|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 'Modeling' recent debates using chess | |||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
You got it. The general principle is called Philidor's legacy, I believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Very good!
Just one "key" line missed at the very end (same number of move to mate).
quote: 14. ... Kxe4 (instead of Ke5)15. Bc2+ Ke5 16. Qd6#
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: My bad. Rxh5 would lose. Obviously that's not I would play if the position actually arose. Let's look.
quote: Okay,...
6. Kg1 That's much better than 6. Rxh5??? :-) The obvious 6. ... Nh3+ 7. Kg2 Nxg5 8. hxg5 failsback to a draw. If Black attempts to bring his king closer to White: 6. ... Kf3 7. Rf5 followed by 8. Rxf4 =. Black has to approach White’s pawn while (1) still protecting his own h-pawn and (2) not allowing White to give up the exchange. With White’s rook where it is Black’s king cannot approach White’s pawn nor defend his own pawn, and Black’s knight is stuck protecting the pawn (which is on a white square, so cannot be protected by Black’s bishop). The bishop is probably the piece to move. 6. ... Bd4+ 7. Kh1 and Black is back where he was a minute ago. The most direct is:
6. ... Bf6 7. Ra5 Now 7. ... Bxh4 draws because of 8. Ra4+ followed by 9. Rxf4. If the knight moves without giving check, White just captures Black’s pawn on h5. And even if it does give check, Black still makes no headway. For example, 7. ... Ne2+ 8. Kf2 9. Nf4 Kg1 If Black attempts to move his king in with 7. ... Kf3 then 8. Rf5 Bd4+ 9. Kg1 followed by 10. Rxf4 =. If instead he tries 7. ... Ke3 then 8. Rf5 draws. So it still looks hard for Black to make progress. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Is your opponent the 2700+ computer you mentioned you had? Now we have to wonder did YOU or did YOUR COMPUTER solve that masterpiece?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: So the queen sac Qf7+ just jumped right out at you immediately? Wow, you're really good! Surprising then that you made such an ignorant statement about the "draw by repetition" originally...
quote: 1) Any half-way decent player knows the game was a book draw dozens of moves before any draw by repetition would have even kicked in. 2) And where did I or the computer get stalemated anyway? Do you know what stalemate means? Something just doesn't seem to add up here. Or maybe in the last 2 days you've studied so hard that you've gained a thousand rating points! ****************************************PS: And now that I think about it, here's something else that helps us judge your level of play somewhat. quote: That's fool's mate...not scholar's mate. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-02-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: quote: Since when? Go back and look at your first post in this thread. And also look at your last post just before mine.
quote: That’s what happens when a human does his own analysis: oversights occur. See, at least we know that I am doing my own analysis here, unlike you, who let’s his 2700+ computer do the work for him.
quote: quote: LOL! In such "blitzish games, any reasonable person would accept that thousands of half-way decent players or better have been in such predicaments, dozens of times each. We are still left with your ignorant statement about the draw...your deflection didn’t work.
quote: quote: You were...and still are if you think either I or the computer was stalemated in that chess game. Hey, you quoted me asking you to show us where the stalemate in that game was...so, where's your support? Why didn't you post it? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. There was no stalemate in that game, and anyone who knows anything about chess knows that.
quote: LOL!! We all know you are trying to bulls**t your way out of this.
quote: What stalemate? You don’t know what stalemate means in chess, do you? Nope.
quote: You mean the first post...the one with the chess game where absolutely no stalemate occurred? Sure I remember it. Do you? [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-02-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Here ya go Amlodhi, since you don't know what stalemate means in chess, I thought I'd educate you.
