How to Defeat a Chess Expert...

Sort:
kleelof

Really man, if you are going to use an engine, you should understand what the numbers mean.

Look at move 10, you have a value of 0.91, the next move, it increased to 1.21. That means you made an inaccurate move, otherwise the number would have remained the same or decreased. You can see plenty of these throughout the game.

The pawn sac you made gave your opponent 3/4 of a pawn advantage, the engine clearly does not agree that you gained something from it.

The move you are referring to was closer to a blunder, that is why it caught the engines attention.

By the time your opponent blundered away his rook, you were down 1.3. That means 1 1/3 pawns, so your idea that you gained something by the pawn sac is clearly not something the engine agrees with.

Again, I am not trying to take anything away from you.(except maybe your misunderstanding of engine analysisLaughing)

The sooner you understand what inaccuracies really are, the sooner you will be able to improve more.

DrCheckevertim
learningthemoves wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:

Not a bad game, but basically your opponent just dropped a rook for no reason. I don't think you can count on that happening very often.

 

I do agree with your premise though. Simple, unrelenting, solid moves throughout an entire game can be an amateur opponent's worst nightmare.

Dr, I understand where you're coming from with that, but the truth is, there is really a bit more to the story than just my opponent making a blunder.

Before I initiated the exchanges, his rook was protected by the queen.

My strategy was to lure the queen from off the back rank with the series of exchanges and then double attack the rook and pawn.

If you look at it closely, you'll see he moved his knight on the move before the rook was captured.

Now why would he do that when it protected his rook?

Exactly. To protect the pawn.

Because of the unexpected series of exchanges I initiated, he hadn't considered that when he recaptured, he left his rook undefended and so as a result, he was thinking only the pawn was under attack with the rook still defended.

Only, the rook wasn't still defended.

So the strategy worked.

Not just a simple blunder when you know the "why" behind it.

I think a simple Ra1, instead of Nf3, would have made things perfectly alright for white. Not a very hard move to see (unless I'm missing something), and my rating is around yours. I understand your strategy, you pressured him into making a mistake, but I can't help thinking that his blunder was something that a 1300 player would make. Certainly not typical of a 2000 player.

Till_98

The Computer gave 1 inaccuracie. Thats were you blundered the pawn. So the game wasnt without mistakes. But why Do you feel mad about not playing perfect games? Nobody plays perfect, otherwise you would be able to win against MAgnus Carlsen

Rumo75

Sorry, but 7...e5 is not a pawn sac. There is not even a glimpse of compensation for black anywhere. It's a blunder of the worst sort, and considering his rook sac on the 23rd move, the conjecture that the white player was heavily drunk is not too far-fetched.

Till_98

haha rumo ich glaubs auch :D

InfiniteFlash

Learningthemoves, that was.....a lucky win

Anyone can blunder like that.

I hope your thread title is sarcastic considering that you dropped a pawn in the opening for minimal compensation.

Likhit1

Ok,I ran this game in Chessbase with Houdini 3 pro running and with the help of Chessbase cloud.For most part of the game,the position is just +- and for some part it is +=.Even in the final position in which White Blundered a rook,it's simply winning for him.He is a pawn up for nothing.7.e5 is surely not a Blunder but it's a mistake.Moves like Nxd4 or e6 would have given you full equality.Now,I'm not saying that you should have played like an Engine or your opponent could have defended like an engine.I'm saying that the e5 pawn sac looks wrong to me on principle.See,lead in development is a temporary advantage and is not of much value unless you can do something concrete with it.You simply developed normally with moves like Be7 allowing white to get castled easily and having a relatively solid position whilst being a pawn up.I'm still not convinced by that pawn sac.Btw,I'm in no way trying to take away your hapiness of having won the game.Far from it.I believe that honest criticism is always helpful and a good way to improve your game.

learningthemoves

The opponent moved his dark square bishop three times as a result of taking the pawn.

Had he not taken the pawn with his bishop, I would not have been able to force the exchange of bishops, winning time and a slight lead in development for black.

When you play with the black pieces, a lead in development is certainly worth a pawn.

I realized that when I allowed the pawn to be attacked, because my queen and my own dark square bishop had the dark squares adequately covered.

I still maintain my pawn sac provided ample compensation in the form of a lead in development.

He wasted moves moving around his dark square bishop three times which was enough to allow me to catch up and then pass him on development.

I was completely developed with his queen still on the back rank.

