I like this approach.
I will post the next game that I play in the list, post some comments,
and wait for feedback.
a beginner myself, this is the best way to learn.
On 17/07/2016 15:11, Karma Könchog Jungné wrote:
A further note. I enjoyed the discussion of my little game. I was on this board before, it was a lot more chatty then than now, but even then little actual chess was discussed. PIt was more about trying to find people to play against, and little monthly round robins, and everyone had a BCA Chess Rating, independent of the USCF Chess ratings. I am looking for people to play, but more importantly looking at games of various players of varying strength. We can look at Joel Benjamin and Carl Magnusson all we want, but we will not learn how to play chess. It is sort of like learning how to meditate by reading books on meditation, or an exercise regimen consisting of watching Jane Fonda exercise videos. It would be a more informative, and more fun to discuss our own games, and games of people in our own class.
So I have a proposition that may overcome the hurdle of posting one’s own games and getting one’s ego cruised. Post one of your games, and do not tell the board if you are black or white. And try to post games you have lost as well as games you have won to keep us honest, and it is often more instructive to learn from games we have lost. And tell the board which class you are in—Class D,C,B,A, Master, Candidate Master, Senior Master, and so on. And tell us what you were thinking on a move, and what you think your opponent was thinking on a move without giving yourself away.
Konchog
*From:*usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *mordue andrew
*Sent:* Sunday, July 17, 2016 10:50 AM
*To:* usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
Hello folks
A further note on the game. I sent this, went to lunch, came back and sat down with the board in front of me, and immediately realised that after 18...Rxf5 19 g6+ Kh8 (If 19...Kg8 20 Rxf5 can't be recaptured because of the pin on the e6 Pawn) 20 Rxf5 wins because 20...exf5 drops the Queen to 21 Nf7+. This means that although 20 Qg4 is a good move it is still an error because there is something much more effective. If you found this before I did then well done.
Tyson
On 17 July 2016 at 14:31 mordue andrew
<tyson.mordue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello folks.
I feel a need to comment here on a couple of aspects, not just the
game. I haven't contributed to this thread previously because it
has been purely technical but we've finally got to quality of
analysis and I think I need to say a few words.In fact, a lot of
words!
I frequently get people asking me opinions on positions in their
games when there is no board or pieces to hand and they don't have
the scoresheet of the game. They then describe to me a small
portion of the position and say that they could have done this,
that, or the other and expect me to respond constructively. Of
course without knowing the specific position I can't, so I always
say get the whole position/game and I'll be happy to look at in
detail another time. I'm not going to waste my time speculating
what the position is. Out of these requests about one quarter do
have constructive follow-ups at some later time.
My point here is that handing out a small chunk of a position such
as /"But there was only one place where Black could have improved
his position, and he would have had to abandon the pawn on e6, and
try to start an counter attack with BB7, Nd7-f6, a5-a4. But even
here White could still maintain his iron grip on the center and
forced the King side to collapse./ " either leaves the reader
wanting more or, more frequently, is just a signal to switch off
because there's nothing to relate to.
First well done to Mark Hague for asking for the whole game and
secondly thank you to Patrick for providing it. I'll just emphasis
these points. If you don't ask you don't necessarily get. What's
more players are very wary of contributing whole games of their
own at the risk of someone like me tearing it apart. Please don't
be wary. Any criticism will be done in as constructive fashion as
possible.
Now to the game itself. First a general point. Asking a computer
program for lines related to just one player's moves is a very
lopsided and incomplete approach. To understand a game well it is
necessary to look at both sides moves objectively. Yes, there are
games where a gulf in class may mean attaching question marks to
all the moves of one player, but if the refutation of certain
moves is not forthcoming in either the game or the notes then
where is the value?
Black's opening play here is very passive. With either 6 or 7...c5
he would transpose to a well-known line of the Queen's Gambit
Declined, Semi-Tarrasch variation. Black needs the c6 square for
his Knight, ...c7-c6 denies the steed this square and indeed Black
never gets his Queenside developed. White takes early advantage
with Ne5, occupying an important central outpost with impunity.
Black's big problem in the Queen's gambit is how to develop his
Queen's Bishop. In this game he never does.
Now some constructive criticism move-by-move which is what you're
not getting from the computer.
