3 brilliants in a row!!!
Sort:
4 days ago
0
#3
I sacced two different rooks in the same game, didn't even get a great move, never mind a brilliancy.
But congrats on the stalemate trick, Eric Rosen would be proud.
So it was the mad rook
Awesome stalemate trick! That guy must have been so mad about the draw.
I can’t see it
4 days ago
0
#9
#6, the first rook sacrifice was brilliant, but the second was not, because you were already winning.
4 days ago
0
#12
Pointing out that draw was available as early as move 50.
Just RxBch instead of Rc3.
Your rook then just shuttles from e3 to e2 to e1 with perpetual check.
Stockfish seems to confirm it.
3 days ago
0
#14
Fetoxo wrote:
@playerafar, I know. Did you read my text? "I didn't find it inmediately".
Yes. But i commented further.
That game also had its salient points.
One was how your opponent used his extra piece.
He chose to keep it advanced instead of using its distance feature from further back.
He didn't demonstrate ability to play a piece up.
You simply got to shuttle your rook back and forth.
He improved his pawns instead of his King and pieces.
-----------
But you deserve credit for hanging in there.
2 days ago
0
#15
@Fetoxo
here's a pair of ideas that I don't think coaches mention much if at all - although the first one probably comes up a little bit.
1) don't exchange pieces/pawns without a reason.
2) don't 'not exchange' without a reason either.
Does it work out that way in practice?
Many if not most players don't like exchanging down. Its 'unpopular'.
But in good play you exchange when its favourable - or you look to exchange.
If its not you don't. Or 'keep those pieces on the board. Better there.'
Those often get confused with 'playing for the win' versus 'playing for the draw.
They're diffferent but there's an overlap.
2 days ago
0
#16
It's never what is exchanged, it's always what is left on the board.
When you exchange it should be with an eye to what it changes about the dynamic of the game.
Or at least that's my two cents.
2 days ago
0
#17
thereturnofthesnowfox wrote:
It's never what is exchanged, it's always what is left on the board.
When you exchange it should be with an eye to what it changes about the dynamic of the game.
Or at least that's my two cents.
what is left on the board is determined by what is exchanged.
So its always about what is exchanged.
----------------------
As to 'what it changes' that connects to 'having a reason'.
And having a reason applies both ways.
----------------------
the whole business of exchanging connects to captures which connects to tactics.
And tactics are key to early improvement.
Capture in chess is one of the first things that is taught.
But 'having a reason' for both capturing or not capturing connects to the player himself/herself.
Its 'your reason - his reason - her reason' and so on.
In other words it connects to player judgement instead of rote learning and memorization.
That's why I like that pair of ideas a lot.
But another is because captures (which include exchanges of course) are so Concrete.
Easily understood at any level.
I was black. I know I made some horrible mistakes in the middlegame, but I found this brilliant way to draw the game! I didn't find it inmediately though, but still! I don't know how the algorythm chooses which moves are brilliant and which are not, because it didn't mark all of them as brilliant. I marked all of the moves brilliant which the system showed brilliant, and I also marked my blunder.
