Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
- - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2014-04-09 22:20
I see very few comments on other peoples games,i am meaning general comments are you all afraid of getting it wrong,i thought that this tournament was meant to be about comments on games and play in general.
Just my take on things.
Parent - - By Scott (*****) Date 2014-04-09 22:36
I always like to comment, :) Others who comment a lot are Matt and...and...hmmm. That big round robin going on at Infinity Chess has been taking a lot of resources, but it will finish tomorrow. I'm glad I played in it, it gave some insight into strong round robins. Every point, or even every move is critical.

If you offered me that draw in our game today Paul, I would want to play on now. Not necessarily because I think there may be a win, but because that IC tour has proven that endgames is where it's really lacking in engine play. So I attribute lack of endgame practice one of my main weak points that I hope to change.
Parent - - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2014-04-10 23:20
Yup Matt is always very good at commentating.
Very surprised at your comment on our game,not only i am not a bad engame player,i studied Ruben Fines books many years ago,i believe a lot of engines well maybe only 2 or 3 are excellent in endgame play,given enough time and much superior to any GM in OTB play.
Don't worry our game was a dead draw I do not try to conn my opponent.
Parent - By Scott (*****) Date 2014-04-11 10:18

> Don't worry our game was a dead draw I do not try to conn my opponent.

I know that, I don't want you to think I thought that, I just need endgame practice, lots of it, :smile:
Parent - By Mark Eldridge (****) Date 2014-04-13 13:43
I don't normally comment on other peoples games mostly because i might give away to much information. Scott really enjoyed the Infinity Chess tour next time i will even stonger.
Parent - - By Schachmatt (****) Date 2014-04-09 23:13
i'm happy to comment on games and i've made some comments, but i've been really busy. :-)  unfortunately my two black games were not especially entertaining to me as my games, although using a creative approach in move order, steered towards equality immediately in the opening.  and then my opponents played solidly with no real mistakes.
Parent - - By Weirwindle (***) Date 2014-04-13 17:35
Cannot wait until our game.
Most of my games have went on without a single comment.
One thing that I wish was not lacking in a tourney like this.
Parent - - By Schachmatt (****) Date 2014-04-14 09:28 Edited 2014-04-14 09:32

I'm looking forward to our game, especially if I get White against you, but I'm looking forward to beating Paul most of all.  :wink:  Although I found some ideas to try in the Marshall for corr and certainly good for OTB practice, Black can find ways to hold.  The problem with the Marshall is that it is looking so reliable that I will consider playing it as Black at some pt.  It could be that there is some anti-Marshall system that is more promising, 8 a4, Nc3 or d3 than allowing the Marshall.  I find the Gruenfeld to be a more ridiculous opening than the Marshall so I might play 1 d4 against him.  I felt that Scott managed an enormous advantage against him so maybe I can find a way of tricking him in some opening, as Alvin and I may have succeeded at a bit in previous games.  But even when everything goes right in the opening, it may not be possible to win, especially with Black, and when the material becomes too reduced.  I'm thinking also of my games against deepthroat, FrauHolle, and Mig2004 in recent InfinityChess freestyle where this occurred.

It helps that, with time, I can string together AN at avg depth = 30 instead of avg depth = 14 as I did when playing Paul a few years ago. and there were parts of it in the opening that I lost because there was so much analysis it crashed my computer.  I think this was a good thing, because a lot of that analysis was at depth = 10, and basically worthless.  :lol:  It makes sense to go back and check a few of my games from 2011-2012, now that I can analyze lines much better, especially those rauzer games actually (and of course my game against Paul, which I found fun but tiresome to analyze.  There were so many positions from that game I did not want to analyze afterward as I was tired of seeing them.  Only now I feel ready to look at it again).  :wink:  I'm a much stronger chess player now, although there is so much that I can do to improve, (US 2228 standard and 2289 blitz [there's a 1900 player I'm 119.5/120 in US rated blitz and have an undefeated streak against him in rated chess of about 130 games currently  (we celebrated when my 119 game winning streak against him was snapped recently by a draw --- I had to count when it was finally broken b/c it was a ridiculous streak) which I find very amusing especially when he takes down FMs... I probably have a pretty sizable undefeated streak in US rated blitz chess atm now that I think of it, but blitz is really just for fun and trying new things] although I have not been very active in standard chess, and if I could eliminate some really bad mistakes, use better time management, and tone down my creativity in some positions I would score much better) and sufficiently experienced in computer chess that I know what to look for in many positions so it will be interesting to see where I may disagree with myself.  I'm playing that Vegas tournament in October so I'm quite content that my standard rating stays below US 2350 anyway until then.  My opening theory in Sicilians and Ruy is finally very good now, simply a few details there I need to study --- and I'm kind of glad I did not show that I understood a few details in some of my past games that I do now should anyone prepare even in the games I played well; now it's trying to bring the rest of my repertoire from "how to not lose immediately" to "I can kill my opponent from here or at least really make them suffer".   By repertoire I mean middle and endgame play/technique too, it's all part of the same thing. :-)
Parent - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2014-04-14 12:07
Parent - By Regularuser (***) Date 2014-04-14 19:20

>I find the Gruenfeld to be a more ridiculous opening than the Marshall so I might play 1 d4 against him.

