10712 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I know, I know. So what, right? (There is a point.)
But today was the first time I beat Computer3-HARD.
One of my personal philosophies is don't hate (h8) the day
of small beginnings, but learn to enjoy the little victories
along the way to your bigger goals.
And this, fellow chess friends, put a smile on my face this afternoon.
If you're interested in seeing the game,
here she is:
Hope you enjoy the ending. :-)
It was exciting to me!
nicely done...also 28. Qxc3+ etc. gives you kt or bishop gg well done
Thank you Brian and thanks for the improvement
Nice game! Congratz
Thanks Iron Knight!
i didnt expected that rook sacrificing on 26. Re1+
would be encounter on 29. Bxf2+ and backed up by knight on 28. Ne4
though you win at last with funny win method :D
oh yeah by the way, why are u letting the pawn on 4. Nxe4 by moving the pawn 4. c3
my guess is to open the center field ? is that right ?
Yes, I know what you mean. I didn't expect black to sac the rook earlier either. So when he did fork the king to win the rook, he lost his bishop and knight as the result and so it just means I was more than a rook ahead from that point.
It did catch me by surprise due to how calculating black was. It was like she was a computer or something.
To answer that last question, c3 was simply used to prepare for the d4 pawn push.
It was only a serendipity it ended up doubling black's pawns because that wasn't premeditated.
Thank you sir!
(I know I made mistakes, but it was fun to "win against the hard level computer". )
lol d4 pawn push
but u lost ur 2 pawn at start
lol d4 pawn push
Okay. Thanks man. I see you're having trouble understanding those moves. To explain it to you simply, sometimes you can allow a pawn to be taken in exchange for faster development, open lines and more activity for your pieces. That's what I did in this one.
One opening variation you'll often see this at work is in the Evan's Gambit with white where you can allow c3 to hang and then castle. Then if black captures c3 on the next move, you just develop your knight and recapture the pawn with Nc3 and can centralize your rook to put an xray on the king on the next move.
In other words, you can often sac a pawn or two (sometimes even three) to gain advantages like open lines, faster development and more activity for your pieces.
Hope this helps you to understand and I applaud you for asking questions when you don't understand something as it's a great way to learn.
i think simple way like this,
"losing pieces a second but more aggresive on attacking pieces"
and for sure it has faster development after losing e4 pieces by Nxe4 for both side,
tactics are the best bet after that
With all due respect c3 is a bad move. you are not gaining that much in the way of initiative, the capture of the pawn is not opening up new lines like you would get from the Evan's (which I played for a couple years). I did a quick database scan ad found no tournament games between strong players that opened with c3 since 1852. Interestingly, in that game, black refused the free pawn and the game became a draw.
Nc5 was a completely moronic play by the computer in response to c3. The Knight is misplaced and doing nothing productive. Nf6 would have been much better
If you played 7. 0-0 for initiative/development surely cxd4 wins that tempo without dropping a pawn.
Yeah, I definitely think the c3 novelty was the key to that win, although apparently a master from the 1800s had found it too.
Castling was a mistake though.
I'll take your word for it. And I think c3 was a mistake too.
The funny thing is, even though castling was a mistake, it was part of my plan to get the king side attack going which would have been much more difficult without the rook lift made possible by castling.
All these blunders and mistakes I made, I guess, just serve to prove you don't really have to know what you're doing in terms of much skill or strategy to beat the computer on the hard level.
I guess next on the hit list will be to blunder my way to a victory against the impossible level to see what new mistakes I can make and learn from. This stuff is fun and always shows how many, many weaknesses I need to work on are available.
And since I'm in it for the rest of my life, that only means up from here. :-)
Most Comprehensive Ruy Lopez book?
by JRTK73 a few minutes ago
A not-so-simple mate in 2
by gwinner2 a few minutes ago
by jamesc1105 3 minutes ago
hughes death: how it will affect australia
by JRTK73 3 minutes ago
The Backyard Professor
by linuxblue1 4 minutes ago
1946 London chess gear (video)
by Jack_Burton 4 minutes ago
11/27/2014 - Mate in 4
by tangdavid 4 minutes ago
by Feufollet 6 minutes ago
Kings Gambit: Theory
by jetfighter13 9 minutes ago
Smith-Morra Countergambit / Blackmar Diemer Countergambit.
by JrxRippersRevenge 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!