05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireI strongly disagree with (2)...
Blacks mistake was heading towards a1 with his King.
If he had not made that simple mistake (which presumably was his try for a win which was never there) then the worst case scenario would be a draw.
There is some important lessons here
(1) Unless you are sure your opponent knows how to win, don't resign. White could have been tempted to do so ...[text shortened]... exchange of Queens. [b]So its important to know when a game is a draw and how to take it.[/b]
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Dragon Fire(part A)
Which part of (2) do you strongly disagree with
2) It is better to take a draw when you are slightly up if you don't know how to win [b](part A) or (black could have done this at any time rather than head towards a1) (part B).[/b]
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by vipiuSo, as I understand it it would be better to lose a marginal position that you cannot win than to settle for a draw.
(part A)
In put emphasis on marginal because my original post was perhaps not entirely clear as I would not expect anyone to draw a clearly won position. In particular I was of course referring to this game where black presumably continued with a drawn game 3P vs N because he felt he had a win (which was not in fact the case, although he did not know that) and it is only in this sort of position where I suggest it is better to take the draw because you do not know how to win it. Having said that, of course, black (should have) had nothing to lose by playing on and hoping for a blunder from white as white should not be able to mate with a sole N (except a help mate of course).
05 Feb 08
1 edit
if you have a plus and you do not know how to win ensure you will not loose that and keep on shuffling the pieces, you may find out how to win or the opponent(who is already in difficult position) might blunder with some less accurate move, which is highly probable to come from the guy with difficult position...
I bet you do that all the time in your games...
by the way, i would also for sure played as black the position without accepting the draw...
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by vipiuAs regards whether I'd play this position on 3P for a N hoping my opponent made an error. Of course I would but I sure wouldn't have headed to h1 with my K which was the only way to actually lose.
if you have a plus and you do not know how to win ensure you will not loose that and keep on shuffling the pieces, you may find out how to win or the opponent(who is already in difficult position) might blunder with some less accurate move, which is highly probable to come from the guy with difficult position...
I bet you do that all the time in your games...
by the way, i would also for sure played as black the position without accepting the draw...
The point I am trying to make is that if you have run out of ideas and could blunder and lose it is better to take a draw when you have it rather than run into a self made mate.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by MahoutIt is not unusual for people to have differing strengths in various stages of the game. If you don't know your theory but are reasonably good at tactics and strategy you may be bad in opening and ending but OK in middle game. Conversely you may be good at theory but bad on tactics so play well in openings and possibly endings but bungle the middle game.
It is a really bizzare game as your opponent seems to play like a complete beginner in the opening (or maybe this is just some opening style I know nothing about) and then gets a lot stronger as the game progresses and finally bungles the ending. An instructive ending all the same.
Of course with the availability of books and DBs here there is no excuse to bungle the opening. Its harder to use books on the ending but if you know the basics and when to look it up it gets easier to direct games towards won or drawn positions that you perhaps couldn't get OTB. So in correspondence it is the middle game that should sort out the men from the boys.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by Dragon FireOK makes sense...and some people refuse to use DB's on principle or just out of preference so that may explain relatively poor opening with strong middle game.
It is not unusual for people to have differing strengths in various stages of the game. If you don't know your theory but are reasonably good at tactics and strategy you may be bad in opening and ending but OK in middle game. Conversely you may be good at theory but bad on tactics so play well in openings and possibly endings but bungle the middle game. ...[text shortened]... et OTB. So in correspondence it is the middle game that should sort out the men from the boys.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by MahoutYes. I'm sure he(she) could achieve a great improvement just by adopting some basic opening setup.
It is a really bizzare game as your opponent seems to play like a complete beginner in the opening (or maybe this is just some opening style I know nothing about) and then gets a lot stronger as the game progresses and finally bungles the ending. An instructive ending all the same.
