Chess Forum
uskidscompute.com << online chess - < chess - chess > - chess online >>
| From | Message |
| Posted by taoistlunatic uskidscompute.com 9/02/2002 16:50:45 |  Subject: I think white is winning.Message: board #271161 My opponent offered a draw in this game and I refused for now. I was winning this game very strongly until I blundered away material, even after losing a piece, I was still compensated by having extra pawns. Inthe curent endgame I have five pawns and rook vs. twp pawns, rook and knight. I know that knight is worth roughly three pawns, but since the pawns are on both sides of the board, and I have two connected passed pawns, I feel that whit will win this endgame with proper play... Of course you cannot give me advice as this is unsportsmanlike since it is an ongoing game, I just wanted to know what you endgame analysts think, is white winning, or black, or is it a draw? |
| Posted by atrifix uskidscompute.com 9/02/2002 17:52:34 | Message: You will become a much better player when you stop focusing on whether white is winning, has a clear advantage, compensation, etc; whether the position is += or +/- (or whether it was = all along) and simply focus on making good moves. At any rate I will not comment as the game is still in progress. |
| Posted by bafverfeldt1981 uskidscompute.com 9/02/2002 20:19:11 | taoist Message: I agree with Atrifix- after the game I can comment all you want- but not now. |
| Posted by taoistlunatic uskidscompute.com 9/02/2002 21:02:33 | I respect your opinion Atrifix Message: You seem to be a very wise player...and I admire your deep understanding of the game that you have shown in these forums. You say I should focus on making good moves and forget about which side has the better position, but how am I to make 'good' moves without evaluating the position? There must be some evaluation of the postion in order to make good moves. All calcuation is based on this evaluation, without evaluation all calculation would be meaningless, because you would have no basis to judge the different lines of play and so they would all seem exactly the same, none being 'good', or 'bad'. I am not being sarcastic, I really want to know how I am supposed to know which moves are 'good'. Thanks in advance- Carl |
| Posted by atrifix uskidscompute.com 9/02/2002 21:25:22 | Evaluation Message: Of course some evaluation is necessary in order to distinguish 'good' lines from 'bad' ones. However, the main problem I notice among amateurs--and even among very strong players--is that they evaluate positions with the mentality "I am winning" or "this position is drawn", etc. In recent times some people will actually assign numeric values (like a computer) to positional elements "I am 0.85 pawns ahead"..which is simply absurd. For example (taken from The Seven Deadly Chess Sins by IM Rowson, one of the best books I've read in quite awhile): de Firmian-Hillarp Persson, 1996 WKg2, Nc3, Bc1, Ra1, Pa7, b2, d3, g3; BKf7, Ne5, Bd4, Rg1, Pf5, h6. White to move. The time control has just been reached. White possibly missed a win just before the time control and also outranks his opponent by about 200 rating points. After 43. Kh3 Rh1+ 44. Kg2 Rg1+ the game would now be drawn. However, as Tisdall pointed out: "Now, Nick used some deductive reasoning. He should win this game, and so perpetual check must be avoided...": 43. Kh2?? Nf3+ 44. Kh3 Rh1+ 45. Kg2 Rh2+ 0-1 as Black mates next move. De Firmian couldn't possibly have overlooked this if he had been fighting for a draw earlier. Even in a blitz or lightning game, the same player shown this position in a different context would have seen in about a second that 43. Kh2 allows checkmate. However, de Firmian was so concerned about winning--'white's position must be won'--that he lost any sense of objectivity. The point is that you should not concern yourself with whether you must win or draw, or try to evaluate each position as either +-, +/-, +=, =, =+, etc. (or even worse, as 0.6324 pawns ahead) But simply look for ways to improve your position, prevent your opponent from improving his, and other ideas. One must maintain his objectivity and practicality in any situation. This is all IMHO. Some people have good results with evaluating positions as 0.3284 pawns ahead, but personally I cannot possibly see any practical application. Regards, Atrifix |
| Posted by atrifix uskidscompute.com 9/02/2002 21:42:45 | P.S. Message: One more example, and a more personal one: board #339486 Now, acne is a fairly strong player. At least he has more than a basic understanding of the positional and tactical elements of chess. So it's peculiar that he should lose a game in this manner, and as White. My guess is that my move 4... Ne7 threw him a bit, when the normal move is 4... c5, and he immediately looked for a refutation. In fact White has nothing better than 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 transposing back to the main line. However, 5. g4?! is extremely premature--perhaps the idea is to keep the knight out of f5. After the further mistakes 6. Nf3? (6. a3 was natural and good), 7. Nxd4?! (7. Qxd4), and 8. f4? White was lost. The problem is again that White expected too much out of his position--he regarded 4... Ne7 as 'bad'--and completely lost his objectivity. |
