How do you convert this +3.5 position? I ended up in a losing position.

Sort:
Avatar of Moonwarrior_1
IMBacon wrote:

Something i was taught, is to set up the position with just the pawn structure, and look for any weak pawns or squares.  You can then try and develop a game plan on what to attack, and where to play.

f5 pawn?

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned

I find this thread...good and bad

Good in that people try to help each other

Bad in that the engine use is wrongly applied

Would the question be asked if the number was less than 3?

Why not ask about earlier positions?

When did this e4 plan/consideration first come up and what else did it include?

Was there a plan after Black played c6?

What did the pawn structure look like then? Any generic plans that might be useful?

Avatar of Optimissed

It looks like a clear win though, playing that way. It's correct to take the b7 B to win a pawn because after the pawn goes, the b7 B would become a good bishop anyhow. The game is then more open. Double rooks and if he takes the N on c5 with his best piece, I would be tempted to capture not with the d pawn but with the rook, giving black a permanent weakness, and then play g3 and e4. 

Avatar of Optimissed

Would the question be asked if the number was less than 3?>>

Three is ridiculous.

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned

Any number is ridiculous if you can't quantify it.

Avatar of krazeechess

Bruh the engine said the position was +3.5 so that's why I put it. Plus, we need as much as help as we can get, so another reason I put +3.5 in the title is so that people come to the forum.

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned
krazeechess wrote:

Bruh the engine said the position was +3.5 so that's why I put it. Plus, we need as much as help as we can get, so another reason I put +3.5 in the title is so that people come to the forum.

Ok, and I understand you wanted opinions on a specific position.

My point is that you could improve even more by focusing on how you ended up there in the first place was from making not so good moves (with help from black).

And if your engine said 3.5, you have another problem. Don't listen to 2000+ bullet players if they tell you let run for 3 seconds to get your answer.

Avatar of Moonwarrior_1
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:
krazeechess wrote:

Bruh the engine said the position was +3.5 so that's why I put it. Plus, we need as much as help as we can get, so another reason I put +3.5 in the title is so that people come to the forum.

Ok, and I understand you wanted opinions on a specific position.

My point is that you could improve even more by focusing on how you ended up there in the first place was from making not so good moves (with help from black).

And if your engine said 3.5, you have another problem. Don't listen to 2000+ bullet players if they tell you let run for 3 seconds to get your answer.

"yeah don't listen to 2000+ bullet players" bruh... so he should listen to u2000 bullet players instead?

Avatar of llama47
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:

I find this thread...good and bad

Good in that people try to help each other

Bad in that the engine use is wrongly applied

My same thought, except mine isn't directed at the OP but most of the people who offered advice.

The engine likes Rc1. People see this, then construct reasoning for it... the OP is fully capable of doing this himself, it doesn't help.

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned
Moonwarrior_1 wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:
krazeechess wrote:

Bruh the engine said the position was +3.5 so that's why I put it. Plus, we need as much as help as we can get, so another reason I put +3.5 in the title is so that people come to the forum.

Ok, and I understand you wanted opinions on a specific position.

My point is that you could improve even more by focusing on how you ended up there in the first place was from making not so good moves (with help from black).

And if your engine said 3.5, you have another problem. Don't listen to 2000+ bullet players if they tell you let run for 3 seconds to get your answer.

"yeah don't listen to 2000+ bullet players" bruh... so he should listen to u2000 bullet players instead?

if they give you good answers, listen to a U1200 bullet player instead

Avatar of Moonwarrior_1
llama47 wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:

I find this thread...good and bad

Good in that people try to help each other

Bad in that the engine use is wrongly applied

My same thought, except mine isn't directed at the OP but most of the people who offered advice.

The engine likes Rc1. People see this, then construct reasoning for it... the OP is fully capable of doing this himself, it doesn't help.

very true, biggest one for me in this game was the pawn break and taking the bishop

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned
llama47 wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:

I find this thread...good and bad

Good in that people try to help each other

Bad in that the engine use is wrongly applied

My same thought, except mine isn't directed at the OP but most of the people who offered advice.

The engine likes Rc1. People see this, then construct reasoning for it... the OP is fully capable of doing this himself, it doesn't help.

Rfc1 looked weird to me at first glance. I just moved on because he was developing and at that point sort of had to be a main part of the plan with a3/b4.

Avatar of llama47
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:
llama47 wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:

I find this thread...good and bad

Good in that people try to help each other

Bad in that the engine use is wrongly applied

My same thought, except mine isn't directed at the OP but most of the people who offered advice.

The engine likes Rc1. People see this, then construct reasoning for it... the OP is fully capable of doing this himself, it doesn't help.

Rfc1 looked weird to me at first glance. I just moved on because he was developing and at that point sort of had to be a main part of the plan with a3/b4.

Well then maybe I was wrong, and it was useful to mention Rc1.

22.Rac1 is a natural type of move because it's doubling rooks on a half open file directed at a backwards pawn.

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned

Here's an older game (black is 2504 white is 2141)

Similar position after 8 moves (move 10 moreso).

Just food for thought if ever in a similar situation

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned

alternate line is the game...I screwed up and made f5 move

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned

Slav and Caro structures have a weak d6 square

Avatar of PerpetuallyPinned

There's another early idea with a4 instead a3, but not sure about your Nc3 move order.

Old school, nice touch

Avatar of blueemu
llama47 wrote:

22.Rac1 is a natural type of move because it's doubling rooks on a half open file directed at a backwards pawn.

Rac1 looked like a natural preparation for opening the center with g3 (to take over the protection of f4) and then e4.

There's only one open file. Why not complete your development, placing the a1 Rook on its strongest square, before opening the center? What is Black going to do in the mean-time... does he even HAVE any useful moves to improve his position?

Avatar of llama47
blueemu wrote:
llama47 wrote:

22.Rac1 is a natural type of move because it's doubling rooks on a half open file directed at a backwards pawn.

Rac1 looked like a natural preparation for opening the center with g3 (to take over the protection of f4) and then e4.

There's only one open file. Why not complete your development, placing the a1 Rook on its strongest square, before opening the center? What is Black going to do in the mean-time... does he even HAVE any useful moves to improve his position?

I didn't read every post, but yeah, this is good advice (and you might have already given it).

Opening files is an important part of generating play, and noticing when your opponent has nothing useful to do is very useful and important.

Avatar of krazeechess
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:

Slav and Caro structures have a weak d6 square

to be fair, the d6 square is covered by a lot of the opponents pieces.