Lots of Caucasions are born in India every year. Far, far more Whiteys live in India at some time in their lives. So this obvious prejudice (talking about Indian-flag trolls) toward Indians is what caused Wounded Knee??? : )
Can black win
Sort:
Long Island Mark seems to have missed my smiley-face indicating that I was being humorous and deliberately confusing Indians w dots and Indians w feathers for comic effect.
Unbelievably, IronTiger above recommends f5 as an improvement in the play for Black -- the whole point of everything I said in this long forum was based on the fact that Black's three Kingside Pawns were absolutely worthless following best-play by White. As long as White doesn't deign to move his g-pawn his position is unassailable IF Black is foolish enough to trade Rooks early on. Since his early attack on my Knight indicated a likely proclivity for such a trade, his game was drawn from that point on. AMEN
Black could even exchange off his bishop for the knight and be winning, a pawn up with this structure and he will win with decent technique. For example: 1...Bc5 2.Re1 Rxe1+ 3.Kxe1 Bxd4 4.cxd4 Kf8 5.Ke2 Ke7 6.g4 Kd6 7.Kd3 a5 8.b3 b6 9.h4 f5 Sacrificing a pawn to make progress on the kingside 10.gxf5 Ke7 11.Ke3 c5 12.h5 Kf6 13.Kf4 cxd4 14.h6 d3 15.Ke3 Kg5 16.Kxd3 Kxh6 simple endgame technique by both sides, but Black is completely winning. However, as humans, we would not be so quick to give up the bishop, as there are pawns on both sides of the board. Black should win if he retains the bishop as well. (I should note that Bc5 intending to give up the bishop was the first choice of Stockfish 5).
Example: 1...Kf8 2.Re1 Re5 3.g3 Ke7 4.f4 Rxe1+ 5.Kxe1 Bc5 6.Nf5+ Ke6 7.Ng7+ Kd6 8.Ke2 b5 9.b4 Bg1 10.Nf5+ Ke6 11.Ng7+ Kd7 12.h3 d4 13.cxd4 Bxd4 14.Kd2 Bb6 and Black will generate a passed pawn on the queenside
Obviously black will go into a pawn endgame if white lets him. 2. Re1 is a huge and obvious error.
Scottrf wrote:
Obviously black will go into a pawn endgame if white lets him. 2. Re1 is a huge and obvious error.
I think Black will win whether or not White plays Re1, but it seems like the omission of Re1 leads to a better game for White (than with Re1)
What I mean is Re1 immediately without first moving the knight is even worse.
the civel war? lol
Golden thread :) Guy's nonsensensical jabber reminds me of winnersp and his "system".
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/re-publishment-of-winnersp-e8-chess-system
if anyone wants another laugh.
Either winnersp is the best, most elaborate troll ever or he's genuinely mentally insane.
Well if he's trolling he's completely and utterly fooled me.
A1Rajjpuut wrote:
Unbelievably, IronTiger above recommends f5 as an improvement in the play for Black -- the whole point of everything I said in this long forum was based on the fact that Black's three Kingside Pawns were absolutely worthless following best-play by White. (...)
Then prove it! What's your move?
llooll
Hi,
The basic Black error is thinking 100% tactically instead of understanding the defensive resources at White's command due to the uniquelly crippled Black Kingside Pawn trio. In other words without appreciating Black's STRATEGIC dilemma Black has NO reason to think he can't win by just creating a pawn majority somehow (never thought through, alas) when he must either A. keep his rook on the board and later attack the white Kingside with it or B. trade rooks on squares that allow Black to repair his crippled Kingside.
The whole point is NOT "What's your move?" here in this position, but what's your plan? As stated, this is a STRATEGIC rather than tactical endgame position drawn as soon as Black was foolish enough to trade off rooks without bothering to repair his three crippled kingside pawns which cannot bust the fortress I created in the game-continuation with my worthy opponent.
Anyone doubting this needs to show me how Black can beat the fortress after f5, for example -- and remember it's a $100 challenge to my favorite charity (or yours). Read and play through the entire endgame as played and note my comments on WHITE improvements which would have made it easier to draw than I actually did. Black should never have traded rooks and allowed the Black King into the battle playing easy defense.
IF you've followed the controversy, you'd see that I put forth my thesis of strategy winning over tactics in this endgame on P.1 of this forum topic. After about 10-11 pages the game-continuation testing out that thesis was finished and an obvious irrefutable draw arrived at. I then said that the position after Black trades rook on e1 was drawn and mentioned two of the seven total improvements I saw for White over my play in the continuation. Also 1. ... f5 mentioned now by two or three kibitzers would be a great error; the Bishop move in the continuation was also an error and RXR was the greatest error. Black failing to appreciate the STRATEGIC EXIGENCIES of the position fell quickly into help-mode so that White's objective was never in doubt despite a few wasted White early moves as well.
You'll also see that I put up a challenge for 48 hours and no one answered it . . . you're very, very late to the opera and the curtain has fallen. Unless you give me specifics including my PLAN exhibited in the game modified by the improvements I mentioned after the KXR position . . . anything less would be a huge waste of time. Good luck.
Since no one took on the challenge; and since I feel the position is known fully with all its key truths by me and that my little shocker by claiming 1.5 pt. value (that created such hate and discontent among the many detractors) for the Black trio is proven -- so I'm calling it quits. Remember when in doubt . . . f3!
Good luck to all, talk to you later.
You skillfully dodged my challenge in #249, I see.
Afraid of something maybe?
OK. Scottrf managed to draw this.
If is A1Rajjpuut up for another round, I would take the position of #104, and instead of 14...c3?? which I suspect to be responsible for the draw, play the (much better) 14...f5. This should win (slowly, but should win). Your move.