Yes, that was a good game. I've seen your elo chart and analysis/comments at other games and consider you a formidable opponent. I was surprised to see you attack the hawk's pawns at moves 14 and 17. I think the game was still in development, and while you were capturing nearly worthless pawns, I might have gained a slight edge in central-area development. I suspect you were "playing around" a little but, maybe just a bit over-confident?
chess on an infinite plane: vickalan vs rychessmaster1
Sort:
Btw, I very rarely post the analysis that I do in games, but this one I put extra effort into it. Check out this diagram I made while your Chancellelor was harrassing me from the backyard. This let's you know a little bit how I did "calculation". This is after this sequence:
45.G(2,1)...Hx(2,1)
46.Cx(9,15)...H(4,3)+
47.K(5,-1)...Hx(-1,2)
Well played vick, nice endgame. When I posted that I thought you had a slight edge, I then took a look at the position and very quickly decided you had a dominant position, but thought I should probably just let you figure it out for yourself.
Eariler in the game, I think you missed a forced checkmate, I wanted to come back and take a look.
Vick has just played 40... R(3,9) to challenge Ry's rook, but this is not necessary. Ry has no direct threat.
Better is...
40... C(9,-1), threatening 41... H(4,3)#
How can white defend this threat?
41. K(4,1)... C(4,-1)#
41. C(4,1)... C(6,-1)#
41. N(5,1) ... C(2,-1)+ 42. K(4,1) ... Cx(1,1)+ 43. K(4,0) ... C(2,-1)+ 44. K(4,1) ... C(2,1)#
41. H(2,3) ... C(2,-1)+ 42. K(5,0) ... R(3,0)+ 43. K(6,0) ... C(3,1)+ 44. N(5,1) ... H(4,3)+ 45. K(7,1) ... Cx(5,1)#
.......................................... 42. (K(4,1) ... Cx(1,1)+ and same mating net as above
41. C(5,1) ... C(2,-1)+ 42. K(4,1) ... H(4,3)+ 43. Cx(4,3) ... C(4,-1)#
.................................................................................. 43. K(4,2) ... C(4,0)#
All that is left is
41. C(3,1), cutting off the rook but giving up the chancellor for rook at least, and there still might be too much for white to handle, or
41. R(4,9)+, giving up the rook to prepare spite checks from the chancellor or forcing the hawk to retreat. However, black does not have to capture the rook with the king or hawk, instead he can walk to the guard and white is out of ammo.
I think this is a win by force, and it would have been very nice to witness.
Thanks Tug. Also I will check out your theory about a possible forced mate at move 40. Normally I would be really surprised if a forced mate exists when material balance is nearly equal, with lots of pieces still on the board. But sometimes there's only a few sensible moves, which makes accurate study possible. I'll look into it soon. Thanks for sharing it.
Btw, if true your calculation ability will be very concerning if/when I ever play against you.😰
It's very easy to miss something, there is so much to consider.
I'm struggling to see how we force mate after 41. C(3,1), this gives the king an escape behind the chancellor, and also stops the hawk moving in to deliver check, but it's still clearly losing horribly. After the rook and chancellor are traded off, black has C(2,-1)+ to grab the guard as a bonus.
We can definitely deal with the rook checks without having to retreat the hawk or move the king into the range of the chancellor, so that's not stopping checkmate. But C(3,1) is problematic.
I mean it's still a forced checkmate, just well beyond my calculation. Surely two hawks and a chancellor are more than enough to chase down the king, but with pieces to defend, it's complicated and I'd expect white to be able to hold off for a good 20-30 moves. But it's mate eventually, and not in the distant future either.
Oh right, yeah I typo'ed C(4,1) and edited it, you must have seen that.
The second C(4,1) line in the analysis above should be C(5,1), I've edited that too but obv I can't edit Ry's quote.
I'll play but we will have to start later. I just started a game with gyrados, and I will be really busy all of April. Let's plan to start in mid-May.
At a minimum, the hawk vs. BGP is a fair trade by material value. The value of the hawk is around 7, so for example, it's equal to BBP or NNP, etc. If you'd like the background for the hawk's value, let me know. (fyi: I value the guard at 3, especially on this board, where it's slow movement is very evident).
Value of the guard will increase as major pieces fall. In bulldog, the guard is an immense piece when mobilised, better than bishop imo (though not rook except in certain positions). The hawk is a powerful piece but if I lost it in exchange for a bishop, I wouldn't feel too bad about that. An unchallenged bishop (ie one that has no enemy counterpart) can also be powerful.
I don't know what the piece values are, but personally I would rework the point system entirely. One pawn has a very low impact on the game, so if we base everything around a pawn being worth 1, then pieces will be worth a lot of points. I would rather use a knight as a base value and just assume pawns are worth 0 before an endgame. This assumption of valuing pawns as 0 may not be accurate, but it can be quite practical, since king safety and piece activity are factors more important than grabbing or protecting pawns.
71...H(3,3)