That is more than enough compensation for a measly pawn.

randomhorse

The quick analysis of the game by my engine:

My engine also says 7. e5??, giving white a 1.15 (pawn) advantage. And white kept that one pawn advantage until white blundered on move 23.

That is the only blunder found for black. It found no mistakes for black.

White's only blunder (he made no mistakes as well) is move 23.

It did found a lot of inaccuracies for both sides, but then again, it was only to (dis)prove your statement: "I made zero blunders and zero mistakes." But you made one blunder, as many others already stated :) 

Till_98

But even the final position is completly lost for you if he wouldnt have blundered a rook. And there wasnt lead in development also...

learningthemoves

I had already provided the computer's analysis of zero blunders and zero mistakes with only 1 inaccuracy.

Now what the engine couldn't possibly factor was the strategy involved of creating the perfect storm for the blunder.

If you look, you'll see the pawn that was sacrificed (inaccurate or not), is what gave me the lead in development I needed to inititate the exchanges which led to the double attack of the pawn and rook.

When my opponent saw his pawn was attacked, he moved his knight to uncover the queen to protect it.

What he failed to consider was that after the exchanges that were made (made possible because of the compensation provided by the pawn sac), the rook was no longer protected.

There is no other explanation and it was indeed my strategy going into it and it won.

learningthemoves
Till_98 wrote:

But even the final position is completly lost for you if he wouldnt have blundered a rook. And there wasnt lead in development also...

Yes Till. I had a lead in development. Look at the position immediately after the bishop exchange.

Black is fully developed while white still has its queen on the back rank.

So the fact is, black was fully developed a half move before white and it means black had the lead in development.

Likhit1
learningthemoves wrote:

I had already provided the computer's analysis of zero blunders and zero mistakes with only 1 inaccuracy.

Now what the engine couldn't possibly factor was the strategy involved of creating the perfect storm for the blunder.

If you look, you'll see the pawn that was sacrificed (inaccurate or not), is what gave me the lead in development I needed to inititate the exchanges which led to the double attack of the pawn and rook.

When my opponent saw his pawn was attacked, he moved his knight to uncover the queen to protect it.

What he failed to consider was that after the exchanges that were made (made possible because of the compensation provided by the pawn sac), the rook was no longer protected.

There is no other explanation and it was indeed my strategy going into it and it won.

Rc2 and you're lost.

learningthemoves
[COMMENT DELETED]
Likhit1
learningthemoves wrote:
Likhit1 wrote:
learningthemoves wrote:

I had already provided the computer's analysis of zero blunders and zero mistakes with only 1 inaccuracy.

Now what the engine couldn't possibly factor was the strategy involved of creating the perfect storm for the blunder.

If you look, you'll see the pawn that was sacrificed (inaccurate or not), is what gave me the lead in development I needed to inititate the exchanges which led to the double attack of the pawn and rook.

When my opponent saw his pawn was attacked, he moved his knight to uncover the queen to protect it.

What he failed to consider was that after the exchanges that were made (made possible because of the compensation provided by the pawn sac), the rook was no longer protected.

There is no other explanation and it was indeed my strategy going into it and it won.

Rc2 and you're lost.

d4 ;-)

So?e4 or Nf1 and you're simply pawn down.

learningthemoves

Eh, e4 loses.

kleelof
learningthemoves wrote:
Till_98 wrote:

But even the final position is completly lost for you if he wouldnt have blundered a rook. And there wasnt lead in development also...

Yes Till. I had a lead in development. Look at the position immediately after the bishop exchange.

Black is fully developed while white still has its queen on the back rank.

So the fact is, black was fully developed a half move before white and it means black had the lead in development.

That is hardly the definitive definition of 'lead in development'.

Likhit1
learningthemoves wrote:

Eh, e4 loses.

Yes,I agree.Black loses after e4.

learningthemoves
Likhit1 wrote:
learningthemoves wrote:

Eh, e4 loses.

Yes,I agree.Black loses after e4.

Not at all.

learningthemoves
kleelof wrote:
learningthemoves wrote:
Till_98 wrote:

But even the final position is completly lost for you if he wouldnt have blundered a rook. And there wasnt lead in development also...

Yes Till. I had a lead in development. Look at the position immediately after the bishop exchange.

Black is fully developed while white still has its queen on the back rank.

So the fact is, black was fully developed a half move before white and it means black had the lead in development.

That is hardly the definitive definition of 'lead in development'.

Definitive definition or not, black enjoyed a lead in development over white after the bishop exchange made possible by the pawn sac, but you fellas have fun arguing about all the "what ifs". It does make for fun discussions.