White's 8 Bc4 is okay but the Bishop is pointed at a solid
Pawn-chain f7-e6. So White's game strategy should revolve around
the d4-d5 break or f2-f4-f5 to liquidate the e6 Pawn and focus on
f7. Alternatives are 8 Be2 or 8 Bd3 and personally I would choose
the latter because there is no Black Knight on f6 guarding h7 so
playing e4-e5 may introduce the possibility of Bxh7+ followed by
Ng5+ and Qh5. I'm aware that the Black Bishop on e7 controls g5
but one of White's ideas is to play a2-a4 and Bc1-a3 to swap it
off. This actually happens in the game.
9...h6 is a waste of time and a weakening move. See note
specifically to both Black's 13th and 18th moves. I've said before
and I know I'll say it again but Pawn to Rook Three (a2-a3, h2-h3,
...a7-a6 and ...h7-h6) is the most common poor move in chess.
Unless it's part of a clear plan or a forced move try moving a
piece instead. And yes, I do play the Sicilian Najdorf with 1 e4
c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6.
The simplest way of dealing with the White Knight at e5 is to
offer an exchange of Knights with 10...Nd7. Moving a piece twice
in the opening is not usually recommended and 10...Bf6 is not
great. Bearing in mind that White's next is 11 Ba3 does that not
indicate that maybe Black should consider 10...Bishop to d6 instead?
After 11 Ba3 Be7 Black has lost two tempi and had his good Bishop
swapped off with no loss of time for White. Clearly things are
going badly for Black. Now instead of the retreat in the
game 11...Re8 is possible. However, such are Black's problems I
seriously considered sacrificing an Exchange for a Pawn with
11...Bxe5 12 Bxf8 Bxh2+ 13 Kxh2 K or Qxf8. Maybe Black can throw
in 13...Qh4+ first. I'm not saying this cures all Black's ills but
it would certainly make White think about different ways of
continuing and maybe cause him concern about his slightly exposed
King. Some strong players may criticise my suggestion but it may
be worth a go in the right circumstances.
13...f5?? is the move that got me writing this. Nowhere does
Crafty point out that 14 Ng6 is a simple fork winning the Exchange
for nothing. Again 9...h7-h6 is the move that allowed this so what
useful purpose did that achieve? Once again Black should play
13...Nd7. There is a clear moral that if you King is under attack
then you should not move the Pawns in front of it unless you
absolutely have to.
16...b5? is a desperate move. This drives the White Bishop to a
spot where it is solidly defended by a Pawn. It also weakens the
Queenside when Black already has problems in the centre and
Kingside. Specifically it ties down the Knight on b8 to defending
the newly-weakened c6 Pawn. As for supporting counterplay with
...a7-a5-a4 - I'd be happy to see ...a7-a5 and I'd just reply with
a2-a4 and now my a1 Rook is in play. I'm prodding the sensitive
point on b5 and I can even swing my Rook across to the Kingside
via a2. After 16...b5 17 Bb3 Deep Rybka evaluates this as +2.60
for White.
Whenever an annotator criticises a move they should always provide
a sensible alternative if possible. Here, once again, I suggest
16...Nd7. I'd like to point out that in some lines this may
threaten ...Nxe5, dxe5 Qc5+ picking up the loose Bishop on c4, yes
the same one that Black has just pushed back to safety with
16...b5. I'm aware the f6 Rook may be en prise after dxe5 in this
line but I want to reinforce how 16...b5 has reduced Black's
options, not enhanced them.
After 16... Nd7 White has two options.
A) 17 fxe6? Rxf1+ 18 Qxf1 Nxe5 19 dxe5 Bxe6 and Black is better
due to White's exposed King and ragged Pawn structure.
b) 17 Bxe6+ is obviously better. Black should try 17...Rxe6!? 18
fxe6 Nxe5 19 dxe5 Bxe6. Deep Rybka evaluates this as +1.02 for White.
Now the big question is why the difference in the +2.60 after
16...b5 17 Bb3 and only +1.02 in Line B even though Black has
given up an Exchange? Part of the answer is that Black has
resolved his development difficulties. Another is that White's
Pawn structure, as in Line A, is rather ragged and finally White's
King is exposed whereas Black's is relatively safe. Put the g4
Pawn back on g2 and I would confidently expect the evaluation to
up to about +1.50 in White's favour.
Now this hasn't happened by magic. Black has had to give up a Rook
for Bishop to avoid getting slaughtered but this is the penalty
for playing a poor opening. On the other hand I recall a
game I played in 1987 where I was positionally worse then
overlooked a simple Knight fork with which my opponent won an
Exchange. My first reaction is unprintable but my second
immediately afterwards was "That's all my positional problems
solved!" The White Knight that had so restricted my pieces was
gone and I was able to play freely. Indeed I drew the game a dozen
or so moves later.
The point is that giving up material (a Pawn, an Exchange) to
relieve an under pressure position is acceptable under certain
circumstances. It means the game will probably take on a fresh
phase where the player with the extra material has to think about
bringing the game down to a purely technical level whereby he can
exploit his plus, but that's when the player with the material
deficit has to make the most of whatever practical chances they
have. It's no good crying and saying I'm the Exchange down. This
very game is a clear example of having level material and being
squashed because Black's forces are sitting still and usued on the
Queenside!
Back to the game.
After White's excellent 18 g5! there is no analysis of the obvious
reply 18...hxg5. After the obvious 19 Qh5+ Rh6 Deep Rybka suggests
20 Qf7 Qxf7 21 Nxf7 exf5! 22 Nxh6 Kxh6!? at +1.31 to White.
Actually 23 Rae1 looks quite strong but the attack on the King is
gone. We're getting near the technical phrase described in the
earlier paragraph. Instead after 18 g5! hxg5 19 Ng6! (that weak
square again - see note to Blacks 9th) is crushing. The only
defence to 20 Qh5+ is to take twice on g6 but then after 20...Rxg6
21 fxg6+ Kxg6 22 Bc2+ leaves White attacking the defenceless light
squares with Queen, Rook and Bishop and the computer evaluations
are in excess of +10.
After 19...Kh8 the obvious line is 20 Nf7+ Kg8 21 Nxh6+! gxh6 22
Rxf5 exploiting the pin on the e6 Pawn. Naturally this comes out
as a big plus for White, nearly +6 by Deep Rybka. The game line
with 20 Qg4 anticpates answering the pin 20...Rg5 with 21 Nf7+
Qxf7 22 Qxg5 (a desperado or intermediate move answered by the
same with...) 22...Qxf1+ 23 Rxf1 hxg5 24 Rf8 mate. Again note that
Black's undeveloped Queenside pieces do nothing for the defence.
At move 21 Black finally plays ...Nd7. This cuts off the defence
of the e6 Pawn but there was little else to do.
White finishes clinically with 22 Nf7+ Kg8
23 Nxh6+! - eliminating the h6 Pawn or, as Black plays, opening up
the 7th rank.
23...gxh6
24 Bxe6+ - exploiting the cutting off of the c8 Bishop's defence
24...Kh8 - If 24...Kg7 25 Rf7+ is a massacre.
25 Rf7 and the motif is a mating net with Pawn g6 supporting a
checking Rook on h7 while the Bishop controls the g8 square. Black
rightly resigned.
Summary: A nice attacking game by White justifying the development
of his Bishop to c4. However, Black's play was poor. He had a
cramped opening, failed to develop his Queenside pieces, made
various weakening moves and failed to take the chances inherent in
his position to give him any chance of staying afloat in the
middle-game. There is a style of play which invites players to
come and attack you, but you must be ready to counterattack at the
right moment. For Black this moment doesn't even appear in the
notes, let alone over the board.
Further observation. The evaluations that I've put here are the
ones given by Deep Rybka. My personal opinion on most of these is
that White is better that arithmetically stated because either of
Black's lack of development in certain positions or White's
ability to dominate open lines. This comes from the experience of
knowing how to play that pre-technique phase that I referred to.
Naturally other chess programs may give different evaluations,
maybe even different evaluations. However, it is by comparing the
different evaluations given by both computers and humans that is
part of the learning experience. Finally, if you'll pardon a pun,
not everything in chess is always Black and White.
Regards,
Tyson
On 17 July 2016 at 03:23 Karma Könchog Jungné <venkkj@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sure. No problem. It does suggest in a couple of places ideas
for small
improvements, but at my level, this small of an improvement is
perhaps not
significant. My CC rating is 1630. My ICCF rating is 1627. And
my OTB
rating is 1588.
[Event "Walter Nuir CC"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2009"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Patrick Walsh"]
[WhiteElo ""]
[Black "Dennis Kohler"]
[BlackElo ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Crafty v20.14"]
{annotating only white moves.}
{using a scoring margin of +0.30 pawns.}
{search time limit is 3:28}
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. cxd5 Nxd5
5. e4 Nxc3
6. bxc3 Be7
7. Nf3 c6
8. Bc4 O-O
9. O-O h6
10. Ne5 Bf6
11. Ba3
({16:+0.46} 11. Ba3 Be7 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Rb1 b5 14. Bb3
Bb7 15. Qg4 Rd8 16. f4 c5 17. d5 c4 18. dxe6 Qxe6 19. Qxe6
fxe6 $14)
({16:+0.79} 11. Qg4 Kh8 12. Qh5 Bxe5 13. Qxe5 Nd7 14. Qf4
Qf6 15. Rb1 Qxf4 16. Bxf4 b5 17. Bd3 Bb7 18. a4 Nf6 $16)
11. ... Be7
12. Bxe7 Qxe7
13. f4 f5
14. exf5 Rxf5
15. g4
({17:+2.35} 15. g4 Rf6 16. f5 b5 17. Bb3 Qe8 18. Qd3 a5 19.
fxe6 Bxe6 20. Rxf6 gxf6 21. Bxe6+ Qxe6 22. Qg6+ Kf8 23. Rf1
Nd7 24. Qxh6+
Ke7 $18)
({17:+3.09} 15. Qg4 Qf6 16. Bd3 Nd7 17. Rf2 Nxe5 18. fxe5
Qg5 19. Bxf5 exf5 20. Qxg5 hxg5 21. Re1 Be6 22. Rfe2 Rd8 23.
Kf2 $18)
15. ... Rf6
16. f5 b5
17. Bb3 Kh7
18. g5
({16:+5.79} 18. g5 exf5 19. gxf6 Qxf6 20. Qf3 a5 21. Bf7
Ra7 22. Bg6+ Kg8 23. Qd3 Re7 24. Bxf5 Qg5+ 25. Kh1 Bxf5 26.
Rxf5 Qh4 $18)
({16:+6.46} 18. fxe6 Rxf1+ 19. Qxf1 Bxe6 20. Qd3+ Kg8 21.
Bc2 Qg5 22. Rf1 g6 23. h4 Bc4 24. Qxc4+ bxc4 25. hxg5 hxg5 26.
Bxg6 c5 27.
Bf7+ Kg7 28. Bxc4 $18)
18. ... Rxf5
19. g6+ Kh8
20. Qg4
({17:+3.95} 20. Qg4 Rg5 21. Nf7+ Qxf7 22. Qxg5 Qe8 23. Qh5
Nd7 24. Rf7 Kg8 25. Re1 Nf6 26. Qf5 Bd7 27. Bxe6 Kh8 28. Re5
Bxe6 29. Rxe6
$18)
({17:+8.51} 20. Rxf5 exf5 21. Qe2 Be6 22. Bxe6 Na6 23. Nf7+
Kg8 24. Nxh6+ Kf8 25. Nxf5 Qg5+ 26. Ng3 $18)
20. ... Rxf1+
21. Rxf1 Nd7
22. Nf7+ Kg8
23. Nxh6+
1-0
-----Original Message-----
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark R
Hague
(Redacted sender "Mark.hague.list" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 9:55 PM
To: usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
Hi,
plese could you post the annotated game as I would like to
have a look at
Crafty's annotations.
Many thanks for shareing your experiences with the list.
Regards,
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karma Könchog Jungné" <venkkj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 1:33 AM
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
This is so cool! I just ran it on the game I posted here last
night.
Basically, I avoided mistakes and won the game with sound
play, but there
were a couple of places where I could have substantially
improved my
position even more. One of which involved forcing Black to
sacrifice the
exchange in order to save his King which I missed. But there
was only one
place where Black could have improved his position, and he
would have had to
abandon the pawn on e6, and try to start an counter attack
with BB7, Nd7-f6,
a5-a4. But even here White could still maintain his iron grip
on the center
and forced the King side to collapse. This is very
interesting. I will use
this tool frequently.
Thanks so much!
Konchog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
