Politics posters chess thread
Mods - I hope this is OK, if not, move to LC or something.
Seems we've got a few chess players here, and some threads end up getting derailed arranging chess games. Figured maybe we could have a thread for it. So far, lagtight and I have played quite a few games, forumula72 and luckbox have expressed a wish to play, and a few other posters have taken an interest in passing. Post here to set up a game! We have been playing on chess.com so far.
This game has also been somewhat educational for me in terms of understanding how one poorly thought out move on, what was it, move 3 or 4 essentially loses you the game when you play against someone who is good enough to see and exploit the mistake. Usually I play blitz online vs similarly rated opponents, so at my level it's mostly just button clicking and trying to pull off some cool tactics here and there, and not really thinking too deeply about the distant positional implications of a single opening move.
This game has also been somewhat educational for me in terms of understanding how one poorly thought out move on, what was it, move 3 or 4 essentially loses you the game when you play against someone who is good enough to see and exploit the mistake. Usually I play blitz online vs similarly rated opponents, so at my level it's mostly just button clicking and trying to pull off some cool tactics here and there, and not really thinking too deeply about the distant positional implications of a sing
Yeah blitz and bullet hold precisely zero appeal to me. I approach chess very methodically and hate being rushed.
Engine confirms qc1 was as bad as it looked. Also, inaccuracies after trading queens left me with not much in the way of drawing chances. Qc1 is the real culprit though, evaluation for black shot up by a whole point after that move from something like -0.6 to -1.6. Engine likes taking the b pawn better.
Engine was pretty indifferent to c5 btw. Wasn't the top move, but didn't move the eval bar much.
Engine takes us to this position a few moves after the q exchange, which is still -1.4 so, winning for black, but not as winning as the position I ended up in.
Shoulda moved those queenside pawns.
I don't see a point at which it would have achieved anything other than losing one or both of them... and neither does the engine, apart from just pushing the a pawn to get it out of the attack from the bishop.
I guess if we end up in the position in the screenshot above, there might be an opportunity to do it later on. But not in the position I ended up in.
Also, interestingly, black was already more than half a point ahead by the time of the qc1 debacle. So, white was losing something like 1/15 - 1/20 of a pawn per move essentially, just through inaccuracies up to that point.
Imo u miss the big answer .
What was the best move replacing Qc1
Ne5 I guess ?
Engine confirms qc1 was as bad as it looked. Also, inaccuracies after trading queens left me with not much in the way of drawing chances. Qc1 is the real culprit though, evaluation for black shot up by a whole point after that move from something like -0.6 to -1.6. Engine likes taking the b pawn better.
Engine was pretty indifferent to c5 btw. Wasn't the top move, but didn't move the eval bar much.
.
Miss it thx
c5 is just a positional nightmare imo. Not something the eval is going to show really. I can explain why I hate c5 by just pointing out what your grip on the center looks like after it. The c4, d4, and e4 squares are much weaker after c5. It pretty much just punts the center and says you're going to play on the queenside. You could probably force something on the queenside, which would hold the eval fairly evenish for awhile, but ultimately it's just going to be the wrong place to focus your play. I don't think c5 is losing or anything, I just think it makes your position much harder to play.
I had an IM analyze one of my tournament games very publicly (on a big youtube channel) once, and at first I thought the video was very poorly done (he seemed to just insist he was right even though there was nothing concrete to back him up, the computer lines didn't immediately show he was right, etc. I watched the video many times, though (I was honestly very honored that he chose my game to analyze) and eventually I realized how important what he was doing was. There are certain things in the game that just have to happen or can't happen, etc. You learn to feel them after awhile. I think it's probably just the essence of positional chess that this is speaking to.
In my game, I wanted to castle, but there was a tactical problem with it. But you know you've got to get castled. The IM's argument was well you know you've got to castle here, so you make it work. I saw it differently during the game: I want to castle here, but I can't because there's a reply that causes a real problem.
He just kept insisting he was right, and that castling was correct even though he saw why I said it doesn't work. Eventually, he worked out how to make castling work. Positionally it was correct, so he just insisted on it until it worked. It made a big impression on me.
That's how I feel about c5. Positionally, it gives me the absolute ick and I don't care at all what lines anyone would use to support it. I'm just going to insist on it being terrible. lol
The video in question, FYI:
If you watch that, keep in mind this was ages ago and I was pretty bad at chess then (probably USCF low 1500s?) and playing a kid 500+ pts higher rated than I was. Pretty sure that kid is a well known GM now, but I forgot his name. I might look it up later.
Will check out the video, cool.
I think I get what you're saying about the move, it's kind of what I meant when I said "I felt like I was always on the back foot and had one or very few moves to choose from to stave off pending disaster, and had no threats of my own". Basically, after c5 it seems I have to play very accurately just to hold a draw, whereas black can play more freely, create threats, and has fewer opportunities to make a mistake.
ETA: Just clicked the video, Greg Shahade is "curtains" on here, of Durrrr 50k prop bet fame lol. Assume you are familiar with that whole story, was something like 20 years ago now.
For those who don't know the story, Dwan thought he could beat a GM with bishop or knight odds, coz just trade off all the pieces and win, ez game, the GM will never see it coming. Unsurprisingly, he quickly found a taker to back curtains in the game and relieve him of his 50k. There is a thread in the archives where all this took place. I think this was around the time that Tom was also going to "exploit GTO" by bluffing more or less or something.
Will check out the video, cool.
I think I get what you're saying about the move, it's kind of what I meant when I said "I felt like I was always on the back foot and had one or very few moves to choose from to stave off pending disaster, and had no threats of my own". Basically, after c5 it seems I have to play very accurately just to hold a draw, whereas black can play more freely, create threats, and has fewer opportunities to make a mistake.
ETA: Just clicked the video, Greg Shahade is "curtain
Yeah, I didn't even consider that 2+2 would know who Greg is. This is where I found him, too.
I just looked it up and the kid was Joey Kelley who is not a GM. I think he's only an FM.
I found an article about it, but try as I did, I could not find the thread.
https://www.worldpokertour.com/news/the-...
Slight correction to my post above - it was rook odds. Greg/Curtains was the player, Benefield was the backer.
I found an article about it, but try as I did, I could not find the thread.
https://www.worldpokertour.com/news/the-...
Slight correction to my post above - it was rook odds. Greg/Curtains was the player, Benefield was the backer.
Before the practice game began, Tom put two pawns on the board and demonstrated an “en passant” capture, a standard move in chess, and asked Greg if it was permitted. “This was another good omen for my chances.”
hahaha
How good would you have to be, ratings-wise to stand a chance against Hikaru if you removed one of his knights before the first move? Like if you had a +3 advantage from the start.
I guess an expert should do it .
1 rank below a master .
I don't know if even a lowish master could beat a top 10 GM with knight odds tbh.
There is a fun story about Capablanca, probably apocryphal. He was sitting at a cafe in Paris, drinking his coffee with a chess board in front of him. Another patron comes up and asks him if he wants a game.
"Sure" says Capa, "I'll play without my queen."
"But you don't even know who I am" remonstrates the challenger.
"Sir, if I knew who you were, I'd be giving you the rook".
A more fun variation might be that you get to take 3 points worth of material off the board on move 20 or something, so you can take off one of his light pieces or 3 pawns. That would probably give you a much better chance, assuming you can last 20 moves.
What if you let white have one or two free moves at the start?
