04 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34Sorry, I guess I didn't realize that when he asked people to find the blunder in his game, he ACTUALLY meant that he wanted people to find slight inaccuracies in his strategic and positional moves. Silly me, I thought that he was actually looking for blunders, since that's what he asked for. And by the way, engines are perfect for finding tactical blunders, which is why I brought up the engine issue. So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't throw snide comments my way for simply trying to address the issue that he asked about.
Quote:
"Can't you just run it through an engine yourself..."
I hope that was a joke?
And I do realize that engines aren't any good at pointing out deficiencies in strategy or positional aspects, and that people's input on those matters can be very helpful. So I have no problem with the OP asking for help, be it tactical, strategic, or whatever. It's just that it would be nice if posters could be clear in the phrasing of their questions.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by agentrenoHmmmmmm.
Giving up the e5 point is against the spirit of the Philidor? It's a central theme!
http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/Openings/lessphld.htm
see note after 3...exd5 and argue with them about your central theme idea.
I simply do not have the time to re-write 150 years of opening theory.
04 Jun 08
I'm sure the OP got some really good advice from everybody in the areas of openings, strategy, and positional ideas, but I find it somewhat humorous that I was the only one to point out an obvious tactical oversight that could have put the OP up by a piece with a big advantage.
Black blundered by playing 20.Qg5. White should have played 21.f3-f4, which would have pawn forked Black's queen and knight, putting White up a piece. (The best line would have been 21.f4 Qg6 22.f4xe5 f4 23.e6! (counterattacking) f4xg3 24.Bf2xg3 Bh4xg3 25.e6xd7 Rc8-d8 26.h2xg3 Rd8xd7) Instead, he played 21.b3. (I actually spotted this blunder first without an engine. I was probably lucky to do so, since I'm very much a novice chess player.)
What's even more amazing is that White didn't just miss this pawn fork once - He missed it on FIVE separate moves. Moves 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. (Bear in mind that I haven't looked beyond move 25 in this game, so I have no idea if other blunders were made later on.)
What I find really funny about this whole thread is the fact that, although the OP asked for a blunder check of his game, he apparently isn't really concerned about blunders. He's more interested in other sophisticated issues. There's nothing wrong with wanting to improve one's strategic knowledge, but strategic and positional issues aren't all that important if you're dropping pieces due to tactical blunders. (Although strategy can be a bit more of a factor in a game if each side commits mutual blunders that cancel out, which might be the case here to some degree.)
I also find it funny that the other posters are acting like no significant blunders were made in the game. (I don't expect everyone to find the blunder that I mentioned - but nobody but little patzer me noticed?) I can only assume that greenpawn34, who's rated over 2000, didn't mention this blunder because I had already briefly mentioned it. At least, I hope so. I'd hate to think that he missed this easy-to-spot blunder.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34One could say that I wan't offering any assistance at all.
Me - Snide remark?
Let us look at the contents of your post.
Quote:
"Can't you just run it through an engine yourself
and save others from doing your dirty work?
italics mine.
It does not look like you are offering any assistance at all,
So I thought it was a joke.
Silly me.
On the other hand, one could also say that I was trying to apply the philosophy of "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
04 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34One more comment on this issue.
Me - Snide remark?
Let us look at the contents of your post.
Quote:
"Can't you just run it through an engine yourself
and save others from doing your dirty work?
italics mine.
It does not look like you are offering any assistance at all,
So I thought it was a joke.
Silly me.
I actually went to the trouble of looking through the OP's public postings, and I discovered that he uses a laptop PC, upon which he had installed a Linux operating system. So I guessed that his problem might just be that he didn't have engine analysis available to him to perform blunder checks on his games. (Although I had no way of knowing at the time that the OP wasn't really interested in blunder checks. Remember, a blunder check is what he asked for, not a detailed analysis.) The reason that I thought the OP might not have an engine available to him is because there are fewer engines/GUIs available that will run on Linux.
I spent a few minutes tracking down an engine/GUI that might work on his operating system, and I mentioned that program (Jose). So, while it might not have been apparent to the casual observer, I was actually trying to help a bit, although as it turns out, my help wasn't what the OP was really looking for.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by Mad RookIt's not that I don't appreciate the help; it is just that comment about "my dirty work" was out of line.
One more comment on this issue.
I actually went to the trouble of looking through the OP's public postings, and I discovered that he uses a laptop PC, upon which he had installed a Linux operating system. So I guessed that his problem might just be that he didn't have engine analysis available to him to perform blunder checks on his games. (Although I ha ...[text shortened]... to help a bit, although as it turns out, my help wasn't what the OP was really looking for.
Keep in mind that people have different ways of learning; chess engines might do it for you; me I rather learn from somebody I play against or from the input of people. Even though I learned through a chess program long time ago in my windows 98, I got to the point that it got repetitive and left me clueless at a time and that's how I started playing anybody I knew OTB; and online when the WCN came out.
thanks again
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by AcapaYespadaSorry. I guess your request for blunder identification was a bit confusing to me. I didn't realize that you weren't looking for blunders, but instead, you were asking for input in other areas of chess analysis. I had the word "blunder" on my mind (how could that have happened?), and I thought that the easiest way to find your tactical blunders would be for you to simply run them through an engine. Please pardon me for taking your words at face value. It won't happen again. 😉
I don't use engines; it is better to get a different point of view as in anything you do to improve your work i.e. essay. Much better from people than a machine that would probably tell me the best move w/o telling me why leaving me clueless.
Just for the record I am not forcing you to give me feedback that is your own free will; and for the people tha ...[text shortened]... your help on the road to improve my game if you don't want to help Mad Rook then don't bother
I now think I understand your situation correctly. Although I think your refusal to use chess engines for blunder checking in additon to RHP requests for game analysis is a bit short-sighted, that's your choice to make of your own free will. Regardless, I do wish you good luck with your chess studies.
04 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AcapaYespadaSorry, I didn't see this post until after I posted the last one. I do apologize for using the "dirty work" phrase. I was out of line in using it. Just a brief moment of bad judgment on my part. I guess it was meant to be a little humorous, although in retrospect, it was anything but humorous. I guess I was thinking along the line of "background work", but my weary mind couldn't come up with the "background" word, and "dirty work" just popped out of my keyboard. (Maybe being a little too familiar with Steely Dan song lyrics played a part, I don't know. 😉) Again, I do apologize for using that phrase.
It's not that I don't appreciate the help; it is just that comment about "my dirty work" was out of line.
Keep in mind that people have different ways of learning; chess engines might do it for you; me I rather learn from somebody I play against or from the input of people. Even though I learned through a chess program long time ago in my windows 98, s how I started playing anybody I knew OTB; and online when the WCN came out.
thanks again
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by AcapaYespadaYour main problem was that you didn't play the opening with a good plan in mind. It seemed to me you were just developing your pieces without a solid goal in mind and black took advantage and took the initiaive. Interestingly enough the moves have been played in professional chess once before with the result a draw. Instead of 9.Bb3?!, 9.Bf1 was played. I really didn't like how you responded to 10...c5 with 11.Ne2...it's just not in the nature of this opening. You should have played 11.Nf5!, leaving black with the question of taking the knight and then worrying about his weak pawn on d6.
Hello, I thought it might be a good idea if the community could help figure out where was my blunder on this game Game 4734025 ;
any thoughts would be appreciated it
thank you
🙂
However you still had a playable posistion, but I noticed you kept reacting to blacks threats instead of working on creating your own, which ultimity led to your loss.
Hope my 2 cents helped
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by Mad RookRec'd. This is the only good analysis in the thread. Clearly, White needs to look harder for simple tactical shots during his games. This is far more important than long-term planning or getting a slight opening advantage.
I'm sure the OP got some really good advice from everybody in the areas of openings, strategy, and positional ideas, but I find it somewhat humorous that I was the only one to point out an obvious tactical oversight that could have put the OP up by a piece with a big advantage.
Black blundered by playing 20.Qg5. White should have played 21.f3-f4, which w ...[text shortened]... At least, I hope so. I'd hate to think that he missed this easy-to-spot blunder.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by AcapaYespadalight square bishop, all his peices on dark squares. its a problem that I face a lot in my games. do you park your pawns on the same color as your bishop to protect them or do you put your pawns on the opposite color so you can attack opposing pawns when they advance?
Hello, I thought it might be a good idea if the community could help figure out where was my blunder on this game Game 4734025 ;
any thoughts would be appreciated it
thank you
🙂
I think in this particular game had black been worried about his pawns being attacked by your bishop his rook would have needed to spend more time defending and less time picking your pawns off one by one.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by AcapaYespadaI'd have played b3 a lot sooner than you did. Your bishop was imprisoned and out of the game. b3 would have broken him out of his cell.
Hello, I thought it might be a good idea if the community could help figure out where was my blunder on this game Game 4734025 ;
any thoughts would be appreciated it
thank you
🙂