Chess thread

[curnow]

was your move Bh6 ?  , followed bt Qf7 & Ne7 looks good

btw he did have better of the opening but putting is bishops back jusrt closed his position in

My move wasn't Bh6.

Bh6 is the delightful answer if he had instead played 28...Bxe5, if that's what you mean, because 29...Bg7 is met by 30.Ne7+ Kh8 31.Qf7 with mate to follow next move on g8.

29..Bxe5 & 30. Qf8#

29. .. Bxc6 may work 30.bxB..Qe7 31.BxB & think blacks ok apart from the passed pawn

[Tal]

was your move Bh6 ?  , followed bt Qf7 & Ne7 looks good

btw he did have better of the opening but putting is bishops back jusrt closed his position in

My move wasn't Bh6.

Bh6 is the delightful answer if he had instead played 28...Bxe5, if that's what you mean, because 29...Bg7 is met by 30.Ne7+ Kh8 31.Qf7 with mate to follow next move on g8.

29..Bxe5 & 30. Qf8#

29. .. Bxc6 may work 30.bxB..Qe7 31.BxB & think blacks ok apart from the passed pawn

I think I've misunderstood. The moves as I wrote them ended with 28...Bg7
29. Ne7+ and Black resigned because, when he moves the king into the corner, I play Nf7 and mate.

[curnow]

was your move Bh6 ?  , followed bt Qf7 & Ne7 looks good

btw he did have better of the opening but putting is bishops back jusrt closed his position in

My move wasn't Bh6.

Bh6 is the delightful answer if he had instead played 28...Bxe5, if that's what you mean, because 29...Bg7 is met by 30.Ne7+ Kh8 31.Qf7 with mate to follow next move on g8.

29..Bxe5 & 30. Qf8#

29. .. Bxc6 may work 30.bxB..Qe7 31.BxB & think blacks ok apart from the passed pawn

I think I've misunderstood. The moves as I wrote them ended with 28...Bg7
29. Ne7+ and Black resigned because, when he moves the king into the corner, I play Nf7 and mate.

just put it into fritz , 29. Bh6 & Be8 holds it

nice combination with the knights , well played

[Tal]

Hello

I've been away this weekend, trying - unsuccessfully - to make my fortune at the poker tables. I should have known better, of course.

Anyhoo, a little amuse bouche for you this morning. Last week, I put up a copy of a game I played where the villain got his pieces in too defensive a position, which left him with little space to move around in.

One of the best known example of a positional idea is a BAD BISHOP. Before you start making jokes that could take you headfirst to Hell in a handcart, click on the link below.

http://blog.chess.com/mauerblume/the-different-value-of-minor-pieces-good-knight-vs-bad-bishop

You will often see in a game - or in one you play yourself - a bishop pin a knight against either the queen or king (this means that the knight is attacked but can't move, else the bishop will have clear passage to take the queen, for example). If the bishop then takes the knight, the bishop will be recaptured, so which remaining piece is better, as one side has an extra bishop and the other an extra knight?

The link above explains when a knight can be better than a bishop.

If you did play through my game last week (and, by the way, if someone is able to convert it to a format on here that everyone can play through, that - I'm sure - would be much appreciated), you might enjoy seeing a game I used as the basis of my preparation for my match last week.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106016

Black gets left with a bishop that looks like it is OK, but the pawns that are fixed on d5 and e6 mean it has very few diagonals along which to operate. Not only does this give him few lines of attack, it makes it easy for White to defend. Meanwhile the knights rule the roost.

[The Baron]

Hi Tal,

I thought the very basic theory was, closed game knight better, open game bishop better?

[kinboshi]

Hi Tal,

I thought the very basic theory was, closed game knight better, open game bishop better?

That's a fair generalisation, but of course depends on blinds and stack sizes, etc.

As another rule of thumb, it's often better to have bishops rather than knights in the end game, especially if you have both bishops. There are always plenty of exceptions though.

[Tal]

Hi Tal,

I thought the very basic theory was, closed game knight better, open game bishop better?

That's a fair generalisation, but of course depends on blinds and stack sizes, etc.

As another rule of thumb, it's often better to have bishops rather than knights in the end game, especially if you have both bishops. There are always plenty of exceptions though.

It's all about mobility. On an empty board, the bishop has lots more squares to go to than the knight, so it is likely to be much more effective. To pokerise it, the bishop has a wider range.

As you add more pawns (bearing in mind you often defend a pawn with another pawn, so they will be on the same colour squares), so the range of the bishop decreases, if it is on the same colour as the pawns. The knight is less affected, as he can visit both colours of square and he can hop over any barriers.

As the one with the bishop, Capablanca said that you should look to fix your pawns on the opposite coloured squares to your bishop. Although this means you can't defend them with your bishop, you get three advantages:

1. You don't impede your own bishop;
2. You can attack/defend the square that the knight wants to use to attack your pawns (remember that, to attack a black square, the Knight must be on a white square); and
3. You have fixed your opponent's pawns on the same coloured square as your bishop, so he can hopefully pop round and gobble them up at his leisure.

A neat positional trick is to put a knight three squares away from a bishop, as it cuts out a lot of the bishop's possible squares.

Rangemerging a bishop. You heard it here first.

[kinboshi]

When playing the French defence, the most important thing (more than bishops or knights) is the patience of a saint.

[Jon MW]

When playing the French defence, the most important thing (more than bishops or knights) is the patience of a saint.

I'm not keen on the French defence,

tried it once but all my pawns went on strike demanding more holiday and better pay

[Tal]

Black's objective from the opening is to obtain parity, because White gets the first move.

The French is generally seen as a slow and steady way of doing it, but we've seen how easy it is to be passive and give up any hope of getting level.

[kinboshi]

Black's objective from the opening is to obtain parity, because White gets the first move.

The French is generally seen as a slow and steady way of doing it, but we've seen how easy it is to be passive and give up any hope of getting level.

Swashbuckling openings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watching grass grow 

[Tal]

Black's objective from the opening is to obtain parity, because White gets the first move.

The French is generally seen as a slow and steady way of doing it, but we've seen how easy it is to be passive and give up any hope of getting level.

Swashbuckling openings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watching grass grow  

Yes, the answer to the Ruy Lopez that bears Marshall's name is generally avoided by the elite GMs in competition when they are White, because of how sharp and dangerous it is.

I've buckled many a swash over the board in my time, I freely admit.

[Tal]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2006

Chess in the last 50 years or so has a rich history of debate, disagreement and dispute about who is the World Champion. You'd think it would be an easy exercise - just hold a tournament, invite the best players in the world to it and give the winner a laurel wreath.

Oh no.

Where would you hold such a tournament? What if that gives X home advantage? Who makes the decisions? Him? Well he's corrupt so fat chance!

Anyway, chess world champs historically get a free pass to the final match, so they shouldn't be involved in the tournament. But that isn't what happens in football, rugby, cricket...

There have been breakaway world championships, unifications and breakaways again. Now we have one world champ - Anand.

His predecessor, Vladimir Kramnik, was the man to dethrone Garry Kasparov. Kramnik played the top-rated player of the time Vessilin Topalov in 2006 in what was to become the most farcical championship match since Fischer v Spassky.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=52037

The two still don't shake hands and, funnily enough, don't play in the same tournament very often.

[smashedagain]

That is a link to tips for Tikay? Have I missed something

[Tal]

That is a link to tips for Tikay? Have I missed something

Brilliant!!!

This is known in chess circles as a blunder. Duly amended. The wiki page at the top is the most thorough but the link I have now added in the edit gives some of the details of the games as well.

Good to know the thread has such eagle-eyed viewers