Chess Forum
mailcafe.net << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| Posted by aixrad mailcafe.net 9/05/2008 05:18:31 play online chess |  Subject: Checkmate or notMessage: I recently played with black this game  game with pianofred.
In this Position I generated the conditional move 20 Rf2 Re1+ ... with threefold repetition to save the draw because I had less material. pianofred mean I maybe could checkmate him forces but we both don't know how. Is this a forced checkmate position? Was it right to save the draw with threefold repetition? Greetings Ralf |
| Posted by beefturnmail mailcafe.net 9/05/2008 05:49:19 play online chess | Message: |
| Posted by aixrad mailcafe.net 9/05/2008 06:36:33 play online chess | Message: Then I wa very stupd and blind at that moment |
| Posted by chessnovice mailcafe.net 9/05/2008 21:39:08 play online chess | put a positive spin on it Message: |
| Posted by ionadowman mailcafe.net 9/07/2008 13:55:23 play online chess | Incidentally... Message: Bad luck, Ion |
| Posted by wuzzie mailcafe.net 9/11/2008 04:13:47 play online chess | not checkmate Message: |
| Posted by lighttotheright mailcafe.net 9/11/2008 11:59:11 play online chess | Message: Aixrad, you did well to accept a draw in this position. After wuzzie's 20. Qg4+ Qxg4 21. fxg4...Rxb2 22. Nd2 would have left White with a possible decisive advantage. Although Black would have 2 passed pawns, the vertical isolation would have been difficult to defend. White would have opportunities to open his own passed pawns along the King-side once the black h pawn fell. And don't forget that White would still have an extra piece to fight in this position. Black cannot defend everything under best play. |
| Posted by heinzkat mailcafe.net 9/11/2008 12:04:46 play online chess | Message: Should Black play 23. ... Re2, taking the draw because of threefold repetition, or should Black play 23. ... Qxf1#/Rxf1#, taking the win because of checkmate. You cannot say that Black did well to take the draw in this position !?!?!??? |
| Posted by lighttotheright mailcafe.net 9/11/2008 12:18:58 play online chess | Message: It depends upon what position you are talking about. That is the danger of talking about this game or any like it. If you analyse a different position, you can get entirely different conclusions. |
| Posted by tugger mailcafe.net 9/11/2008 15:27:10 play online chess | Message: For reference, White should have played 20. Qg4+ and he probably wins, forcing the Queens off the board with a pawn advantage (just the one pawn, as b2 is vulnerable to capture from the Rook). Better still would be to develop the Knight as opposed greedily snatching the pawn on move 19. |
| Posted by tugger mailcafe.net 9/11/2008 15:33:07 play online chess | Message: The position in the first post is not a win for Black, as it is White to move, and he can save with Qg4+. It is only after White plays Rf2 that it becomes a win for Black. But I would still say that a draw for Black after missing a mate in one can not be considered a good result. |
| Posted by lighttotheright mailcafe.net 9/11/2008 22:11:00 play online chess | Message: Then White made a mistake and Black did not take advantage of it. That's compounding mistakes. Both sides clearly intended the draw by repeating the position shown by aixrad on move 20. It did not matter that the repeating sequence was flawed. Neither player could see that flaw. Aixrad asked about the exact position he displayed in the first post. I merely confirmed wuzzie's analysis of that exact position. This game was a draw by repetition not by an accepted draw on move 20. It lasted longer than that (I knew that all along). The presumptive acceptance of a draw on move 20 was what I commented on...not the mistakes made later. The line of play I gave as example proves what I was talking about. To later criticize me for stating something I didn't is ludicrous. No where did I refute any of the previous analysis given by others that show the forced mates. But those forced mates do not materialize until after White's Rf2. |