| Posted by taoistlunatic uskidscompute.com 9/03/2002 14:22:17 | Thanks Atrifix Message: THat is very good advice, which I will put to use.... I too have seen players, who insist that their position is winning and make over-aggressive moves which actually are bad. I have also seen this mistake (myself included) when a player thinks he is superior to his opponent and when if he is not easily winning, lashes out for an advantage prematurely and ends up losing....this one I am particularly guilty of, I seem to lose to lower rated players even more so than to higher rated players. |
| Posted by taoistlunatic uskidscompute.com 9/22/2002 08:34:16 | by the way... Message: The game ended in a draw.... |
| Posted by peppe_l uskidscompute.com 9/22/2002 10:53:23 | Patzers view Message: Ok Im not a strong player but heres my 2 cents anyway... IMO evaluation has meaning only if one knows WHY one has an advantage. In almost symmetric positions, say B+5P vs B+5P for example, if you have more better bishop and more active king, you have advantage. And since you know why you have advantage, its easier to find the correct strategy and best moves. In that point it isnt necessary to know is the position won or drawn - all you can do is play to win as well as you can. Of course if you are about to exchange rooks, leading to abovementioed position, then its a different thing, because you must choose the option that maximizes your winning chances. Things get more difficult in unbalanced positions of course, for example if you have weakened your pawn formation for an attack, you can deduct that unless you can push your attack trough, mating, winning material or gaining positional advantages (or disadvantages for your opponent!), your opponent is better. So, the question is can you? IMO these are psychologically difficult situations, because sometimes one has to admit the failure of chosen plan. So, if its clear the attack wont be succesful, one has to choose - stopping the attack means disadvantage, but is the weakened position hopeless then? If it is, perhaps best practical decision is to continue the attack in the hope of opponent playing carelessly? If it isnt completely lost, why help the opponent further by weakening your position even more? Etc |
| Posted by acne uskidscompute.com 9/22/2002 22:18:12 | atrifix Message: sorry for the bad game. |
Chess news: Vlad Kramnik and Magnus Carlsen go toe-to-toe at Wijk aan Zee -- Corus Wijk aan Zee, the most popular event on the chess calendar, ends tomorrow with ex-champion Vlad Kramnik and the world No1 Magnus Carlsen competing for the lead in the closing rounds. Kramnik won their individual game impressively, but the 19-year-old Norwegian has the easier finish. Carlsen is not yet dominating his chess peers in the style of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov at their peaks, but he is already the man to beat. The reigning world chess champion Vishy Anand has played an uncharacteristically low-key tournament, drawing his first nine games. Nigel Short, in his strongest event for years, has struggled in some games but missed a clear win against Kramnik. ... Modern Chess Players Prove Bobby Fischer Was Wrong -- Bobby Fischer once famously remarked that "chess is dead". What he meant was that so much had been discovered about the game of chess that creativity and innovation were waning. Chess players are certainly better prepared than ever because databases and computers are widely used to analyze and dissect openings. Players can sometimes reel off 20 or more moves before they leave their preparation. That seems to have sucked the life out of some chess openings. Most top players know a couple of lines in the Petroff Defense through more than 20 moves, and it is not uncommon for them to play that out and agree to a draw, if that is the result they want. But there are ... Magnus Carlsen joins Vladimir Kramnik -- Vladimir Kramnik had to engineer an escape from a difficult endgame as Alexey Shirov brought the former world chess champion to the brink of defeat at Wijk aan Zee. Shirov remains half a point behind Kramnik and world number one Magnus Carlsen with two to play. Carlsen defeated Lenier Dominguez, somewhat fortuitously, to join Kramnik on 7.5/11. Carlsen has the easier finish as Kramnik must play black against Vishy Anand in the penultimate game. Carlsen faces Peter Leko with black and teenager Fabiano Caruana with white. ... | |