1-d1{5230} Bc8-d7{584}
17. Rf1-e1{2790} Bd7-c6{422}
18. Bh6-g7{2068} Rg8-g7{44}
19. f6-g7{2460} Kh8-g7{10}
20. Qg4-f4{1436} Qe8-e7{120}
21. Bd3-e4{1350} Bc6-e4{70}
22. Qf4-e5{2276} Qe7-f6{124}
23. Qe5-f6{1314} Kg7-f6{8}
24. Re1-e4{2328} Kf6-e7{50}
25. Rd1-d4{1304} h7-h5{308} {GetClub is up one Pawn.}
26. b2-b4{3836} a7-a5{1178}
27. b4-b5{1934} Ra8-c8{58}
28. c2-c3{1996} c7-c5{486}
29. Rd4-d2{2286} c5-c4{154}
30. Rd2-d4{2012} Rc8-c5{130}
31. a3-a4{2130} f7-f5{94}
32. Re4-e3{3476} Nb6-a4{134}
33. h2-h4{1632} e6-e5{94}
34. f2-f4{1776} e5-e4{132}
35. Re3-g3{1772} Rc5-b5{408}
36. Rd4-c4{3608} Na4-b2{200}
37. Rc4-d4{1310} Rb5-b6{120}
38. c3-c4{1548} Nb2-d3{46}
39. c4-c5{1914} Nd3-c5{42}
40. Rg3-e3{2512} Rb6-b1{172}
41. Kg1-h2{2136} b7-b5{60}
42. Rd4-d5{1344} Nc5-e6{72}
43. g2-g3{2708} Rb1-b2{162}
44. Kh2-h3{1586} Ne6-c7{154}
45. Rd5-d3{2440} b5-b4{1066}
46. Rd3-d1{4880} a5-a4{60}
47. Re3-e1{6504} a4-a3{88}
48. Re1-f1{5490} a3-a2{62}
49. Rd1-c1{7012} Nc7-d5{70}
50. Rf1-e1{2008} Nd5-c3{40}
51. Rc1-c3{4706} b4-c3{36}
52. Re1-a1{330} c3-c2{48}
53. g3-g4{3172} h5-g4{44}
54. Kh3-g3{470} Rb2-b3{78}
55. Kg3-g2{512} Rb3-a3{42}
56. Kg2-f1{350} Rc2-c1{R}{28}
57. Ra1-c1{356} Qa2-a1{Q}{50}
58. Rc1-a1{358} Ra3-a1{6}
59. Kf1-f2{502} Ke7-e6{40}
60. Kf2-e2{808} g4-g3{32}
61. Ke2-d2{600} Ra1-a3{44}
62. Kd2-c2{1180} Ra3-d3{22}
63. h4-h5{612} g6-h5{14}
64. Kc2-b2{
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
help bot: (Black)
master: (White)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM20686&game=Chess
Let me know why GetClub lost despite being ahead by 1 Pawn?
What should getclub have done to win this game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2008 08:47:29
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
> it's a loss forGetClub, from either side.
It took me 1 day to understand what you are saying.
Yes Two Rooks are Stronger than Knight+Rook. So GetClub should have
won the game. But incase GetClub had other side still GetClub could
not have won because of poor End Game.
Nowadays a lot of interesting things are happening at GetClub. Just
see the games of Help Bot and Zebediah and you will find a few strange
games.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 16 Jun 2008 09:32:12
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
it's a loss for GetClub, from either side.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2008 07:01:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
On Jun 12, 5:28 pm, Martin Brown <
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2008 09:57:04
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
On Jun 12, 9:26=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 11:31 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Let me know whyGetClublost despite being ahead by 1 Pawn?
>
> > > > What shouldgetclubhave done to win this game.
> > > Understand some of the basics of positional play.
> > What are the basis of Positional play? I think now only End game is
> > poor. Please tell me what need to be done in End Game?
>
> =A0 I am curious to know how the exact ranking of
> moves is determined by Mr. Brown. =A0When I look
> over games, the engine will "obsess over" what it
> sees as the single best move, then blitz through
> all the alternatives so quickly that I simply can't
> even see what they were.
>
> =A0 In his commentary above, Mr. Brown even
> appears to know which moves are scored as
> winning, drawing, or losing.
>
> ------------
>
> =A0 As for positional play, I think this is a perfect
> example of why computers don't have to excel
> in that particular area. =A0A strong /positional/
> player dreads moving any of the pawns in
> front of his King, because that creates a
> weakness. =A0For instance, when White plays
> p-h3, he weakens the g3 square-- even if it
> may still be defended by the f2-pawn; that's
> because the f2-pawn may get pinned at some
> point-- let's say by ...Q-b6 or ...B-c5.
>
> =A0 But when it comes to /tactical/ play, having
> one's home pawns in perfect order -- as White
> did in this game -- means that the back rank
> itself can become weak. =A0Thus, when you get
> into a Rook ending like this one, it is wise to
> forget about /positional/ nuances, and make
> sure you cover the obvious, tactical issues
> like a back rank mate possibility.
>
> =A0 Let's back up a little here. =A0Do you know
> why I did not want to play ...p-c5? =A0Because,
> it left a "hole" at d6-- a /potential/ entry point
> for a White Rook. =A0The other entry points, d8
> and d7, were covered by my Rook, King, and
> Knight, so that left only d6, and of course any
> lateral attacks. =A0No doubt a computer analysis
> can tell us that entry to d6 was pointless or
> impossible here, but a /positional/ player does
> not care-- such weaknesses are avoided as a
> matter of principle, just like tripled pawns are.