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: To put it a bit more formally, stalemate occurs when all of the following three conditions occur at the same time. 1) A player has no legal moves2) That player is not in check 3) It is that player's move Now that I've taught you what stalemate means in chess - something every beginner knows, as can be seen by the titles of the above books - can you find one occurring in the game from the first post in this thread? Can you? Nope, because there wasn't one. Just as I've been saying, and exactly opposite of what you've been saying. *****************************I've found my cozy position for this "debate". I need do nothing but hammer this one point home. He has no possibility of winning on this: in fact, I've already won. Checkmate! [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-02-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: No, it's not a blunder, because it never happened. The position that my hanging a rook would have occurred in never arose. It was an oversight in analysis of a possible, future position. And if the game had reached the actual position , I would not have exchanged the rook for the pawn.
quote: My son’s computer is rated 1750 (from the box: "Estimated strength rating 1750" ... "Niveau ELO USA 1750"). That is about 200 points above the average US chess player (back when I was in USCF, the average OTB rating was about 1550). And in case you missed this when I stated it before, it was a "blitish" game. Neither the computer nor I was playing at our highest level.
quote: I don't doubt that you are INTERESTED in chess, I just doubt you are any good.
quote: I gave up chess about 10 years ago to get my BS in CIS: trading something that I couldn't make money at for something that I could. Chess is no longer a big enough part of my life for me to mention it casually.
quote: So why don't you provide us with your USCF rating? It's on the mailing label of each issue of Chess Life. Why not post a pic so we can see it for ourselves?
quote: And yet still failed to learn what a stalemate is???
quote: Irrelevant. Club ratings are not meaningful except within the context of that one club itself.
quote: Nope, not true. You also claimed to have easily solved a chess puzzle that involved a non-apparent queen sac; a claim that simply doesn’t fit your original, ignorance-revealing statement DNAunion ... was fortunate enough to squeak out a defensive stalemate by repetition posture. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: Sure you did. You said:
quote: Where’s the stalemate I squeaked out? Nowherethere was none. Just as I’ve been saying, and exactly opposite what you said.
quote: And yet there was no stalemate. See, I did NOT reach a stalemate. See, you are flat out wrong.
quote: Another ignorance-revealing statement by you. Your latest statement is also so wrong it's hard for a person who actually knows chess to get a handle on, but... Black’s making a move that meant checkmate was no longer attainable for Black absolutely does NOT mean It was a STALEMATE or nothing. Now, one might try to say "It was A DRAW or nothing". Is that what you meant? You apparently continue to conflate, quite incorrectly, the terms/concepts DRAW and STALEMATE. They are not the same. There are many ways to draw that are not stalemate. Here, let me educate you. 1) For example, the principle that was most at play at the end was the computer's attempting to avoid 3-fold repetition. If 3-fold repetition occurs, the game is a draw, BUT NOT A STALEMATE. 2) Another way to draw is perpetual check, and it too is NOT A STALEMATE. 3) And yet another way to draw is the 50-move rule — and guess what, it too IS NOT A STALEMATE. 4) And another way to draw is if both players have insufficient material to checkmate — and guess what, it too IS NOT A STALEMATE. 5) Another way to reach a draw is by agreement - where one player offers a draw and the other accepts the offer. And guess what...this too IS NOT A STALEMATE. Let me try to educate you once more on exactly what a stalemate in chess is:
quote: Do you get it yet? There was no stalemate in the game. Your statement that I achieved a stalemate is flat out wrong and exposes your ignorance of chess. You new statement that it was stalemate or nothing just INCREASES our confidence that you don’t know what you are talking about. ****************************Since you refuse to simply accept that you’ve lost this point, I’ll bring up another indicator of your ignorance based on your original statement. --------------------------------------a defensive stalemate by repetition posture . -------------------------------------- Repetition has NOTHING to do with stalemate. Stalemate occurs on a SINGLE move. Your statement is wrong on so many levels it’s pathetic. No half-way decent player would have uttered such nonsense.
quote: Sure it does, and anyone who knows anything about chess knows this. A draw by the 50 move rule is a draw in the proper parlance.
