Anyone else thinking of Mr. Metallic?
I just got annihilated can anyone help me spot how and why please?
Sort:
Oct 16, 2018
0
#24
pfren wrote:
.75 in practical OTB play is actually close to nothing.
No...thats wrong! Because the engine said...
Oct 16, 2018
0
#26
A few other quick notes... not absolutes, but generally accepted principles.
1. Make moves to control the center.
2. As white, knights control more squares on c3 and f3. On d2 or e2 they don't control as many squares and they block your bishops. a3 and h3 don't impact the center.
3. Don't move a piece twice (unless there is an OBVIOUS gain), before developing other pieces.
4. Try to castle before the 10th move.
5. Pawns should support pawns, on the diagonals. Side by side pawns are weak.
Keep playing. IM Danny Rensch (Chess.com) has some good videos on YouTube to get you rolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21L45Qo6EIY&t=2s
A problem with just playing systems or memorized lines, is that generally good moves in the line or system can be bad in some positions. For example your move Nbd2is a typical London system move. In many many lines it is a good or even excellent move. In others it is suboptimal. Knowing the general moves is not enough. You still need to think about what you are doing and be flexible. Here that wasnt a losing move but it was far from optimal.
I’m just using that one move as an example. You cannot just blindly follow a setup in the London system or any other opening and always get a good game. You need to be flexible and evaluate the actual position you have in front of you.
I’m just using that one move as an example. You cannot just blindly follow a setup in the London system or any other opening and always get a good game. You need to be flexible and evaluate the actual position you have in front of you.
Oct 16, 2018
0
#28
madratter7 wrote:
A problem with just playing systems or memorized lines, is that generally good moves in the line or system can be bad in some positions. For example your move Nbd2is a typical London system move. In many many lines it is a good or even excellent move. In others it is suboptimal. Knowing the general moves is not enough. You still need to think about what you are doing and be flexible. Here that wasnt a losing move but it was far from optimal.
I’m just using that one move as an example. You cannot just blindly follow a setup in the London system or any other opening and always get a good game. You need to be flexible and evaluate the actual position you have in front of you.
I’m just using that one move as an example. You cannot just blindly follow a setup in the London system or any other opening and always get a good game. You need to be flexible and evaluate the actual position you have in front of you.
And remember! .75 is almost winning!
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
forked_again wrote:
7. Ng5 was not a good move, but those of you who are in shock over the horribleness of it are overreacting. the problems got much, much worse after that move. The computer shows that the game went from even to -0.75 after Ng5. Not a big deal.
-0.75 is almost a winning advantage for the other player. So even game to winning for the other player. Ng5 makes no sense as a move, violates all principles. When you put yourself in bad positions you will make bad moves. Here you have a neutral position, where he just ruins his own position while also violating basic rules.
<SIGH>...A .75 advantage is not "almost winning" when the game is between players rated 900 and 1000. This is why this blind trust of what an engine says is so painful, and...well...wrong.
I am not talking about it from the point of view of 900 and 1000. These players struggle to convert large advantages. Also my point was that the evaluation moves from even to 0.75, i.e. your position worsens significantly. The person I was responding to claimed that such a change in eval was not a big deal, so the move was fine. My point is that in addition to the move not being fine, the eval swing is also not fine.
Oct 16, 2018
0
#30
Daniel, you are still not getting it. .75 is not significant at that level. Even for grandmaster games, dont they call differences of less than half a point as equal, and less than a point as "slightly better"?
As a 1200 player I have lost games where I had over 10 times that advantage. Look at games of lower level players and the relative evaluation changes drastically from move to Move. It is nothing like GM games where they are so good that small differences matter.
Oct 16, 2018
0
#31
Daniel1115 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
forked_again wrote:
7. Ng5 was not a good move, but those of you who are in shock over the horribleness of it are overreacting. the problems got much, much worse after that move. The computer shows that the game went from even to -0.75 after Ng5. Not a big deal.
-0.75 is almost a winning advantage for the other player. So even game to winning for the other player. Ng5 makes no sense as a move, violates all principles. When you put yourself in bad positions you will make bad moves. Here you have a neutral position, where he just ruins his own position while also violating basic rules.
<SIGH>...A .75 advantage is not "almost winning" when the game is between players rated 900 and 1000. This is why this blind trust of what an engine says is so painful, and...well...wrong.
I am not talking about it from the point of view of 900 and 1000. These players struggle to convert large advantages. Also my point was that the evaluation moves from even to 0.75, i.e. your position worsens significantly. The person I was responding to claimed that such a change in eval was not a big deal, so the move was fine. My point is that in addition to the move not being fine, the eval swing is also not fine.
A change of .75 isn't a big deal at the OP's level. It not a big deal at my level. Its not a big deal at your level. Just because an engine says a position that goes from .00 to .75 "worsens significantly" doesn't mean a thing, if you don't know how to take advantage of that .75 advantage you now have. I hear this engine speak at tournaments A LOT. I had a kid tell me once that he was winning by +.4 even though he lost the game. I asked him to point out the +.4 advantage to me. The blank look was worth the price of the entry to the tournament.
forked_again wrote:
Daniel, you are still not getting it. .75 is not significant at that level. Even for grandmaster games, dont they call differences of less than half a point as equal, and less than a point as "slightly better"?
As a 1200 player I have lost games where I had over 10 times that advantage. Look at games of lower level players and the relative evaluation changes drastically from move to Move. It is nothing like GM games where they are so good that small differences matter.
I thought that a difference of half a point is slightly better (or if its very close equal), while point to half a point is better, and greater than 1 point winning advantage. Maybe Im wrong.
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
forked_again wrote:
7. Ng5 was not a good move, but those of you who are in shock over the horribleness of it are overreacting. the problems got much, much worse after that move. The computer shows that the game went from even to -0.75 after Ng5. Not a big deal.
-0.75 is almost a winning advantage for the other player. So even game to winning for the other player. Ng5 makes no sense as a move, violates all principles. When you put yourself in bad positions you will make bad moves. Here you have a neutral position, where he just ruins his own position while also violating basic rules.
<SIGH>...A .75 advantage is not "almost winning" when the game is between players rated 900 and 1000. This is why this blind trust of what an engine says is so painful, and...well...wrong.
I am not talking about it from the point of view of 900 and 1000. These players struggle to convert large advantages. Also my point was that the evaluation moves from even to 0.75, i.e. your position worsens significantly. The person I was responding to claimed that such a change in eval was not a big deal, so the move was fine. My point is that in addition to the move not being fine, the eval swing is also not fine.
A change of .75 isn't a big deal at the OP's level. It not a big deal at my level. Its not a big deal at your level. Just because an engine says a position that goes from .00 to .75 "worsens significantly" doesn't mean a thing, if you don't know how to take advantage of that .75 advantage you now have. I hear this engine speak at tournaments A LOT. I had a kid tell me once that he was winning by +.4 even though he lost the game. I asked him to point out the +.4 advantage to me. The blank look was worth the price of the entry to the tournament.
Well 0.4 advantage is nothing, white starts with that advantage.
Given context, the engine evaluation can mean a lot. In an opening position without any complications, a change of 0.75 is usually a big deal. The purpose of the opening is to set your self up favorably for the middle game.
I would agree that as the position gets more complicated the advantages mean a lot less. Sometimes engine evaluations are greatly dependent on one or two hard to find continuations i.e. I might be better with +0.75 if I find the one saving continuation, while if I play any of the 7 other reasonable moves Im lost with -5.
Oct 16, 2018
0
#34
Daniel1115 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
forked_again wrote:
7. Ng5 was not a good move, but those of you who are in shock over the horribleness of it are overreacting. the problems got much, much worse after that move. The computer shows that the game went from even to -0.75 after Ng5. Not a big deal.
-0.75 is almost a winning advantage for the other player. So even game to winning for the other player. Ng5 makes no sense as a move, violates all principles. When you put yourself in bad positions you will make bad moves. Here you have a neutral position, where he just ruins his own position while also violating basic rules.
<SIGH>...A .75 advantage is not "almost winning" when the game is between players rated 900 and 1000. This is why this blind trust of what an engine says is so painful, and...well...wrong.
I am not talking about it from the point of view of 900 and 1000. These players struggle to convert large advantages. Also my point was that the evaluation moves from even to 0.75, i.e. your position worsens significantly. The person I was responding to claimed that such a change in eval was not a big deal, so the move was fine. My point is that in addition to the move not being fine, the eval swing is also not fine.
A change of .75 isn't a big deal at the OP's level. It not a big deal at my level. Its not a big deal at your level. Just because an engine says a position that goes from .00 to .75 "worsens significantly" doesn't mean a thing, if you don't know how to take advantage of that .75 advantage you now have. I hear this engine speak at tournaments A LOT. I had a kid tell me once that he was winning by +.4 even though he lost the game. I asked him to point out the +.4 advantage to me. The blank look was worth the price of the entry to the tournament.
Well 0.4 advantage is nothing, white starts with that advantage.
Given context, the engine evaluation can mean a lot. In an opening position without any complications, a change of 0.75 is usually a big deal. The purpose of the opening is to set your self up favorably for the middle game.
I would agree that as the position gets more complicated the advantages mean a lot less. Sometimes engine evaluations are greatly dependent on one or two hard to find continuations i.e. I might be better with +0.75 if I find the one saving continuation, while if I play any of the 7 other reasonable moves Im lost with -5.
You're not getting it...
One last time, and this is it for me.
When an engine says +.75 is winning, or whatever you want to call it. That is based on something rated 3400, its also based on playing someone rated 3400, its also based on both players rated 3400, playing the best move for EVERY move.
A .75....04....50....1.00 etc. doesn't mean a thing for the 99.99999% of us.
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Daniel1115 wrote:
forked_again wrote:
7. Ng5 was not a good move, but those of you who are in shock over the horribleness of it are overreacting. the problems got much, much worse after that move. The computer shows that the game went from even to -0.75 after Ng5. Not a big deal.