>
> [Note: I have tripled pawns against Rob "da
> robber" Mitchell, but that doesn't count!]
>
> =A0 In this particular case, the back rank mate
> could have been handled by leaving either
> Rook on the first rank, or, by sliding the King
> one square /toward the center/; as we saw,
> the White monarch ended up trapped out of
> play at h3-- a terrible square, as far as it
> could conceivably get from being able to aid
> in stopping the Black pawns from promoting.
>
> =A0 A crazed, "tactical piece player" will often
> sacrifice his own pawns like cannon fodder,
> seeing them mainly as obstacles which
> obstruct his pieces. =A0But a "boring, positional
> player" is more likely to view his pawns as
> valuable assets, which of course he intends
> to convert into Queens one day in the distant
> future. =A0Until that day, the pawns serve as a
> shield, behind which he marshals his pieces.
>
> =A0 White began to go wrong in the ending by
> not playing p-f4-- a move which stopped any
> back-rank-mate threats and at the same
> time afforded the White King an avenue by
> which to rapidly approach the center, *when
> safe*. =A0This is also a minority attack, in which
> White's three king-side pawns (or any portion
> thereof) advance to be traded for Black's four
> on the same side, leaving Black with a weak
> /isolani/.
>
> =A0 But the real problem was the aimless Rook
> moves, which allowed Black time to activate
> his Rook, eat a pawn or two, and even run
> both connected, passed pawns all the way
> up the board! =A0The two White Rooks shuffled
> back and forth, accomplishing nothing, while
> the White King refused to even take part in
> the war. =A0As usual, it became a contest in
> which I effectively had an extra piece-- my
> King. =A0It was deja vu, all over again.
That was nice explanation.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2008 09:26:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
On Jun 12, 11:31 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > Let me know whyGetClublost despite being ahead by 1 Pawn?
>
> > > What shouldgetclubhave done to win this game.
> > Understand some of the basics of positional play.
> What are the basis of Positional play? I think now only End game is
> poor. Please tell me what need to be done in End Game?
I am curious to know how the exact ranking of
moves is determined by Mr. Brown. When I look
over games, the engine will "obsess over" what it
sees as the single best move, then blitz through
all the alternatives so quickly that I simply can't
even see what they were.
In his commentary above, Mr. Brown even
appears to know which moves are scored as
winning, drawing, or losing.
------------
As for positional play, I think this is a perfect
example of why computers don't have to excel
in that particular area. A strong /positional/
player dreads moving any of the pawns in
front of his King, because that creates a
weakness. For instance, when White plays
p-h3, he weakens the g3 square-- even if it
may still be defended by the f2-pawn; that's
because the f2-pawn may get pinned at some
point-- let's say by ...Q-b6 or ...B-c5.
But when it comes to /tactical/ play, having
one's home pawns in perfect order -- as White
did in this game -- means that the back rank
itself can become weak. Thus, when you get
into a Rook ending like this one, it is wise to
forget about /positional/ nuances, and make
sure you cover the obvious, tactical issues
like a back rank mate possibility.
Let's back up a little here. Do you know
why I did not want to play ...p-c5? Because,
it left a "hole" at d6-- a /potential/ entry point
for a White Rook. The other entry points, d8
and d7, were covered by my Rook, King, and
Knight, so that left only d6, and of course any
lateral attacks. No doubt a computer analysis
can tell us that entry to d6 was pointless or
impossible here, but a /positional/ player does
not care-- such weaknesses are avoided as a
matter of principle, just like tripled pawns are.
[Note: I have tripled pawns against Rob "da
robber" Mitchell, but that doesn't count!]
In this particular case, the back rank mate
could have been handled by leaving either
Rook on the first rank, or, by sliding the King
one square /toward the center/; as we saw,
the White monarch ended up trapped out of
play at h3-- a terrible square, as far as it
could conceivably get from being able to aid
in stopping the Black pawns from promoting.
A crazed, "tactical piece player" will often
sacrifice his own pawns like cannon fodder,
seeing them mainly as obstacles which
obstruct his pieces. But a "boring, positional
player" is more likely to view his pawns as
valuable assets, which of course he intends
to convert into Queens one day in the distant
future. Until that day, the pawns serve as a
shield, behind which he marshals his pieces.
White began to go wrong in the ending by
not playing p-f4-- a move which stopped any
back-rank-mate threats and at the same
time afforded the White King an avenue by
which to rapidly approach the center, *when
safe*. This is also a minority attack, in which
White's three king-side pawns (or any portion
thereof) advance to be traded for Black's four
on the same side, leaving Black with a weak
/isolani/.
But the real problem was the aimless Rook
moves, which allowed Black time to activate
his Rook, eat a pawn or two, and even run
both connected, passed pawns all the way
up the board! The two White Rooks shuffled
back and forth, accomplishing nothing, while
the White King refused to even take part in
the war. As usual, it became a contest in
which I effectively had an extra piece-- my
King. It was deja vu, all over again.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2008 08:31:03
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
> > Let me know whyGetClublost despite being ahead by 1 Pawn?
>
> > What shouldgetclubhave done to win this game.
>
> Understand some of the basics of positional play.
What are the basis of Positional play? I think now only End game is
poor. Please tell me what need to be done in End Game?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs Knight+Rook ending?
|
|
|
