Hi Chris,
I tend to approach the game from a psychological/mental point of view. I am an
attacking player as I have said, but one does not reach B class level play
without incorporating some aspects of positional play. Some of you may know a
former coach of mine, Danilo Kis. He lives within sight of Castle Dracula in
Transylvania, and is a neurosurgeon by trade, and an IM by play. He coached me
in the early 1990’s over the ICS, and about 70 percent of the games we went
over aside from my own were Botvinnik. I learned a great deal from those
lessons, and in fact it is why I switched to d4 opeings from playing e4 for
thirty years. I have gone back to e4 most recently, because my results have
still been better with e4 then d4 in play. But learning to play such openings
as the Slav from both points of play have been quite instructive, and I have
been able to incorporate what I learned from Botvinnik’s game with the help of
commentary from IM Kis. But this commentary was not like the lofty commentary
in the books. This commentary was brought down to a level commensurate with my
then understandning of the game and abilities. Kis regarded Botvinnik as my
polar opposite. He was a positional master of the highest level, and he
thought that his games would improve my play if they were presented in a way
that was accessible to me—not just in theory, but in practice.
I started playing chess when I was four—fifty-two years ago. My brother was
bored and decided to teach me how to play. He beat me the first game. And
hasn’t since. But he does not study the game as I have. When I was a Freshman
in High School, a friend of my Dad’s came and visited my family for dinner.
There was this chess set on the table in the living room. It turned out he was
an NM, and he asked my Dad if he played—somewhat surprised to see a chess set
in my Dad’s home at all. My Dad was NCAA Champion in golf, and a regular
dominant force on the local golf courses. He never turned pro, because he
believed the moment you try to make living with it, it becomes work and no
longer play. So the game of chess was not in his character at all.
My Dad said the chess set was mine, and I frequently played myself on it, and
played against kids in the neighborhood. And compared to the local crowd I was
quite good. So we played a game after dinner, during cocktails. This friend
of the family beat me, of course, but he said I had some promise. He sent me a
book containing Bobby Fischer’s games—publichsed just before the famous
Fischer-Spassky match in Reykjavik. The book just had game scores, and about
ten annotated games in it, but I spent a year going through the games, and I
believed I was learning some good ideas about how to play chess. And this
friend of my Dad’s told us about the USCF, and the fact that people actually
played in tournaments all over the country. Like in our home town of Dallas.
It took me two years of persuasion to get my Dad to let me play in a
tournament. And what a tournament. It was the Dallas Open. Samuel Reshevsky,
Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, and other luminaries of the chess world were
competing. Sadly these names meant absolutely nothing to me at the time, and I
had no idea that this tournament was so prestigious. I played in the unrated
class.
I won my first game in five moves. 1. E4 e5; 2. Nf3 Nf6; 3. Nxe4 Mxe5?? 4.
Qe2! Nf6?? 5. Nc6 1-0. Of course, this is a well known trap in the Petrov, but
I had never seen it worked out, nor did I have any books other than the
collection of Fischer’s games, which does not contain this trap. I worked this
out on my own, and I was in heaven. I actually won a tournament game! And the
person I beat was the coach of a local Chess club, who was distracted by his
proteges trying to find the right board to play on, and ending up on the wrong
board and having to be shepherded to the correct place, etc. You get the
picture. There were three hundred boards at this tournament. And I had just
won my first game. I did not win another game. :( But still, I had drawn
blood and the chess fever was in me.
It was at this tournament I learned about chess opening books, middle game
books, end game books, game collection, problem books, famous Master
collection, the various theoretical books like “My System,” “Pawn Power,” and
so on. And my father never allowed me to play in a tournament again. I was
not allowed to play in a tournament again until I moved out of the house, and
to a state where chess is played. My first job was in Birginia—the home of
Walter Muir, but I could not find any local tournaments there. When I moved to
Colorado, I found the Rocky Mountain Chess society—vibrant and alive and rich
in chess. And I played every weekend somewhere. And I won the lower section
of my second tournament outright in Caspar, Wyoming. I even beat the publicher
and owner of the Rocky mountain Chess News magazine that tournament.
And I have been playing chess on and off ever since then. But I never really
improved my play until I began taking formal lessons from a chess coach. That
happened when I moved to Rochester, NY. The home of the chess center with the
most tournaments, the most rated games, the most rated players in scholastic
chess, etc. With a team of chess coaches. Isay Golyak was my first chess
coach. He looked at my games, and he told me that I already knew everything I
would ever need to know about chess openings, and had a good grasp of middle
game play, pawn play, and a beginning foundation in endgame play—enough to win
against players in the fast-paced world of G/60 which is the dominant format of
chess in Rochester. He told me I lacked vision over the board. I missed
tactical possibilities in almost every game I played. So our lessons consisted
of solving chess problems after chess problem, tailored to develop my chess
vision in a well-rounded way. And he introduced me to the book “The Art of the
Sacrifice.”
And suddenly, my game began to improve by leaps and bounds. I went from an
1325 player to a 1588 player in two years. And I was beating players much
stronger than myself. I remember my first victory against a player over 1900.
It was the French Defence, an opening I had problems with at the time. And he
was mopping me up all over the board. And I was irritated by the TD. This was
supposed to be a class event—playing people in my class. But there was an odd
number of people in the tournament, and I was the odd man out the final round,
and in comes this guy who wants to play a rated game. And the unfair part was
that the result would be counted in the class tournament table.
So here e is. Beginning the mopping up phase after destroying my position
completely, and winning a pawn and a bishop. But he got careless, and left his
Queen in front of the pawn chain. And I saw something he clearly overlooked.
His Queen had no safe square on the board other than the one she was sitting
on, on that side of the board. So once the interminable check-check-check
allowed me to make my own move, I quietly pushed this little pawn up there, and
took that remaining square away from him. And then the mopping up began anew,
only it was me doing the mopping up. That game was a turning point for me. I
began to bea stronger players on an infrequent but regular basis, and I even
ended that year by beating a life master.
My point here, is that reading books is not sufficient. One needs an outside
consultant, an experienced coach to help you to improve. I read many game
collections, and back then I could recite many of the famous games from memory,
along wit some of their analysis. Like Morphy’s Immortal Game, or
Fischer-Donald Byrne, or Fischer-Spassky Poisoned Pawn game, and so on. None
of that helped, until I found someone who told me what my problem was—that I
was not seeing the board in the correct way.
I agree that chess engine analysis is a tool, but one of many tools in the
repertoire of a strong player. Books and the like are another tool. But if
you fail to diagnose your own problems then there will not be any improvement.
GM Golyak and IM Kis highlighted the weaknesses in my own play, and I began
to work on those areas—as much as I hated the drudgery of solving chess
problems at the time. I no longer consider chess problems to be drudgery, but
in a way it can be dun. But some of the problem books at that time are boring.
Mate in One. Mate in Two. Mate in Three. And so on. All composed problems.
Nothing from actual games. Who sees these things in real play, I asked myself.
The book “The Combinational Challenge” is the book that helped me in this area
the most. Back Rank. Double Attack. Discovered Attack. Skewers. Etc. The
thematic approach to combinations, and not all of them leading to mate. Some
of them simply leading to material gain. And shortly after I finished working
through that book, that is when I began to be a threat to players much stronger
thhan myself, and I became a challenge to beat. And oh what fun it is to see
yourself playing a windmill attack on a hapless opponent a hundred point
stronger than youself.
Konchog
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Ross
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 2:46 PM
To: usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
All,
I would like to add, that I fully endorse everything that Tyson has offered
here. He has set out perfectly and has in fact, saved me a fair bit of time!
Since, I was wanting to comment on a lot of this, but wanted to do it justice,
rather than a strong-players criticism of a poorly-played game by black.
From a “positional” player’s point of view, I found the launch of the G-pawn a
bit unnecessary, but that is a stylistic approach more than anything.
Which is why, I find it rather curious, the way in which Patrick speaks about
the strategic value of “talking to your pieces” and yet, promotes the
excellence of tactical counteraction and the opportunities for sacrificial play.
I believe his description of the communication of pieces over-elaborate, but
the fundamental point is there for all to see. Again, being a positional
player, I will always sell the need for future strategic positioning and I
think should be doing this from the outset, once your opening structure and
objectives have been accomplished. Doing this at any specific and highlighted
moment, will often result in the communication with the individual piece and
the collaboration with the other pieces, to ultimately fail.
For Patrick’s info. Tyson and I do post annotated games on here when we can.
I’m sure that everybody can appreciate how much time it takes to write up a
game and an encounter should not really be written up, unless it has a
transparent and intrinsic point of focus. A game should not be necessarily
annotated, just for the sakes of annotating. Of course, a player should
self-learn from his own games, but not necessarily published, unless
constructive and subjective comments are sought on that play.
Can I encourage readers to once again read through Tyson’s comments and take
away the targeted analysis and consider carefully the high-level advice he has
clearly outlined?
As a conclusion, and I do not know how many times I have pushed for this on
here, that relying on computer-analysis is being over-emphasised. Too much
focus is being contributed to and the importance of engine-analysis over-stated
and overly spent, in regards to time and effort. Computer-engine analysis
should be utilised as a “tool” for furthering one’s development. For checking
blunders, awkward tactical positions. Using it as an absolute for reviewing a
game in its entirety is both a fruitless and counter-productive task. Having
such things as Tyson’s comments to a game is one of the best ways a player can
improve. So, go out and seek annotated games, from strong players, play
through, and play through again, and repeatedly do so, until you fully
comprehend the reasoning behind the play and the sheer attempted endeavours of
both players. To coin a corny phrase, learn from the Masters!
Take it easy
Chris
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 3:50 PM
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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>
[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 <mailto: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 <mailto:venkkj@xxxxxxxxx> >
To: <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus