11 Sep 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettHe is describing a hypothetical situation, 2 winning moves to choose from, and the position is unclear! if only. In reality, if you were faced with this unlikely scenario, you would simply choose the move that you feel more comfortable with. That is why I said it makes no difference, you will always choose the line that you find easiest to play, how you arrive at this conclusion depends on your level of skill and judgement.
This might be true if the position were completely calculable and both players were computers, but that's not the situation the OP described.
The OP is not describing a forced situation. He is describing a situation that requires technique and accuracy in particular circumstances, and the value and relevance of the question is that the audien ...[text shortened]... rawn, etc. Petrosian and Tal offer an even clearer idea of differing approaches to a position.
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by Crusty JugglersThis is semantics in that we agree on the first part, but the point of the post is that he assumes your last line is true, and asks others which one they would choose.
He is describing a hypothetical situation, 2 winning moves to choose from, and the position is unclear! if only. In reality, if you were faced with this unlikely scenario, you would simply choose the move that you feel more comfortable with. That is why I said it makes no difference, you will always choose the line that you find easiest to play, how you arrive at this conclusion depends on your level of skill and judgement.
Perhaps he is just curious, or he wants to see if a person's choice varies according to rating, or just style, or whatever. The trick is that he assumes , and he wants to know which one.
I assume that a perfectly balanced player would be willing to go either way, but the other posts indicate that it makes a difference from player to player-which is another way of stating your last line, so I think we are on the same page.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19036
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by Crusty JugglersWell your opponent just blundered, you're up in material. You see two possible moves, one is a bit risky but if it works out you could win quite quickly. The other is the slow trade off pieces, get him down to the end game with a slight material advantage option.
He is describing a hypothetical situation, 2 winning moves to choose from, and the position is unclear! if only. In reality, if you were faced with this unlikely scenario, you would simply choose the move that you feel more comfortable with. That is why I said it makes no difference, you will always choose the line that you find easiest to play, how you arrive at this conclusion depends on your level of skill and judgement.
It's not that unlikely.
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettIs it really a virtue... or do we just have more time to find a blunder? I tend to play much better OTB the 2d screws with me and not just in visualization... For some reason my brain can't generate the same ideas when looking at 2d as it does when looking at 3d.
One of my goals on the site is to play more soundly. We have the virtue here of days to move and the ability to start a new game any time, so there is not the same sense of urgency as when your clock is running OTB.
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34I wish I could just play 1.f6
It is a hypothetical situation. I think perhaps Trev should have supplied a diagram
for us to mull over.
Here, this is the position fits the bill.
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1[/fen]
This way I don't have to wait to gambit my f pawn.
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 19999
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by tomtom232The other way around with me. But after all, I almost only play online.
Is it really a virtue... or do we just have more time to find a blunder? I tend to play much better OTB the 2d screws with me and not just in visualization... For some reason my brain can't generate the same ideas when looking at 2d as it does when looking at 3d.
In 3D, I just fail in noticing the threats and opportunities on the diagonals.
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by trev33I prefer the solid approach in OTB and in CC... It just frustrates your opponent while the other just gives him/her chances...
In the potentially most important chess game of your life, it's just entered the middle game and you see two moves. The first is pretty conservative, it's a solid move that retains your new found advantage but concentration much be kept on full for the rest of the game to see it through. The second is slightly more risky but if executed the game will be over ...[text shortened]... get it wrong however and your opponent could possibly get back into the game. What do you do?
12 Sep 11
Originally posted by tomtom232I have to admit, it took me a while to get used to 2D on the site, and I had to experiment with different colored boards because I have some vision issues in 2D that don't really affect me the same way in OTB.
Is it really a virtue... or do we just have more time to find a blunder? I tend to play much better OTB the 2d screws with me and not just in visualization... For some reason my brain can't generate the same ideas when looking at 2d as it does when looking at 3d.
Just having a post it note on my laptop to tell me to look for loose pieces and checks before I move has added 200 points to my rating here, compared to OTB.
13 Sep 11
So, I trawled through my recent games to hope to expand on this a little.
Firstly, this opening is designed to be risky, so being conservative is not an option.
How do you annotate within pgn games by the way?
Blunder No.1, allowing me to castle unhindered at move 8 after starting with rapid piece development in the Danish gambit
Blunder No.2, move 11b, = Moving the King across to cover the a-pawn while leaving the Queen with one piece separating her from a nasty rook. I'm now thinking about saccing to expose the king and/or queen
Blunder No.3, move 14b, = Queen still in danger of discovered Rook attack. Now planning all out assault
16w. Forced mate from a few moves out...
So that was just one example. I could have shown many others where I've tried that opening and failed... In fact, in the nature of parity, I really should... See below one of my less good games, and a classic mating pattern that Greenpawn will tell me is a schoolboy error 😉
Just play to how it suits you I guess 🙂
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by morgskiI am a willing but not very good candidate. GP once derisively (tongue in cheek) dubbed me "He who trades queens in the King's Gambit" because I posted a game where I traded queens to get a winning endgame!
If you have the choice, go risky. Even if you lose, you learn more than a conservative approach and the games are more rewarding if you win. That said, I too would immediately subscribe to a Saccing Clan headed by GreenPawn and Paul Leggett 😀
I like to play the KG because I get good attacking chances, but also a good endgame if things don't pan out. The other KG players tolerate me and still let me sit at the KG table with them, but my willingness to go into a good ending makes me a bit of a black sheep in the family.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettNot so. I assume you have played over some Spassky KG's?
I am a willing but not very good candidate. GP once derisively (tongue in cheek) dubbed me "He who trades queens in the King's Gambit" because I posted a game where I traded queens to get a winning endgame!
I like to play the KG because I get good attacking chances, but also a good endgame if things don't pan out. The other KG players tolerate me a ...[text shortened]... , but my willingness to go into a good ending makes me a bit of a black sheep in the family.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by tomtom232Absolutely- and I am a Joe Gallagher disciple. His book on the KG is where I learned the idea that the KG often leads to good endings.
Not so. I assume you have played over some Spassky KG's?
I think that is a big deal in the KG especially, because unsuspecting black players think they can sidestep danger by going into an ending, and only after the fact realize that they traded one problem for another.
The KG is also great to study because a game played in the 1800's is just as likely to appear on your board in an OTB tournament as a game based on modern theory. There are lots of defenses, but hardly anyone knows any of them.
In a way, the KG is perfect for this thread, in that the white player often has to decide to press on with a promising attack or cash in and torture black with the ending. Most KG players attack- at the KG table, when I ask someone to "pass the endings", the reply is "Here- and keep it at your end!".