Play couldn't have continued. It is stalemate. The computer's a moron.
a favourite of mine - crazy structure
Sort:
yeh the draw - OUCH! i was like HAHAHAHAHA - queen action and then snap. but its my bad i shoulda been paying attention.
on the computer analysis, the problem is that it is a 2500 rated computer, sometimes i fint it quite useful but sometimes the things it recommends dont make sense. also because im not a 2500 player playing a 2500 player we dont "go all yoda" and do moves that for most people dont make sense without the being able to see 20 moves ahead.
(-0.01) DRAW - Play might have continued...
what it means is it gives alternate moves for the dumb move i made with other possibilities. you should check out the analysis function on here its quite handy.
The Computer Analysis recommended 60... d1=R 61. Kb3 Rb1+ 62. Kc3 Bf6+ 63. Kd3 Rb3#.
ADK
blitz does that to you.. create interesting, stupid, & absurd positions.
tonydal wrote:
Well, again its evaluation of the position after your 26th was absurdly off the mark. There has been a lot of discussion here by the way about the chess.com analysis engine and its inadequacies/peccadilloes (not to mention the fact that it's kind of a jerk...indeed, that was one of the funnier post titles to appear: "The chess.com analysis engine is a jerk").
Tony, I'm not so sure it's as absurdly off the mark as you think. I think the computer's evaluation has to do with White's N being -very- awkwardly placed (particularly after f3) and the computer expects Black to take advantage of this, but Black doesn't... and indeed after Black plays the uninspired 25.f6 the evaluation jumps to +1.68 -- The computer had been looking for Bf6 where I don't see White being able to do better than two pawns for his N.
tonydal wrote:
Well, maybe I'm not reading this thingie right or something (which admittedly would hardly be momentous news)...but I'm talking about the note after 26... g5, where it says the following: "(+0.45) INACCURACY - The game is now roughly equal."
Oh. I was reading you wrong, I thought you were talking about earlier. So -- you think white's better than a 1/2 pawn? I'd take your word for it as you'd know better than I... but in defense of the computer, evaluating closed static-y positions is what they do worst -- Software (at least as of 6 mos ago) doesn't see/understand fortresses nor does it get stonewall pawn formations, but my understanding oddly enough is that software underrates stonewalls... (thinks they're weaker than they are) which would lead it to underrate Black here, right? So go figure.
You know Tony, if you want a challenge that might educate me and others as to how to proceed with White here you might set up the position, taking White against a strong engine, and see if you can actually press home the advantage you claim White has. Then post the game, it really would be a lesson. I LOVE closed or locked positions... well, love the idea of them, anyway... but I'm terrible at playing them it seems. (There is one factor here that does completely favor White IMO and that is that this is White's game to decide what to do with... Black has no say in the matter... if White wants to offer draw, Black has no way to play for win. ... But if White presses on to play for a win? I don't think it's so easy to keep Black all bottled up and toothless.)
btw. I couldn't bring myself to play that guy his King's Gambit thing... I found the whole business aggravating and I didn't see any upside to myself at all.
Why would you ever play a move like 12...e5?? You kill your dark squared bishop and you give yourself an enormous weakness on the d5 and d6-squares. Your control of d4 is worthless: he has no more d-pawns to go there and he can't play a knight there anyway because of cxd4. Were you hoping he wouldn't notice and you could take his queen?
Apart from the 7 or 8 times you blundered material or overlooked his blunders, and the time you stalemated him when you had mate in a few moves, this was probably the biggest mistake in the game yet the computer completely glosses over it.
RoundTower wrote:
Why would you ever play a move like 12...e5?? You kill your dark squared bishop and you give yourself an enormous weakness on the d5 and d6-squares. Your control of d4 is worthless: he has no more d-pawns to go there and he can't play a knight there anyway because of cxd4. Were you hoping he wouldn't notice and you could take his queen?
Apart from the 7 or 8 times you blundered material or overlooked his blunders, and the time you stalemated him when you had mate in a few moves, this was probably the biggest mistake in the game yet the computer completely glosses over it.
I think I know you, your the guy who farts in the lift, or gets drunk and goes off at everyone and ruins the party. your the final "GTFO" record djs play to people who are on far too much drugs to know its 9am and they need to go to the next after after after hours.
kill joy! like i said, just thought it was a cool structure that came out and if u read the first post properly before blowing all over your screen you might have read the whole "lots of mistakes/blunders" bit.
don't let this slow you down tho - you can still get all your preperations together to steal christmas.
:D
hey can you unbunch your panties, I'm not trying to insult you
I just mean that you have to understand you shouldn't just go for these "locked" or "closed" or "stonewall" pawn formations just because you can or because you like the idea of them. Sometimes they are good and sometimes they are really bad. It's not always possible to tell which is which but here you should have realised how bad it was because of the move e6-e5.
hey yall, this is a blitz game from yesterday, i thought id post it cause i like the mental phalanx that goes down, no need to get too deep into the analysis theres a lot of mistakes, just thought it was a cool game to share :P