FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Correction to my previous post #38:
In the Lolli attack white ends up sacrificing both knights and is down 6 points, but according to that video, computer analysis says that white still has an overwhelming advantage.
I think it was okay to play on after going behind an Exchange and a pawn, but you played on too long. You should've resigned once you fell even further behind.
Should have seen that coming, Eberulf you really are not a good chess player.
It's just a joke, no hard feelings between you and I, I save those for chess adversaries.
I was down 3 points up until move 34 of the game, when he got his second queen. The game ended on move 37 after he demanded that I resign. In the 3 last moves of the game he was not making his best move on any of them, two queens or no. Then I saw that check that opened up for me, there at the end, I thought "might as well", and evidently that really ticked him off.
So don't know what you're talking about.
The pivotal mistake for me did not occur until my knight move at #32 which was a blunder. I could have moved NF7 there and completely forestalled what he was doing as best I can tell.
What? The fact that I didn't see his "Nope" comment coming shows I'm not a very good chess player? I don't know what either one of you are talking about.
And you say, I'm not a very good chess player, but "no hard feelings", I don't know what your game is or what you're talking about, sorry.
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - Bxf7 is a blunder. There's a better move, can you find it?
"I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - Bxf7 is a blunder. There's a better move, can you find it?"
D.T. How could you be any clearer that you thought it was a blunder, you already said that. I do see now of course I should have just responded Ke7.
But as far as his better move, most people would just say what it was instead of forcing the thread starter to play a guessing game with them. Other people in this thread have provided alternate lines at points in the game. Why do you not want to point out the move you found. If there is one better I'm sure I could find it with a few minutes analysis, but I'm not going to bother.
Hmmm, I retract my previous statement. If you're the kind of person who can't be bothered finding better moves, yes, you should have resigned.
You sure are being condesiding and not helpful at the same time. Bxf7 looks best to me. Qd5 (if that's what you're thining of) doesn't get as important of a pawn and black and still castle.
Hi! Bishops are worth more than pawns. You're welcome.
You were hopelessly lost even if you had moved 32...Nf7 because then he can play, say, Rd2 and I assure you there is nothing you can do to hold the position.
I said in the OP I am not a very good chess player, so maybe this is wrong, but I feel you are wrong here. He has three attacking pieces. With my king as a defender I have 4 defending pieces. In response to Rd2, I see Qg5.
Well he's got his pawn on the 7th rank as well that counts as an attacking piece.
No, your pivotal mistake was on move 9 when you dropped the exchange and lost the right to castle. Just because you don't see an immediate win for your opponent doesn't mean his position isn't better or even winning. There's no time limit on how many moves he has to beat you in, his advantages are permanent and he gets as many moves as he wants to win.
Conceivably thebest case scenario, you exchange off the e pawn but you would have a totally lost endgame.
So it's like a running joke I didn't get? Oh well
DeliriumTrigger is a heck of a guy. Sporting a cool 2500 plus Bullet rating which makes him Nakamura's younger brother.
@Eberulf: Just to repeat what many others have stated. In your rating range resigning at move 9 in this position is not called for. However, your opponent did not ask you to resign @ move 9. He did at move 36 when your position indeed was hopelessly lost especially considering you are playing a 25 minutes + 5s game (which seems like eternity). Consider that if you had resigned somewhere around move 30 then this whole discussion would have never come up.
Its not your job to beat you, thats his job. If he needs you to lay down and die, thats just arrogent. I've played on in games down a queen and pulled out a win. He needs to get over himself.
Never resign, particularly against people who want you to resign!
Resigning is arrogance.
Yeah, I've seen that line before. Either 1) you had sufficient positional compensation for the Queen, 2) your opponent was a low rated amateur 3) you opponent was needlessly careless and just did not pay attention, 4) you were playing fast time controls and the opponent was in time trouble.
Without any one of condtions 1, 2, or 4 being met, then you should be a good sport and resign your game when down a whole Queen. I did not include condition 3, because it is rude and demeaning to assume such a thing about an opponent.
But then again, that is what the issue is all about isn't it: sportsmanship, manners and ettiquette. Some people just don't have them...
"Conceivably thebest case scenario, you exchange off the e pawn but you would have a totally lost endgame."
In that scenario the total squares my pawns are advanced beyond their start is 7; his pawns the total is 3.
And we're left with my knight vs. his rook.
Curious as to what that 4 square pawn advancement differential for me counts in terms of points.
Oh and also my king seems to be in a superior position to his for the end game.
Just fascinated you can look at that and just on a glance know its lost for black
I made that comment without actually looking at when you fell further behind. You held your ground until your opponent came up with the idea to open the center. I would've resigned when he played 29. exd6. The pawn can't be taken back, and the bishop's dead, so then playing on is 100% meaningless, even against a 1400.