Good luck with that one, you'll need it :)
Parent - - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2014-04-14 22:49
I now am very unconfident about playing Grunfeld against your 1.d4 Matt,must rethink my opening repertoire.
Parent - - By Schachmatt (****) Date 2014-04-14 23:28
Gruenfeld is fine in most lines.  I really only know one major hole in the theory that has not been fully shown in practice and I do not think you would fall  It would be rather unlucky.
Parent - - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2014-04-15 00:00
Rarther goes against your thoughts that Grunfeld is stupid opening.
Parent - By Schachmatt (****) Date 2014-04-15 15:15
Theoretically it's fine in most lines.  I do not think it is the most sensible, but I play less sensible openings.  My opinion was that the Gruenfeld is more ridiculous than the Marshall, but atm the Marshall seems to be an extremely sensible choice for corr.
Parent - - By Schachmatt (****) Date 2014-04-16 03:51
played through my analysis on our game from a few years ago out of curiousity and because I can do a much better job of it now.  My former DPAs of depth 10-17 seem woefully insufficient particularly especially after seeing the outputs of the engines in the Infinity Chess Freestyle (depth 25 - 55). i think it was equal throughout as 37...Qh5 followed by Kg8 (or Kh8), Bd7, Bg5-d8, Nf6-h7-g5 would have been nice but White can establish pressure on b5 and a8 or throw in Ng4 just in time to force a perpetual in some position.  i had a few more options than i realized in some positions but none that lead to a real advantage.  the key to the positions earlier to the game seemed to be the restriction of the White kingside (so White is not able to play g3 or establish a permanent blockade on the light squares around the White king) and for Black to be able to activate either the bishop or knight to g5 in some positions.  Interestingly, to me, development of the queenside and playing the N to g6 may not be necessary in many positions as there are other ways to clamp down on g3 and f4 without using those pieces [with Rg8, Bh6, Qh5, etc] --- especially since the queenside pieces are so well suited to their starting positions should the queenside ever open;  there were more possibilities for counterplay than I anticipated although I have not found any definitive improvements for both sides despite looking at my analysis and forum suggested ideas carefully.  it seems like White always had sufficient play down the c-file to at least liquidate rooks and thus ensure a draw. 

Anyway what I played was okay and below is a sample variation on 37...Qh5

[Event "Nf3/Nc3 + Pd5"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2012.02.17"]
[Round "?"]
[White "My Hippo Modern [bl]"]
[Black "Analysis"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B06"]
[PlyCount "131"]
[EventDate "2012.??.??"]

1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 a6 5. Bc4 e6 6. O-O Ne7 7. Be3 Nd7 8. a4 b6
9. d5 e5 10. Qe2 h6 11. Ne1 f5 12. f3 f4 13. Bf2 O-O 14. Nd3 Kh7 15. Nb4 Nb8
16. a5 b5 17. Ba2 g5 18. Nb1 h5 19. Nd2 g4 20. Nd3 Ng6 21. c4 Bh6 22. Rfc1 Nd7
23. Rc2 Nf6 24. Qe1 Ne8 25. cxb5 axb5 26. b4 Qg5 27. Qe2 g3 28. Be1 gxh2+ 29.
Kxh2 Rg8 30. Rac1 Nf8 31. Qf1 Nd7 32. Nf2 Ndf6 33. Qh1 h4 34. Kg1 Nh5 35. Qh2
Ng3 36. Nf1 Rg7 37. Bb1 Qh5 38. Rb2 Kg8 39. Bd3 Bd7 40. Rbc2 Bg5 41. Nd2 Bd8
42. Nb1 Nf6 43. Nc3 Nh7 44. Bxb5 Bxb5 45. Nxb5 Ng5 46. Ng4 N5xe4 47. Nxc7 Bxc7
48. Rxc7 Ne2+ 49. Kf1 Nxc1 50. Rxc1 Rxg4 51. fxg4 Qxg4 52. Bxh4 Nd2+ 53. Kf2
Rb8 54. Qh3 Qxh3 55. gxh3 Rxb4 56. Ra1 Rb2 57. Ra4 e4 58. Kg2 f3+ 59. Kg1 e3
60. a6 Rb1+ 61. Kh2 Rb8 62. a7 Ra8 63. Kg1 Kf7 64. Be1 Kg6 65. Bxd2 exd2 66.
Rd4 *

which is a draw.
Parent - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2014-04-16 19:50
I remember the game well Matt,engines were usless for most of it.

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill