Chess thread

[EvilPie]

If... Re2, then Nf4+ and black loses a rook for the bishop in the exchange.


On my phone, so might be missing stuff.  But Rg1 for white could be a giggle...

Oh yeah Rg1. That's what i meant when I said Ra7. Oops.

[Tal]

Great read, boshi and EvilPie. This is the curse of playing the game: you spend a lot of time being 75% confident and very little time above that! Let me try this another way:

Black has just played (let us assume) Re8 and we are White.

A good think should have 3 stages:

1. Why did Villain do that?
2. What am I going to play?
3. Have I missed anything?

1. Is nice and easy if we assume Re8 was the last move - he is attacking our knight and knows that, if we just plonk him on say c5, he can take our bishop.

3. Is just our final check to make sure whatever move we are going to make isn't a seismic blunder.

2. Is where the magic happens. In his great book, Think Like a Grandmaster, the Russian Alexander Kotov suggested we look at each piece and at all the squares they can go to. Once we've seen that, we should be able to whittle the moves down to 3 or 4 possible ones (this is easier if one of your pieces is under immediate threat). Then we play through those moves one by one and evaluate the position. Having done that, we choose the best move, knowing that we have looked at every move available. It's surprisingly quick as a process; much more thorough and gives you more confidence that you have found the best move.


That said, then, what are your options? Explain why they're on the list and give me a couple of moves for each line so that we can assess the position. Then we will have say 3 or 4 possible positions and tell me why one is better than the others.

If I told you most of the best players in the world have a similar system to this, would you believe me?

[kinboshi]

Still can't see much further than Be3. Not keen on Rg1, as I think any attacking threat fizzles out quickly and leaves white exposed to a back rank mate.

Tal, what are your thoughts? What line looks optimum for white?

As for black's strategy, well that's very much reactivate as white has the initiative in terms of being ableto dictate the next few moves at least.

[Tal]

Will be interested to hear what happened in Jon's game, but, having had a decent look at the position, my thoughts are:

1. Black is winning - seems easy to say as he has a material advantage, but White has a fair bit of play. White is playing to draw the game, short of something spectacular.
2. Black wants to keep the g-pawn if he is going to win (unless White makes a big mistake and loses more material - It is important always to assume that your opponent will play the best move on the board; never play a move hoping he misses a better response because even the fish have it sometimes). The key to this - the winning position, if you like - will be either queening a pawn or winning the bishop for it in the process. That's how we're most likely going to win.
3. Black wants to get the two rooks working to help that pawn.
4. The knight will likely swap off for the black bishop very shortly, as the position would be even better for Black if that got active.
5. White can win the pawn on a7 but Black can play Ra8 and win the white a-pawn. This will probably happen in the game, because White wants to swap off the pawns to stand a chance of drawing.
6. There will be loads of tactics once those rooks start flying round the board and both sides will need to be very careful they don't fall into a trap.
7. It will take ages to win it!

Am I close?

[Tal]

Bonsoir, mes amis!

We’ve seen some of the biggest names in chess history (with a few notable exceptions) but I’m going to take you back much further than we’ve been so far.

François-André Danican Philidor was by far and away the best player in the world for most of his playing career – perhaps as much as half a century – in the mid-1700s. His name lives on in both an opening (The Philidor Defence) and in an endgame position that is used in studies.

He was a remarkable figure in chess history because of just how much he moved the game forward. I have discussed previously that, every now and then, someone comes along and blows everything else away; they move the game forward a couple of notches without pausing for breath and everything that is done after that is done with reference to their work. Philidor is precisely one of those events in chess history.

M. Philidor was born in 1726 to a musical family (perhaps CambridgeAlex knows about one or more of the Philidors?) and himself became a competent composer.



This is his bust at the Opera Garnier in Paris.

Little was understood about chess back then, although it was a common pursuit among the higher classes in Paris. Philidor probably learned to play as a choirboy in Louis XV’s own choir, while in what would now be infant school.

He took the game up more regularly from about 14 and he found himself playing frequently at the great Café de la Régence.





It is understood, while there, he played a “friend from New England”, who we know as Benjamin Franklin.  Philidor was schooled by the best player in France at the time but he went from being bludgeoned by him to beating him in a little over three years.

As was the custom for the best part of a hundred and fifty years afterwards, the best players would travel to play matches against the best from other areas and Philidor is recorded as having played matches against the Syrian player Phillip Stamma (absolutely rangemerging him) and the English number one, Sir Abraham Janssen.

The player considered the greatest contender at the time was a M. de Legal, but when he was beaten in a match in 1755, Philidor was roundly hailed as the finest player in the world without dispute.

After then, Philidor’s life was largely spent in London and he made his living playing chess from the Salopian Coffee House in Charing Cross, as well as the St James Chess Club.

We have seen some tremendous feats by players in the last Century in blindfold chess, but Philidor was probably the first to embrace it as a legitimate way of playing visitors. The story goes that he played three players simultaneously and allowed the third to play against him with a pawn advantage (in other worse, Philidor would take a pawn of his off before the game started – say the king’s bishop’s pawn) and still won all three. Spectators were so amazed, they were asked to sign affidavits to verify to others what they had witnessed. Could you imagine something so wonderful?

Sadly, Eighteenth Century France was not the most comfortable of places for someone who had a bit of money. Philidor was banished from the realm and so his later life was spent in England. He moved here permanently at 65 and it was here that he died in 1795. He is buried in St James, Piccadilly.

Philidor’s influence on the game was much more than his ability. He understood something that no one had appreciated before: the power of the pawn.

