Chess games

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    The evaluation confirms I was winning for most of the game, so no argument there.
    As for the end +1.8 is technically called 'winning', it's not actually subjective.
    I just resigned because after so many inaccurate moves (c5 being the first) I built up a dominating advantage and let it go a bit, which was too frustrating to let me carry on sorry.

    Also strange how no best of three despite the fact that your last game was a best of three IIRC - no one says you have to play the next game today btw.
    i played a best of three with him, because the games were 8 minutes with 2 seconds added. There is a difference. Please stop being such a poor loser thanks. By the way i don't use machine analysis. Every move you made, i countered your ideas. So that by the end you ran out of ideas and quit. But I was ready to play on til the time ran out. Thanks again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Electrospective)
    But I wanna play chess so....
    Is it too late to join the tournament, and if not, what do I need to do?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    i played a best of three with him, because the games were 8 minutes with 2 seconds added. There is a difference. Please stop being such a poor loser thanks. By the way i don't use machine analysis. Every move you made, i countered your ideas. So that by the end you ran out of ideas and quit. But I was ready to play on til the time ran out. Thanks again.
    "i don't use machine analysis"

    Ok thanks. That actually explains why you thought you played well. If you analyse just our game you'd be shocked.

    From a completely neutral standpoint (nothing against you, I'm not gonna insult you like you did me), you should analyse your games with computers. Otherwise you'll just repeat the mistakes you make in your games over and over again. Analysis helps improvement.

    It may help to look at moves such as c5, f6, etc. and try to think why they led to a losing position (which I admit I fudged with c4). There are serious positional problems with these kind of moves. It's important not to look at the bare surface of a game and say stuff like "Every move you made, i countered your ideas". That's a bit arrogant and it won't help you learn.

    I'm not saying I deserved to win, but I am saying that you seem to not understand the details of the game. If you're going to improve, you've gotta accept that, whilst you won, you must reflect on the moves you made that actually ended up giving me +4.5.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    The evaluation confirms I was winning for most of the game, so no argument there.
    As for the end +1.8 is technically called 'winning', it's not actually subjective.
    I just resigned because after so many inaccurate moves (c5 being the first) I built up a dominating advantage and let it go a bit, which was too frustrating to let me carry on sorry.

    Also strange how no best of three despite the fact that your last game was a best of three IIRC - no one says you have to play the next game today btw.
    Is that much considered technically winning? I'd have thought it'd be more than 2 points til you count it as winning. But the thing with engine evaluation is that not all advantages are convertible, especially in a closedish position. I would say you were winning at the point when it was +4.5 for sure..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Is that much considered technically winning? I'd have thought it'd be more than 2 points til you count it as winning. But the thing with engine evaluation is that not all advantages are convertible, especially in a closedish position. I would say you were winning at the point when it was +4.5 for sure..
    Yeah you might be right (btw yes +1.8 is technically winning). It's just a bit annoying how arrogant he's being about it is all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Is that much considered technically winning? I'd have thought it'd be more than 2 points til you count it as winning. But the thing with engine evaluation is that not all advantages are convertible, especially in a closedish position. I would say you were winning at the point when it was +4.5 for sure..
    He was winning and he resigned, doesn't this sound a bit odd? Maybe he cracked under the pressure. Also he made more mistakes then me,
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Yeah you might be right (btw yes +1.8 is technically winning). It's just a bit annoying how arrogant he's being about it is all.
    Okay so you were winning, so what? You also technically, made more mistakes than me. Let's just stop it here okay?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    He was winning and he resigned, doesn't this sound a bit odd? Maybe he cracked under the pressure. Also he made more mistakes then me,
    Everyone, and I mean everyone, here will agree with me when I say that you made far more mistakes than me. I encourage you to ask anyone.

    I told you why I resigned. Because I fudged my attack, and despite my position still being much better I was too frustrated to continue. That's bad on my part I know.

    Can you please stop being so arrogant?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Yeah you might be right (btw yes +1.8 is technically winning). It's just a bit annoying how arrogant he's being about it is all.
    25 Qc2 was the winning reply by the way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Two people having a super aggressive argument regarding a game of chess is so deliciously geeky.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Everyone, and I mean everyone, here will agree with me when I say that you made far more mistakes than me. I encourage you to ask anyone.

    I told you why I resigned. Because I fudged my attack, and despite my position still being much better I was too frustrated to continue. That's bad on my part I know.

    Can you please stop being so arrogant?
    You made four major blunders whilst i only made one, according to the computer analysis. I am not being arrogant, but factual. There is actually no chance in chess believe it or not. And just as Kramnick turned down Kasparov's request for a rematch, i am turning down yours. Also remember we were playing outside of the 15 minute playing zone, which i usually play in.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    25 Qc2 was the winning reply by the way.
    Ugh, not only do you say that you don't use 'machine analysis' and do anyway, you go ahead and say that.

    Qc2 was not 'the winning reply.' Qc2 isn't some crazy tactical combo that wins the game. It is a positional move which is equalled by a couple of others in the position. Certainly it is not the one 'winning reply.' There are many combinations white has here on the kingside in order to convert his winning advantage.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Open game for anyone.....: https://lichess.org/zzTFal1G
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Sexathlete)
    Two people having a super aggressive argument regarding a game of chess is so deliciously geeky.
    Not being 'super aggressive' here, idk where you got that idea from.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PharaohFromSpace)
    Open game for anyone.....: https://lichess.org/zzTFal1G
    dont play chess play pinta
    game gonna start in about 10 minutes
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    You made four major blunders whilst i only made one, according to the computer analysis. I am not being arrogant, but factual. There is actually no chance in chess believe it or not. And just as Kramnick turned down Kasparov's request for a rematch, i am turning down yours. Also remember we were playing outside of the 15 minute playing zone, which i usually play in.
    You don't understand computer analysis. The evaluation was always positive for the whole game. That means that white was better for the whole game.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    He was winning and he resigned, doesn't this sound a bit odd? Maybe he cracked under the pressure. Also he made more mistakes then me,
    Well in the end I think it would have been difficult to win for white, whatever the computer says. Especially as the position is somewhat closed. Someone can have a space advantage, better piece play, safer king, but if there's no way to break through, there's no way to break through.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Ugh, not only do you say that you don't use 'machine analysis' and do anyway, you go ahead and say that.

    Qc2 was not 'the winning reply.' Qc2 isn't some crazy tactical combo that wins the game. It is a positional move which is equalled by a couple of others in the position. Certainly it is not the one 'winning reply.' There are many combinations white has here on the kingside in order to convert his winning advantage.
    i got that move, from replaying the moves over the board, not from using this analysis you rely on. It isn't a knock out move, but it is a consolidating strong move, which would allow you to treble up your attack on my pawn, and overwhelm me because i had no way to cover all of my bases, had you played that.

    But you missed it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Well in the end I think it would have been difficult to win for white, whatever the computer says. Especially as the position is somewhat closed. Someone can have a space advantage, better piece play, safer king, but if there's no way to break through, there's no way to break through.
    There's actually a way on the kingside, perhaps somewhat difficult but it's there.
    Point is though that I don't like how he's trying to assert that he played more accurate chess for the whole thing. Yes I resigned but that is irrelevant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CheeseIsVeg)
    dont play chess play pinta
    game gonna start in about 10 minutes
    link me if there's pinta
    my notifications aren't working
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 2, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

Quick Link:

Unanswered Forum Games Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.