nice win
Online chess at chess.com
Sort:
Jun 1, 2014
0
#4
Nice job! Yea, ..."40... Kh5This was the alternative to resignation", ...lol! Very nice win and equally earnest eval enroute! Yea, you called it on move 34 that taking on b2 was curtains man, but what could he do, sans bishop, huh? Very nice technique, corralling the "really nice guy's" black king ;)! Well done. I enjoyed the evals man! Cool!
Jun 1, 2014
0
#5
Great you liked the evals :-)
And if he didn't take on b2 he could still hang out a bit longer... or resign of course. Taking it made things go faster (don't forget that this game goes at three days a move - so it could really drag longer...)
Did I use 'curtains' on move 34?! I thought I called that a few moves earlier, maybe around the time he played 27...d4, maybe a couple moves after that...
Jun 1, 2014
0
#6
Right.
After move 14 we get in a familiar situation, where white is trying to convince black that the game is over already, while black is claiming that the guys are still playing.
If you look at all of the variations from move 14 to move 26, you'll see in just how many way this could be NOT won... and I'm sure there's plenty more.
It's over... but it's not QUITE over, you know what I mean :-)
Winning the won game! It is something to be taken seriously, and solskytz very much did. I think these kinds of situations are more interesting than people give credit for -- a GM won't care and just be like bah, the game was already over in the opening, but I think for most people there can, as evidenced here, be a lot going on in the process to convert. It gets even more interesting when the player in trouble is somewhat higher rated.
Jun 2, 2014
0
#8
...Which he was... I went into this game rated 1886, he was 1971.
Of course these ratings were only on paper - mine was based on just three games - all of them wins; one in 15 moves against an 1500+, two in 17 moves, against two 1700s.
He spoiled it. Was supposed to lose in 19 moves as a 1900+. Oh well.
It's still early on, but your final rating is probably more accurate than your previous one.
Nice game.
Good game
Nov 24, 2014
0
#15
Three more correspondence games followed the one you see here. All of them were hard fought. In all of them I had to think hard and analyze hard.
Incidentally, in all three cases my opponents were found out as cheaters!
As I always take my time in thinking, this happened before they could actually beat me OTB, so I was awarded the three wins (from problematic positions, naturally).
So, with my rating "skyrocketing" to 2150+, I'm now on a break from this kind of play, until the will to do it again returns...
Yes, my urge to play cc comes and goes. Recently I've started playing again just a little bit, but it's something one can get sick of. The most important thing is not to start too many games at once for the same reason you shouldn't shop when you're hungry -- you might want to play many moves on one particular day, but you have to keep that up for the entirety of every game you started, and these games can take months. So I make sure I start fewer games than I think I can handle just to be cautious, after making this mistake before.
What I like about it is that if I only have 10-15 minutes for chess, I can usually spend that time deeply looking at one or two particular game positions and making my move, and I often learn something :)
Oh yeah and it does suck how so many players turn out to be cheaters. That's why I often prefer to play people I know.
Nov 24, 2014
0
#19
<Elubas> my strategy is a bit different... I only play one game at a time - but my analysis of a move can at some cases reach also three or four good hours (I write everything and sometimes I need 3 pgn files for just one game, otherwise the Scid vs. Pc program just won't move - my annotations get THAT heavy).
Thanks, <MSteen> :-)
Indeed, <Elubas>, three out of three at the 2000+ range, and considering all of the time spent analyzing moves in cafes in Mexico, among other places... :-) well really... :-)
How many plies ahead are you calculating, on average, each move? I have this problem where either I just can't calculate further or I have no idea whether what I've calculated is any good (evaluating, basically).
Would you mind sharing some of your annotations?
And I've decided to only one game at a time too so let's see how that goes.
Disclaimer: all evals used in this game are NOT computer evals.
Using a computer engine is illegal in Online Chess... the above is a game I finished playing today (and started a bit over a month ago), analyzed mostly during it, with small, minor corrections after the fact.
To understand the evals, you need to open this - http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/the-solsky-evaluation - and read my OP. I hope you will enjoy it :-). To further remove any doubt, I have marked my "evals" with the letter S ("Solsky evals") - such as +0.50S, +1.00S, etc.
I really like correspondence chess. I have discovered it here at chess.com. This was my fourth game out of five total. Up to this point I have a purely winning record that got me almost, but not quite, to the 2000 rating point.
The analysis is over extensive... maybe too extensive... you don't have to enter all variations... I was using this in order to analyze the game WHILE IT WAS STILL GOING - so of course I wanted to see and evaluate as much as possible.
How comfortable when you can actually move the pieces and write down your ideas and conclusions :-)
But I believe that this actually improves analytical faculties in OTB chess. That's why I play it. Alekhine used correspondence chess as a developing player (although at a younger age) for similar reasons.