He wrote a book that was the lead authority on chess for a hundred years and, in it, he said:

« Le pion, c’est l’âme des échecs »

The pawn is the soul of chess

No one had put much value in pawns, but he realised how powerful a strong pawn centre could be and how strong a chain of them marching forward could be. It was visionary.

Here’s the man himself, anyway:

[Tal]

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1257921

A game where Philidor beats a gentleman called Captain Smith (one can only imagine...)

Watch how he uses his pawns to create space on the queenside and then uses the g-pawn and the h-pawn to open up the White King.



I've just found this picture and had to share! Which one is Philidor? Blindfold chess, ladies and gentlemen:

Click to see full-size image.

[Jon MW]

I'll go through every suggestion tonight - but not altogether surprisingly - Tal does the best, in particular

Will be interested to hear what happened in Jon's game, but, having had a decent look at the position, my thoughts are:

1. Black is winning  the computer analysis definitely made this point as well
2. Black wants to keep the g-pawn if he is going to win it makes sense for black to keep attacking, but the computer (and the safest) way for black to win is to actually forget about the immediate attack and promote the pawn
3. Black wants to get the two rooks working to help that pawn.
4. The knight will likely swap off for the black bishop very shortly, as the position would be even better for Black if that got active. yep
...
7. It will take ages to win it! this was move 30 and it finished on move 60

Am I close?

5. and 6. are right as well, but end up not being relevant to the game as black screwed up, also it's not strictly connected to the analysis as it's related to this blunder - but...

... White is playing to draw the game, short of something spectacular.  ....

[Tal]

Thank goodness I was close! Could have been the closing post of the thread otherwise

In all seriousness, that was a very difficult position. Sometimes, at least at our level, you have not to worry about who is winning and just carry on playing the best move you can. In that case, you should almost always look to be attacking. The best way to draw a game is to attack because the villain has to withdraw his pieces to defend, which means you are less under threat.

It doesn't mean being gung-ho but active pieces, a good pawn structure (defending each other or able to do so; a passed pawn if possible - that is one the villain doesn't have a pawn he can take or stop it with - like the g-pawn in our study) and sensible, forward movement.

Great fun, Jon. Thanks for sharing.

[kinboshi]

I'd be confident as white that I could force a draw in that game. 

[Tal]

I'd be confident as white that I could force a draw in that game. 

In practice, this might well be what happens a fair amount of the time. In theory, I'd say it's a winning game for Black. You would want to be winning this over half the time.

[Jon MW]

...
(white to move)

...

When the chess.com computer does free analysis it looks like it analyses the moves and if it's:

(a) sub-optimal it calls it an inaccuracy (?)
(b) a mistake it calls it a ... well, mistake (??)
(c) a big mistake it calls it a blunder (?!)

And it shows what it considers to be the next 5 most optimal moves for both sides

At the stage above I think it's fairly clearly that Be3 is the optimal move

My (white's) general strategy at this point is to try and use all my pieces to shepherd my pawns up for promotion - complicated by having to respond to blacks moves

...
... Be3

That would win white a pawn, and also enable an exchange with the knight for black's bishop - making the draw a lot easier, and possibly opening up some options with white's linked pawns against a lone pawn down the queen's side.

Is where I'm coming from

The computer analysis more or less follows this - but gives black the initiative, rather than just trying to keep hammering white in the corner it moves his pieces over to position them to guide it's pawn down for promotion. Although it's quite hard to follow.

What black actually played after Be3 was to continue attacking with

...
Do I win?

Be3 - Re2
Nxf8 - Rxf8
Bxa7 (the pawn Dan was after) - Ra8

White now has to move his bishop then Rxa2

Doesn't this position put white in a spot of bother?

If... Re2, then Nf4+ and black loses a rook for the bishop in the exchange.
...

That is Re2 - and I did play Nf4+ - but there was a bit of a screw up on both sides; bit of a blood bath and the end result is I lost both my bishop and my knight - but because black messed up even more than I did he lost a rook and a bishop.

It took me a while to remember what my next strategy question is but I've remembered now I'll post it by itsellf

[Jon MW]

white: A rook and 3 pawns v black: a rook and 2 pawns

if both sides work out that without the other side intefering you can both race a pawn and get them promoted, do you let your opponent get his pawn promoted queen in exchange for being able to get your pawn promoted to a queen?

Also - black promotes first so is a pawn down, but with the initiative


EDIT: I've played 40 long games (3 days per move) so now I'm analysing - hence the burst of strategic thinking

[jgcblack]

Sorry to ask a super noob question... but what and how do the moves you guys are describing mean?


I dont understand Bf3 or MW19 seems like a postcode!

[kinboshi]

The 64 squares are numbered by the column and row of the board. A-H for the columns starting from the left; and 1-8 for the rows starting from the bottom. So the first square in the bottom left corner is a1, and the top right square is h8 (always done from white's point of view).

Then capital letters are used for the pieces. So B=bishop, N=knight, K=king, etc.

So, Be5 means Bishop to e5.

[jgcblack]

The 64 squares are numbered by the column and row of the board. A-H for the columns starting from the left; and 1-8 for the rows starting from the bottom. So the first square in the bottom left corner is a1, and the top right square is h8 (always done from white's point of view).

Then capital letters are used for the pieces. So B=bishop, N=knight, K=king, etc.

So, Be5 means Bishop to e5.

Thanks, figured it was something like this... but i did wonder about the two 'views' and when you refer to which piece.. which rook etc..