-0.75 is almost a winning advantage for the other player. So even game to winning for the other player. Ng5 makes no sense as a move, violates all principles. When you put yourself in bad positions you will make bad moves. Here you have a neutral position, where he just ruins his own position while also violating basic rules.
<SIGH>...A .75 advantage is not "almost winning" when the game is between players rated 900 and 1000. This is why this blind trust of what an engine says is so painful, and...well...wrong.
I am not talking about it from the point of view of 900 and 1000. These players struggle to convert large advantages. Also my point was that the evaluation moves from even to 0.75, i.e. your position worsens significantly. The person I was responding to claimed that such a change in eval was not a big deal, so the move was fine. My point is that in addition to the move not being fine, the eval swing is also not fine.
A change of .75 isn't a big deal at the OP's level. It not a big deal at my level. Its not a big deal at your level. Just because an engine says a position that goes from .00 to .75 "worsens significantly" doesn't mean a thing, if you don't know how to take advantage of that .75 advantage you now have. I hear this engine speak at tournaments A LOT. I had a kid tell me once that he was winning by +.4 even though he lost the game. I asked him to point out the +.4 advantage to me. The blank look was worth the price of the entry to the tournament.
Well 0.4 advantage is nothing, white starts with that advantage.
Given context, the engine evaluation can mean a lot. In an opening position without any complications, a change of 0.75 is usually a big deal. The purpose of the opening is to set your self up favorably for the middle game.
I would agree that as the position gets more complicated the advantages mean a lot less. Sometimes engine evaluations are greatly dependent on one or two hard to find continuations i.e. I might be better with +0.75 if I find the one saving continuation, while if I play any of the 7 other reasonable moves Im lost with -5.
You're not getting it...
One last time, and this is it for me.
When an engine says +.75 is winning, or whatever you want to call it. That is based on something rated 3400, its also based on playing someone rated 3400, its also based on both players rated 3400, playing the best move for EVERY move.
A .75....04....50....1.00 etc. doesn't mean a thing for the 99.99999% of us.
The part that you are not getting is that I do not believe that ratings are be all and end all. I was responding to someone who claimed that just because the rating changed from 0 to 0.75 that ng5 was fine.
My response went after him on both counts(engine eval=no big deal and worst moves were played). First of all, I said that the engine advantage given is significant. I dont think upon review of the game you would want to replay this move in the opening. Second of all, I pointed out that the move violates all the opening principles etc. etc. I put little emphasis on that point because everyone else was focusing on it.
Playing the opening is not that hard. You should not be going close to a pawn down (no compensation) on your move 7 from equality. That is already a signal for problems. When I said almost winning, it was to give meaning to said evaluation. I understood it was with perfect play. But if you assume every move is a blunder than no advantage is safe. You can never be winning, even a queen up. The evaluation is a snapshot in time, capturing all the factors. Its not a good sign if you are almost losing (with perfect play) out of the opening. Thats a thin rope to walk. Whether your opponent can play the right moves is on them.
Different positions are easier to convert than others. Give a player a king and pawn endgame a pawn up and it will be a lot easier than a rook endgame a pawn up (generalizing). Thus playing the best move(s) can be easier or harder depending on the position.
I dont need you to instruct me about how meaningless engine evaluations can be. I fully understand all that. I also understand that they have value sometimes.
Oct 16, 2018
0
#37
No no no not significant! You are a stubborn one aren't you ?
Go play against the computer. It shows you your score after each move. See how many ways you can play standard opening moves, especially with black, and end up down by .75 or more, by your third move.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Vanilla ice cream is exciting!
lol It can be exciting if you add Guinness.
forked_again wrote:
No no no not significant! You are a stubborn one aren't you ?
Go play against the computer. It shows you your score after each move. See how many ways you can play standard opening moves, especially with black, and end up down by .75 or more, by your third move.
Maybe thats how you play your openings, but I dont.
Oct 16, 2018
0
#40
Daniel1115 wrote:
forked_again wrote:
No no no not significant! You are a stubborn one aren't you ?
Go play against the computer. It shows you your score after each move. See how many ways you can play standard opening moves, especially with black, and end up down by .75 or more, by your third move.
Maybe thats how you play your openings, but I dont.
Really? You don't play openings that way do you genius...
Does this game look familiar? That's you playing black, down .85 after MOVE 2.
Still think that's significant? HA!
You really need to stop trying to defend a stupid position dude. You seem like you don't even know what the analysis means.
7. Ng5 was not a good move, but those of you who are in shock over the horribleness of it are overreacting. the problems got much, much worse after that move. The computer shows that the game went from even to -0.75 after Ng5. Not a big deal.
-0.75 is almost a winning advantage for the other player. So even game to winning for the other player. Ng5 makes no sense as a move, violates all principles. When you put yourself in bad positions you will make bad moves. Here you have a neutral position, where he just ruins his own position while also violating basic rules.
<SIGH>...A .75 advantage is not "almost winning" when the game is between players rated 900 and 1000. This is why this blind trust of what an engine says is so painful, and...well...wrong.