|
Main
Date: 21 Feb 2008 17:11:53
From: Terry
Subject: Why not a pawn fork
|
It looks like a pawn fork for black would have given him the advantage. I am sure I am missing something. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4013737198399816667&q=chess+queen+gambit&total=85&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
|
|
|
Date: 21 Feb 2008 17:47:28
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Why not a pawn fork
|
On Feb 21, 10:11 pm, Terry <[email protected] > wrote: > It looks like a pawn fork for black would have given him the > advantage. > > I am sure I am missing something. > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4013737198399816667&q=chess+q... The game is a Queen's Gambit Accepted.
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2008 07:32:17
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Why not a pawn fork
|
On Feb 23, 10:39 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 23, 4:25 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > A much, MUCH better example of how > > this idea is supposed to work can be found > > if you can locate a video made by an Indiana > > master who (I believe) drew Emory Tate. As > > I watched that video, I noticed that his ideas > > made sense, his analysis had been checked > > via computer, and yet the moves in the game > > itself were not exactly brilliant. Sorry, but I > > don't recall offhand the name of the player > > who made it; he is I believe ranked #2 or #3 > > in the state of Indiana, and a link may be > > found at the ISCA Web site. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ah, here is the link: > > http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/about1434.html > > It is by Dennis Monokroussos. I think you > will notice a titanic difference in the quality of > chess analysis. > > -- help bot Yah. That is really good.
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2008 02:39:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why not a pawn fork
|
On Feb 23, 4:25 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------- > A much, MUCH better example of how > this idea is supposed to work can be found > if you can locate a video made by an Indiana > master who (I believe) drew Emory Tate. As > I watched that video, I noticed that his ideas > made sense, his analysis had been checked > via computer, and yet the moves in the game > itself were not exactly brilliant. Sorry, but I > don't recall offhand the name of the player > who made it; he is I believe ranked #2 or #3 > in the state of Indiana, and a link may be > found at the ISCA Web site. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, here is the link: http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/about1434.html It is by Dennis Monokroussos. I think you will notice a titanic difference in the quality of chess analysis. -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2008 01:25:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why not a pawn fork
|
On Feb 21, 11:42 pm, Terry <[email protected] > wrote: > >> It looks like a pawn fork for black would have given him the > >> advantage. > > >> I am sure I am missing something. > > >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4013737198399816667&q=chess+q... > > >The game is a Queen's Gambit Accepted. > > I am not a very good chess player, but I play at Yahoo all the time. > > I play the Queen Gambit every time. > > I have been watching a few vids about it. > > I have yet to see anyone show the trap you can get if you get a pawn > to d5. > > You can get a knight or a bishop at b4 with Qa4 Check. > > It happen pretty often in my rookie games. You would be well advised to ignore this video, as that game was very poorly played, and (quite obviously) between two complete patzers. ------------------------------------------------------------- A much, MUCH better example of how this idea is supposed to work can be found if you can locate a video made by an Indiana master who (I believe) drew Emory Tate. As I watched that video, I noticed that his ideas made sense, his analysis had been checked via computer, and yet the moves in the game itself were not exactly brilliant. Sorry, but I don;t recall offhand the name of the player who made it; he is I believe ranked #2 or #3 in the state of Indiana, and a link may be found at the ISCA Web site. -------------------------------------------------------------- Is it just me, or do the pieces appear to be a little blurry? The music is excellent, and his speed in moving through the game was certainly quick enough, but good gawd, I do not know when I have seen worse analysis, or more wrong-headed ideas tossed in. There ought to be a law against exceedingly weak players attempting "instructional" videos like this one; draw the line at, say, USCF 1600 or so. -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2008 23:42:36
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Why not a pawn fork
|
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:47:28 -0800 (PST), Offramp <[email protected] > wrote: >On Feb 21, 10:11 pm, Terry <[email protected]> wrote: >> It looks like a pawn fork for black would have given him the >> advantage. >> >> I am sure I am missing something. >> >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4013737198399816667&q=chess+q... > >The game is a Queen's Gambit Accepted. I am not a very good chess player, but I play at Yahoo all the time. I play the Queen Gambit every time. I have been watching a few vids about it. I have yet to see anyone show the trap you can get if you get a pawn to d5. You can get a knight or a bishop at b4 with Qa4 Check. It happen pretty often in my rookie games.
|
|
Date: 21 Feb 2008 17:16:51
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Why not a pawn fork
|
On Feb 21, 10:11 pm, Terry <[email protected] > wrote: > It looks like a pawn fork for black would have given him the > advantage. > > I am sure I am missing something. > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4013737198399816667&q=chess+q... The man mentions the pawn fork, he says that both he and his opponent "looked it over", by which I think he means they overlooked it. At the first opportunity, before black has castled, it looks a bit risky, and after fxe3 it looks even riskier, but betweentimes it looks okay. What chess program is he using?
|
|