Chess thread

[curnow]

I'm black, playing in an Intermediate online MTT


White resigns 0-1

Not sure if you can put this into a replayer Tal, but I was rather proud of the rook sac 42 Rxb2+ which opened up the path to victory....

put it into a replayer but dont know how to post it on forum

on move 10 , you had a realy nice outpost on d4 for your knight with black square bishops off the board

move 33 , would have taken with rook , your bishop is still attacked but he would take rook first & then your queen can get in & pretty much game over

not sure about the rook sac, would have kept it on the king side myself & those pawns would have promoted , Rook vs Bishop & Rook vs Knight games you can draw but its not easy , knights are pretty bad in stopping pawns in endgames , worth putting the sac into fritz , the white king needed to stay in center & not on A file

[Tal]

I'm black, playing in an Intermediate online MTT


White resigns 0-1

Not sure if you can put this into a replayer Tal, but I was rather proud of the rook sac 42 Rxb2+ which opened up the path to victory....

put it into a replayer but dont know how to post it on forum

on move 10 , you had a realy nice outpost on d4 for your knight with black square bishops off the board

move 33 , would have taken with rook , your bishop is still attacked but he would take rook first & then your queen can get in & pretty much game over

not sure about the rook sac, would have kept it on the king side myself & those pawns would have promoted , Rook vs Bishop & Rook vs Knight games you can draw but its not easy , knights are pretty bad in stopping pawns in endgames , worth putting the sac into fritz , the white king needed to stay in center & not on A file

Great stuff, curnow. Any views on tomsom's game?

[curnow]

I'm black, playing in an Intermediate online MTT


White resigns 0-1

Not sure if you can put this into a replayer Tal, but I was rather proud of the rook sac 42 Rxb2+ which opened up the path to victory....

put it into a replayer but dont know how to post it on forum

on move 10 , you had a realy nice outpost on d4 for your knight with black square bishops off the board

move 33 , would have taken with rook , your bishop is still attacked but he would take rook first & then your queen can get in & pretty much game over

not sure about the rook sac, would have kept it on the king side myself & those pawns would have promoted , Rook vs Bishop & Rook vs Knight games you can draw but its not easy , knights are pretty bad in stopping pawns in endgames , worth putting the sac into fritz , the white king needed to stay in center & not on A file

Great stuff, curnow. Any views on tomsom's game?

just read what you said on tightend's game , had quick look at tomsom's game , one thing learnt several years ago was the strenght in a bishop when its fianchettoed & dont trade it off cheap , play the pirc alot as black & the dragon just depend on the opposition  & if they are aggresive or passive

they move 23. e5 could have been played on move 14
28. Rc7 wins , only thing black can do is bring his queen back

personaly hate playing against chess computers , the low grade chess computers makes strange mistakes , much prefer playing online or at a chub/congress , some good free chess sites online , use chessworld.net or chessclub.com which is subcription

[theprawnidentity]

So I shouldn't be trying to pieces so cheaply?  I have an old habit of trying to get rid of as many pieces for an even trade as possible and then try and win matches when it get's 'short-handed'.  My head won't process the more complex and elaborate moves and thought processes yet.  I know what you mean about the chess engines though, they don't really mix it up that much and try to take the same lines over and over.  That being said, I still can't beat it past a certain point!!!!

Thanks for taking the time to look through it though, much appreciated.

[Tal]

On the swapping point generally, your opponents will often be of the same mindset: more bits means more risk of missing something so get rid of the pieces.

Why make your opponent happy?

Only swap if it suits you. If your opponent's pawns are all fixed on black squares, swapping off his light squared bishop for yours is often a good idea (that's your bad bishop for his good one). If you have a better endgame position, again, a good reason to swap. As is if you have a material advantage.

[theprawnidentity]

Sounds like I need to go right back to basics.  Was only really taught how to move the pieces as a kid and have been working on my own since.  Might help to go look at some beginner / intermediate tutorials online and getting a better understand of openings and how to understand the knock on effects my moves have (I seem to be somewhat short sighted atm).

[Tal]

Chess.com has some great videos.

Read a strategy book for a different perspective. I swear by My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch as the next step.

[Tal]

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009999/thessaloniki-10-kamsky-wins-and-leads-020613.aspx

Round ten was The Kamsky Show once again, as he took apart the ailing Morozevich in an opening well over 100 years old. The Chigorin Variation of the Ruy Lopez is one of those openings - perhaps as you would expect, given its age - that has fallen in and out of fashion. Morozevich was coming into this game with three consecutive goose eggs, so tried a well-known bit of safe ground that offered him safe passage to the middlegame with active pieces.

Kamsky played a move in 17 Qd4 that is a classic example of what you need to find to beat a player of this level. It is a move demonstrating expert judgment above analysis, as I'm sure there was too much to see over the board. He would have got a feel for the position, have worked out a few of the major lines to test it and decided from that that it was worth trying.

