That was too close for comfort...
Move 20. Conditional Move Thread
Sort:
Ok... I made possible lines for 2 moves and just some suggested responses for 3 more. I figure its a good starting off point for some debate.
Ba3
a5
Bxd5: Nbxd5 or exd5
f3: Bxc4 or Nd7
f4: Bxc4
i should add that elroch's idea 21... Nc6 seems to avoid some of the disadvantages of both my Ba3 and a5 lines
I personally don't like 21...Rxc4 It seems to play right into the opponent's hands.
Wouldn't 21...Qa6 be a kind of !
But I suppose there is a problem if our king has no escape.
fixed
It seems merchco was our decider (from the archives) It was tied 38% and then merchco voted with 6 minutes to spare and that changed the proportion. At least that's how it appears.
I like it, but doesn't this mean the good GM is probably avoiding this line?
[EDIT]: I did not, at first, catch the last stuff you mentioned andrewlong. Thanks for the thoroughness.
-This is the point in the game where the GM will separate his thinking from our thinking, perhaps. It could be fun to observe.-
merchco saved us on that vote.
At least 50 people had voted for a5 before we even had any discussion of lines :-(
I should have posted the diagrams of the endgame problems a5 would cause much earlier. It was only when I saw geer_matt's comment
Posting a higher rated players votes is not really necessary. Thoughts ideas and plans backed up with intelligent reasoning and analysis is enough.
that I realised many voters needed to see some diagrams explaining plainly the downsides of a5 (assuming it did not give us a gain tactically, which I wasn't sure about until fairly late in the day)
drakpete: I agree with you about how one must communicate with the drive-by voter. In my not-so-comprehensive experience with vote-chess, there are some curious behaviors, but one distinctive pattern returns again and again: most voters spend between two-and-five minutes studying the move.
That means they:
- DO NOT go back several pages
- DO look for the nearest high rated player's comments
- DO NOT look for very much contradictory information
- SOMETIMES come back to defend that vote whatever it is and without examination (increasing the inertial misery if we are trying to correct wrong assumptions)
- [edit] DO rely on (sometimes faulty) diagrams for their main source of confidence in a particular move (i.e., whatever they just voted for)
- [edit, edit] DO often rely upon misaprehensions to fill in jargon (e.g., pass pawn, backwards pawn) they do not understand
- DO NOT ask questions before voting
Hople, I think you are right :-s It seems most peculiar to me but what I see matches exactly with what you describe. I have played very little vote chess, before this the last was around the time Fischer was playing his rematch with Spassky. There was a match vs a GM on TV in Britain with expert advice from Jon Speelman GM and Raymond Keene GM and we voted by phoning a different telephone number for each possible move. Seems like the dark ages now!
VegetableMan, yes I see that White's DSB ends up blocked really easily, the line I mentioned was an exception really. I'm surprised we have done as well as we have so far, I expected to be ground into the dirt by Onischuk by now :-D
Well, what do you think? Do you (anyone) suppose he has been a bit distracted? Should we 'simplify' before he begins to put his more full attentions upon us?
BTW: I intend my little list above as a possible recipe for action. When we choose a particular move (better do it before he passes us the clock) we can:
- make sure one of our 2000+ people are most always at the top of the page with a diagram (I don't mean spamming!)
- make sure each counter diagram has correction/contradiction WITH the correct vote plainly visible (I leave it to you, it should be clear somehow).
- be plain-spoken about your choice, DO NOT prevaricate in your advocacy (it's chess-move-politíque)
Of course, all of this is greatly simplified when we have (I say we, but it is a few others and I have been largely along for the ride) done our homework regarding the advantages/pitfalls of a position.
I've posted a summary of suggested moves so far on the game comments.
Please check and let me know if any corrections are needed.
We still really need some 20.f3 analysis as we have not preferred either 21...Bxc4 or 21...Nd7 (or another move) yet.
Once Onischuk's move comes through (in 20 minutes) I will repost the summary to the comments page for Black's move 21
Anyway: I was trying to head off this issue of the late-to-the-table analysis. What I mean is, I believe it is late if we leave our analysis until after the good GM has taken his move. It seems a bit unfair, but clearly this move was slightly under-analyzed from the Nd7 side of things.
I voted Bxc4, and I do believe we must fight the d5 knight. capablanca sees something I liked with the Nc6 continuation, while passing up bxa5 (b5) also seems possible (I just like these, I don't have the fortitude for the analysis: clear admission). Could someone here share any thoughts on the Nc6 continuation (there is also some grumbling that the GM would move Nxc4?).
Are any of these meritorious? Or is my thinking clouded by personal preference?
Qb7 won in a last minute neck-and-neck race from what I saw in the comments (it pulled ahead with only 12 voters remaining).
Any way, I was following the analysis as much as I could yesterday, though I did not the time to contribute further. I will post my ideas later today, and try to grab some of the diagrams everyone posted yesterday.