| Posted by tugger mailcafe.net 9/12/2008 08:20:12 play online chess | Message: "Aixrad, you did well to accept a draw in this position." is what i consider ludicrous. it's my opinion that aixrad should be disappointed, not pleased. i don't mean to pan him down, it's intended as constructive critisism. one should never be pleased about missing an easy win. aixrad should be looking to improve his game to the point where he can spot mate in one positions, and that means he should be disappointed when he misses them. this will hopefully drive him forward, trying to ensure he does not feel this disappointment again. i do know what lighttotheright is saying, though. in the position at the very top of this thread, aixrad is worse off positionally and materially. so i understand why he is saying a draw was not bad. perhaps a better way of approaching this problem is to directly answer the questions aixrad asks... "Is this a forced checkmate position?" - Not in this position. "Was it right to save the draw with threefold repetition?" - No, you should've waited to see what White's reply to Re2 was, then analysed the position, instead of putting up conditional moves. Perhaps then you might have found the win. |
| Posted by lighttotheright mailcafe.net 9/12/2008 11:15:05 play online chess | Message: But I would like to point out that aizrad is only a 1300 level player. We shouldn't expect a 1600 to 1700 level or greater performance out of him. Is a draw the best result? Of course not. But don't forget that a draw is still a good result regardless. Certainly, it is a lot better than a loss. |
| Posted by tugger mailcafe.net 9/13/2008 07:41:06 play online chess | Message: "But I would like to point out that aizrad is only a 1300 level player. We shouldn't expect a 1600 to 1700 level or greater performance out of him. " before i go on, i stress again it's just my opinion, but i really don't think that spotting that mate is 1600+ standard, in fact i would expect a 1300 player to have no trouble winning after Rf2. this is precisely the reason aixrad should be disappointed. if he's not disappointed, then how can he drive himself on to improve? if instead he shrugs his shoulders and says "well, a draw is a good result here", then i don't see him breaking into the 1600+ class. but maybe that's just the way i approach things. i guess he may see things differently. he may be boosted by the fact he didn't lose, and as such have more confidence. but i know i would be disappointed if i missed that. it's ironic really, as during the threefold repetition, both players took it in turns to blunder away a win! |
Chess news: Vasily Smyslov, Former World Chess Champion, Dies at 89 -- Vasily Smyslov, the seventh world chess champion, who was known for both the artistry of his play and the solidity of his technique, died Saturday at a hospital in Moscow. He was 89. The cause was heart failure, according to the Russian television station NTV. Mr. Smyslov, though he held the chess championship for just a year, from April 1957 to May 1958, was one of the most successful and durable tournament and match players of the generation that came of age after World War II. In 1984, when he was 63 and most of his contemporaries, like Mikhail Botvinnik and David Bronstein, had long ceased to be important chess players on the world stage, Mr. Smyslov made it to ... Vasily Smyslov, 1921-2010, an Appreciation -- It is not surprising that accolades have poured in from all over the world on the death of Vasily Smyslov, the seventh world chess champion. Though Smyslov was the titleholder for only a year, he was among the world’s best chess players for decades and his games had a certain clarity to them that was widely admired. He did not play speculatively like Mikhail Tal, or adhere to a set of scientific principals, like his great rival, Mikhail Botvinnik. He was not stubbornly dogmatic, like Bobby Fischer, or a technician, like Anatoly Karpov. Though he drew inspiration from Alexander Alekhine, his style was unique. Boris Spassky has often been described as a “universal” chess player because ... A Master of Slow Chess Who’s a Speed Demon, Too -- The best chess players in the world are ranked on their ability to play slow, or classical, chess, in which each side has at least a few hours for a game. None of them are slouches at blitz chess, in which an entire game lasts five minutes or less, but it puts a premium on tactical skill and quick thinking — which is usually the forte of younger chess players. So it is not surprising that Magnus Carlsen, 19, who is the No. 1-ranked player in the world in classical chess, and 22-year-old Hikaru Nakamura, No. 17, look to be the best in the world at blitz chess. Carlsen, a Norwegian, is the reigning world blitz champion, having won the title in November at a tournament in Moscow. Carlsen beat ... | |