Zero Blunders, Zero Mistakes. Yay
Sort:
Kernicterus
Mar 29, 2010
0
#1
A few random thoughts:
1. I didn't realise it was possible to get to nearly 1800 on this site whilst having so little understanding of chess. White's trading of two pieces for a Rook and pawn was a deranged play, made much worse by his lack of development.... asking for it.
2. To your credit, you didn't flinch and took your chance with no faffing about (nice finish).
3. Over 1600 now! (just a few months ago, you were struggling to get over 1500). Onwards and upwards.
Mar 29, 2010
0
#3
Flawless victory :)
Always feels good to have a game under your belt when even a machine can't criticize your move selection.
Nice miniature.
PrawnEatsPrawn wrote:
A few random thoughts:
1. I didn't realise it was possible to get to nearly 1800 on this site whilst having so little understanding of chess. White's trading of two pieces for a Rook and pawn was a deranged play, made much worse by his lack of development.... asking for it.
The "hard" computer on chess.com plays the Italian the same way. Interestingly a lot of players seem to be chained to the belief that because a rook and a pawn have the same value (weight, worth, whatever) as a knight and bishop - according to some arbitrary numerical system which actually has little to no basis on the results of a chess game - that it's okay to exchange in this way.
Chess dementia imo. Good game Afaf, tactiKAL.
Mar 29, 2010
0
#6
Good game. I especially liked the finish. Ms Bouardi, did you have to do a double-blink when you saw the forced win after 17.f3?
Regarding the knight + bishop for rook + pawn, this is one of those questions that someone could probably write a blog or short article about. Sometimes it's good, more often it's bad.
Very nicely played!
Oh sure, I didn't mean to say that it was always bad, but in this type of Italian set up you're just giving white all of the middle game chances and initiative for free.
The nominal piece values are equal(*) 3 + 3 = 5 + 1 (depending on what numbers you prefer for each piece!). But things like tempo have value as well. White used 5 moves to capture on f7, black used 2. What is 3 tempo worth?
(*) Most experts put the values of the minor pieces slightly higher than 3. I think this is a materially bad trade for white.
Forget the piece count for a second. The numbers don't matter.
That said... even numerically it's bad for white. :P
Is that a response to my post, Kupov?
Mar 29, 2010
0
#12
PrawnEatsPrawn wrote:
A few random thoughts:
1. I didn't realise it was possible to get to nearly 1800 on this site whilst having so little understanding of chess. White's trading of two pieces for a Rook and pawn was a deranged play, made much worse by his lack of development.... asking for it.
2. To your credit, you didn't flinch and took your chance with no faffing about (nice finish).
3. Over 1600 now! (just a few months ago, you were struggling to get over 1500). Onwards and upwards.
1 and 3. I don't want to be negative but I have a sneaking suspicion that some site inflation is taking place throughout. But thanks for the encouragement.
2. I found his choice of Ng5 in this situation to be unusual...haven't seen it before and after that a lot of it seemed forced. Chess Mentor has actually been pretty good at reminding me that I can't "faff about" as you put it...trying to find moves that don't give opponents time to fix their hair, so to speak. Or at least being more conscious of that tempo element in the game.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Good game. I especially liked the finish. Ms Bouardi, did you have to do a double-blink when you saw the forced win after 17.f3?
hah. you read my mind. Like a zealous geek, I set up conditional moves after 17.f3 leading to the mate. I couldn't believe how cute it was going to be. Or that he allowed it to play out. :)
thanks Shivsky, Kupov and bjazz...I didn't notice it was a mini by a hair. cool!
Mar 29, 2010
0
#13
After 7. ..kxf7 just look at the board. I think loomis is spot on - the tempi make the (biggest) difference here.
black is so far ahead in development, you could be captain kirk halfway out with the white pieces cheering after you from earth..
hah. you read my mind. Like a zealous geek, I set up conditional moves after 17.f3 leading to the mate. I couldn't believe how cute it was going to be. Or that he allowed it to play out. :)
So it wasn't a lucky save, you knew f3 was toxic? Well then BRAVO! Well done. A lovely finish. A nice trap that can catch strong players.
Mar 29, 2010
0
#15
Did I not get the memo about miniatures having to clear the 20 threshold instead of 25?
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Good game. I especially liked the finish. Ms Bouardi, did you have to do a double-blink when you saw the forced win after 17.f3?
Regarding the knight + bishop for rook + pawn, this is one of those questions that someone could probably write a blog or short article about. Sometimes it's good, more often it's bad.
Esben Lund wrote a book on this topic; Rook Vs. Two Minor Pieces. His feeling is that, while the point value can't be ignored, it has to be modified according to the position of the pieces on the board.
He recommeds the trade of bishop and knight for rook and pawn if the extra pawn is advanced and well supported, or if it can be advanced.
Since the title of the book is Rook Vs. Two Minor Pieces, he also shows how it is difficult to defend against a rook with two knights, among other things. However, it does not address the exchange at issue here ...that I recall.
Nice game Afaf, pretty mate!
Nice game.
Why 4) c3 ?
Was this game a Theme game where your opponent has to play that move (Italian Game)? or was it chosen by your opponent? I use to play e4 openings and I have never liked that move.