Optimissed wrote:
taseredbirdinstinct wrote:
Jalex13 wrote:
White should always be playing for an advantage because of move order.
Not always, as Fischer, Capablanca and Carlsen played plenty of games that allowed each side to achieve easy, inevitable and perfect equality in order to avoid all middlegame risks and to beat their opponent in the endgame.
But that doesn't yield a winnable ending, because white's d pawn is still on but he will lose his e pawn.
How does the fact that white will keep the d pawn yet lose the e pawn make it unwinnable? This looks like a position that someone could use to strive for a win.
No offense, but a 200 arguing with a 1900 on what is winnable and what is not is ridiculous. Asking for advice on a line, and then arguing when you are giving advice (at least, the advice you didn’t want to hear) looks bad.
I wasn't arguing, it's an internet site where people are allowed to say what they think of something, do you want me to lie about how I perceive something? I never once claimed my ideas about chess was correct. Everything is open to discussion, how else am I able to learn?
I'm not 200, I'm 148, although at one point my previous account had went all the way up to 600ish. Obviously it's no way near a 1900+ in skill and knowledge, I never claimed otherwise.
I'm open to any advice, always have been.