The result was a real clobbering, as the Russian had no answer to Kamsky's aggressive pieces. Getting the pieces working together is critical.

Click to see full-size image.

Last round today starts at 10am. I'd expect Kamsky to draw with Caruana and leave Dominguez to worry about winning his game.

[curnow]

So I shouldn't be trying to pieces so cheaply?  I have an old habit of trying to get rid of as many pieces for an even trade as possible and then try and win matches when it get's 'short-handed'.  My head won't process the more complex and elaborate moves and thought processes yet.  I know what you mean about the chess engines though, they don't really mix it up that much and try to take the same lines over and over.  That being said, I still can't beat it past a certain point!!!!

Thanks for taking the time to look through it though, much appreciated.

to improve your results in chess , we recomend looking at endgames , below county level (ECF170) having a basic understanding of openings will do , lot of time basic plan in opening to fianchetto the bishop & get king safe & get opponent out of thiwhich some people dont like er opening book & make them think .
nothing wrong with trading pieces but as Tal said some bishops are good & same with knights in closed positions & where there is a nice outpost for it

part of the reasons I dont like chess computers is they tend to play the same mistakes when set at low level & they do grab pawns when there is no need , its worth trying online chess , good guide to how well you are playing http://www.freechess.org/ is good , never used http://www.chess.com/ or the chessbase.com , http://www.chessworld.net/ is the main one I use & have for 10 years , its correspondence chess which some dont like

[Tal]

Kamsky went into the final round as one of only two unbeaten players (the other being Grischuk who had drawn all but one of his games).

He didn't end the round as one.

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4010020/thessaloniki-final-caruana-stops-kamsky-dominguez-wins-the-tournament-030613.aspx



This left it to Dominguez to decide the outcome of the tournament as he faced Topalov. He's continued to surprise this tournament and he pulled off another today, beating the former World Number One by making the penultimate - and not the last - mistake in a tricky rook and pawn ending.

Click to see full-size image.

Few would have predicted this result but now the Cuban might well find himself in the Candidates next time. Well played, that man.

[MintTrav]

I don't have one of your Fancy-Dan ratings, but I reckon I could take Morozevich. He doesn't seem to be that good.

[Tal]

I don't have one of your Fancy-Dan ratings, but I reckon I could take Morozevich. He doesn't seem to be that good.

It's an odd quirk of tournament chess that, when someone is having a tough time, the other players gang up on them, so one loss can become four easily.

Morozevich is a tactical powerhouse, as this utterly wild game against Kramnik demonstrates. Goggles and gloves to be worn at all times, please:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1502822

[Tal]

A propos of nothing, I happened across the wiki page of former Egghead, snooker enthusiast and until recently President of the English Chess Federation, CJ de Mooi.

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

In the section on chess, it says his peak rating was 2700. Whilst he has been a good county standard player, he's never had an international rating. His national rating puts him a little lower than 2700...


...by about 700 points. There are currently 47 players in the world of 2700 or over.

I'm sure it's nothing to do with CJ himself, but who knew that wikipedia could occasionally contain inaccurate information?

[curnow]

A propos of nothing, I happened across the wiki page of former Egghead, snooker enthusiast and until recently President of the English Chess Federation, CJ de Mooi.

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

In the section on chess, it says his peak rating was 2700. Whilst he has been a good county standard player, he's never had an international rating. His national rating puts him a little lower than 2700...


...by about 700 points. There are currently 47 players in the world of 2700 or over.

I'm sure it's nothing to do with CJ himself, but who knew that wikipedia could occasionally contain inaccurate information?

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/grading/grading-database/
Ref    170213A    Grading code
Name    De Mooi, Connagh-Joseph    
Sex    M
Club(s)     Richmond & Twickenham

ECF grade 169 which is his highest , no Fide rated games

btw the new ECF grades should be out in late July just before the BCF championship which starts on the 28th

[Tal]

A propos of nothing, I happened across the wiki page of former Egghead, snooker enthusiast and until recently President of the English Chess Federation, CJ de Mooi.

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

In the section on chess, it says his peak rating was 2700. Whilst he has been a good county standard player, he's never had an international rating. His national rating puts him a little lower than 2700...


...by about 700 points. There are currently 47 players in the world of 2700 or over.

I'm sure it's nothing to do with CJ himself, but who knew that wikipedia could occasionally contain inaccurate information?

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/grading/grading-database/
Ref    170213A    Grading code
Name    De Mooi, Connagh-Joseph    
Sex    M
Club(s)     Richmond & Twickenham

ECF grade 169 which is his highest , no Fide rated games

btw the new ECF grades should be out in late July just before the BCF championship which starts on the 28th

That's right.

As for the grades, it used to be like exam results day, the first day of the British: had your grade gone up (much/enough), had you got one of the magical "ending in 9" grades that snuck you into easier sections of comps?

Now I don't play as seriously, it is really just a number to me.