Daniel Rench's theory of 2 weaknesses videos pay off

Well done!

Good game.

42. g5 "At this point my opponent offered me a draw"

lol, white couldn't ask for a better position.  You have a protected passed pawn, all his pawns are on white squares, and if that wern't enough, your king can waltz in on e5.  In short your minor piece is better, your pawns are better, and your king is better.  This guy needs to crack open an endgame book

FM Daniel Rensch (or if I remember correctly he just became an IM)  is a chess.com video author. He's an excellent if idiosyncratic video teacher IMO.

-- the title refers to Daniel R's videos.  Grammatically "theory-of-two-weaknessess" modifies "videos" so the title suggests that watching his videos has paid off. There's no need to point out that the theory is venerable (that is, not originated by Daniel R) any more than one needs to make the same point about the theory of gravity in the statement:

Daniel Rensch's Theory of Gravity videos are great.

Actually who did originate the Theory of Two Weaknesses ?

 Appreciated

Well done Wall05 :)

And yet it's your comment that comes off as snarky and rude. Back to your hovel, curmudgeon.

That aside, great videos to be sure!

Some ancient chess playing wizard to be sure.  Not a wizard on the board by the way, rather a real wizard.  In fact his deeply wrinkled face and long white beard is what makes up our modern archetypal chess master -- even though the best players have long been under 40-50, and a few world champs in their 20s, and none with beards, the general public still tends to think of a chess master as an elderly gentleman laying in wait in a park somewhere.

Oh, this is also a good guess...

i first learned this principle from Nimzovitsch's chapter "Alternation" in chess praxis. (if i remember correctly what the chapter was called). the point being that you alternate threats between two weaknesses until the defense breaks down due to overtaxed/poor internal lines of communication. but i'm not totally sure whether nimzovitsch or someone else first formalized the theory. when i think of steinitz i think of the notion of "accumulation" of advantage, which would be a different way of approaching the concept of converting an advantage into a win.

btw, this was a very nice example, and i'm glad that wall05 was able to make use of those videos. in the starting position, white has one advantage (which correspondingly counts as one weakness for black): the extra pawn on the kingside. after black captures on c5, white gains, by my count, two new weaknesses to work with: the passed pawn on c5 which requires black to keep a vigilant eye on it, and the weak d4-e5 squares for his king. so i think you got a "principle of three weaknesses" endgame going on there, and thus the win was not too hard to come by. Bxc5 was probably easily worthy of a question mark, since it handed white two new advantages. of course, black was seriously on the ropes (most likely losing) anyway, but it would have been a much tougher endgame for white had black sat tight.

Nice game. Tx for the look.

Nice win.

I intended no condenscension -- pardon my pedantic manner which is habitual when I write for factual clarity. You point out the OP's title was "a bit unclear" --  ultimately I think it was unambiguous but yes when read quickly it leant itself to misinterpretation. You misinterpreted it, and I thought others might as well. This led to my apparently too careful explanation of the construction. I hope that clarifies my intentions, no hard feelings.

Snarky is your interpretation, Tonydal seems to have found me condescending -- so there was surely something wrong with my writing. I was trying to be as factual and level as I could be -- but I think my formality was taken as arch or snide. I draw the line at rude though.  Please, I wasn't rude, not one word was rude. Meanwhile, you seem to think nothing of blatantly insulting someone who had said not a word in your direction. "Back to your hovel, curmudgeon." Wow... and I did what, exactly, to deserve this comment? Are you a teenager who doesn't know any better? What leads you to think you ought to treat people with that level of unprovoked disrespect?

This reminds me of when I learned how to do the elbow move -- during one post mortem after a tactical series we found the position to be losing for the first player only because his king had, much earlier in the game and with no way of knowing, chosen the wrong square to retreat to.  My opponent then demonstrated the "elbow move" while leaning his body overtly toward one side of the board to make his move, at the same time his elbow nudged his king over to the correct square... I thought this was very funny.

If I played at a big city chess club like New York or Saint Louis I imagine I'd learn a few more tricks... the rooks in the beard is pretty sneaky lol.

Thanks for posting the game. It has given me insight into what happens in some of my losses and something more to work on.

Well personally I thought this was a very well placed word.