quote: Which shows your ignorance again!!!! Any half-way decent player would have given up trying to win as soon as White played Rxf6. Any half-way decent chess player would realize that the opponent knows that rook pawn and bishop of the wrong color is a book draw if the opposing king can reach the queening square. That you state you would have continued to play on until you actually stalemated White just shows us how little you know about chess.
quote: Your attempts at bulls**t spin don’t work. I wasn’t playing you. You didn’t stalemate me. The computer didn’t stalemate me. There was no stalemate in the game, despite your statement that I have achieved one (by a repetitious posture, no less!).
quote: I don’t deny you are interested in chessI just deny that you are good at chess.
quote: WE ALL DO! Your own statement that exposes your ignorance as to what stalemate is: the statement you are now trying to justify with pathetic logic. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: First, I am not in the 1700-1800 range, thank you very much. I am in the ~2000 range OTB (top 10% or better in USCF), and a candidate master in correspondence. Second, I seriously doubt that "my opponent" here is up to the 1700-1800 range, considering his several ridiculous remarks about stalemate (a concept every beginner should know). This "game" about stalemate between us will be over just as soon as my opponent realizes he has absolutely no chance of beating me and accepts that I have achieved my goal...many "moves" ago. Ironically, just like I said in my original post in this thread, my opponent here is dragging this out pointlessly: he's already lost the game...I know it, you know it, and anyone else who knows anything about chess knows it. Yet he continues to "move" his "pieces" about as if he has a chance of winning. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-05-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: I’ve lost all of my best games (long story short, I had no computer and the games were stored on floppy: I took them to my university to create a new copy on a second floppy and left the disks in the drive and somewhere on the lab table when I had to run to my class — when I came back, the disks were gone). Of those games I still have records of, this one probably shows my true abilities best. This is from a USCF postal tournament. The two players, in alphabetical order, were DNAunion (1040 postal rating) and Sam Botshon (1346 postal rating). The ratings are based on the old (now, really old) postal rating system the USCF used, which did not correspond with OTB ratings (trying to compare them is like comparing apples to oranges). White:King on g1 Queen on b1 Rooks on a1, g2 Bishops on d3, g5 Knight on e2 Pawns on a4, c3, c4, d5, e3, e4, h2 Black:King on g8 Queen on a5 Rooks on e8, f8 Bishop on b7 Knights on d7, h5 Pawns on a6, b6, c5, d6, f7, g7 Was Black’s positional pawn sacrifice (an earlier 1. ... e4 2. fxe4) justified? It put White’s pawns in a mess, hemmed in his light-squared bishop, and his e5 square is very weak and ready to be occupied by Black's knight at some point, and it blocked up the center more — which helps elevate the value of knights relative to bishops. Black's plans for the near future include 1. ... Ne5, 2. ... Bc8, and either 3. ... Bh3, 3. ... Bg4, or 3. ... Bd7. On the other hand, Black’s queen’s mobility is extremely limited (not that White’s is extremely better), his pawn structure is less than perfect (though not at bad as White’s), and, he is down a pawn. With White to move in this position, who is better, and why? Lines should be given to support your judgment. PS: I did not use a computer in this game, just my own abilities. Anyone responding should do likewise. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Too bad for you that's neither the definition nor usage of the term stalemate in chess. Every beginner learns what stalemate means...I guess you are just now getting to that level.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Where did I call you a liar? I didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Uhm excuse me, but...he stated I called him a liar, but I didn't.
I must wonder why you would have a problem with me trying to defend myself against an unwarranted and false accusation. ****************************Came back to add... My point has been made. The last statement on the matter was that I had called him a liar, which is not true. I corrected the situation so that the last statement on the matter was the fact that I had not called him a liar. I had originally let the statement slide, but now, with Crashfrog and AbbyLeever - and to some extent Black too - waging a little character assassination war against me in the abiogenesis thread, I felt I needed to make sure no misleading statements were left hanging around. So I'm done in this thread, unless someone responds. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-12-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024