Chess games

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I tried 3D earlier. Not as bad as you might think...

    I struggle to contain my anger with myself over this one. What the actual **** am I thinking. How the hell can you lose this endgame. Jesus christ. Absolute retard. https://www.chess.com/live/game/1717631122 Two pawns up, or was it three? Absolutely no positional compensation for him originally. I should just accept I can't play chess at all with the absolute poverty of intuition and logic it takes to lose that.
    And after an intelligently played middlegame as well. Lmao.
    Woah that's gotta hurt. As for me I just played a terrible game that failed entirely because I was trying to make a stupid skewer which didn't even work, for some reason I didn't realise that the bishop blocking meant that I could not skewer him.

    The reason I go for these kinds of rubbish tactics is because I want to win. If I don't do anything and play super solid moves for the whole game my position always fizzles out and dies. I actually have no idea how to play chess now. To win properly seems like you have to have an almost master level understanding of the game, winning at lower levels just seems like waiting for your opponent to make an outright tactical or strategic blunder; at this level no one can gradually build up a strong positional advantage and then convert it without messing up at some point. Honestly I'm struggling to see how I'm meant to play chess at this level.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Woah that's gotta hurt. As for me I just played a terrible game that failed entirely because I was trying to make a stupid skewer which didn't even work, for some reason I didn't realise that the bishop blocking meant that I could not skewer him.

    The reason I go for these kinds of rubbish tactics is because I want to win. If I don't do anything and play super solid moves for the whole game my position always fizzles out and dies. I actually have no idea how to play chess now. To win properly seems like you have to have an almost master level understanding of the game, winning at lower levels just seems like waiting for your opponent to make an outright tactical or strategic blunder; at this level no one can gradually build up a strong positional advantage and then convert it without messing up at some point. Honestly I'm struggling to see how I'm meant to play chess at this level.
    I can take some satisfaction from basically outplaying someone 100 points higher in the middlegame, and for the early portion of the endgame as well (not that that was hard). According to the engine the final position in which I resigned was -0.06. I guess I need to look over rook and pawn vs rook endgames because I assumed I was just lost. In reality, it's very easy to figure out what went wrong - I allowed his king too much activity. That's basically it. There was also certainly a degree of complacency with the advantage. I am just trying to learn something I guess as however stupid I may be, I will not become less stupid unless I learn I guess..

    I think the primary way of winning chess is what Silman has said in articles, creating targets. If your opponent has an isolated or backward pawn, this is easy. If your opponent has an obvious hole that would be perfect for a piece, it is easy. If there is a file that is ripe for the taking, this is easy. Failing that, perhaps push pawns and hope for the best...it sort of is a case of waiting for a tactical mistake, but these often come when you put someone under pressure (indeed, when you put someone under pressure they can hang a piece straight up, let alone miss a tactic).

    I mean, this is something I did quite well in my last game, ignoring the ending. Once the c file opens up, I make it my business to occupy it with all my major pieces. I then attack the e7 bishop, but my real "target" is the f7 square. I bring my rook into the game, "pinning" the bishop to f7, while the rook is stuck defending the bishop, and the queen has no worthwhile squares. I'm tying them down to defending a target. Then I am in prime position to focus on the other weaknesses, a6 and d6, ultimately winning them.
    There's also a common saying that you need two weaknesses to win a chess game (in this game the two + weaknesses I guess would be the sensitive f7 and the queenside pawns, although I lost it it was clearly winning from the middlegame..). If you just play solid and focus only on one, or, indeed, none, then your opponent has nothing to worry about, I guess.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I can take some satisfaction from basically outplaying someone 100 points higher in the middlegame, and for the early portion of the endgame as well (not that that was hard). According to the engine the final position in which I resigned was -0.06. I guess I need to look over rook and pawn vs rook endgames because I assumed I was just lost. In reality, it's very easy to figure out what went wrong - I allowed his king too much activity. That's basically it. There was also certainly a degree of complacency with the advantage. I am just trying to learn something I guess as however stupid I may be, I will not become less stupid unless I learn I guess..

    I think the primary way of winning chess is what Silman has said in articles, creating targets. If your opponent has an isolated or backward pawn, this is easy. If your opponent has an obvious hole that would be perfect for a piece, it is easy. If there is a file that is ripe for the taking, this is easy. Failing that, perhaps push pawns and hope for the best...it sort of is a case of waiting for a tactical mistake, but these often come when you put someone under pressure (indeed, when you put someone under pressure they can hang a piece straight up, let alone miss a tactic).

    I mean, this is something I did quite well in my last game, ignoring the ending. Once the c file opens up, I make it my business to occupy it with all my major pieces. I then attack the e7 bishop, but my real "target" is the f7 square. I bring my rook into the game, "pinning" the bishop to f7, while the rook is stuck defending the bishop, and the queen has no worthwhile squares. I'm tying them down to defending a target. Then I am in prime position to focus on the other weaknesses, a6 and d6, ultimately winning them.
    There's also a common saying that you need two weaknesses to win a chess game (in this game the two + weaknesses I guess would be the sensitive f7 and the queenside pawns, although I lost it it was clearly winning from the middlegame..). If you just play solid and focus only on one, or, indeed, none, then your opponent has nothing to worry about, I guess.
    Yeah I agree with all of this.
    I think I just need to play more (because I really don't play much) and not worry about the result so much. Just learn to play solidly and target weaknesses if possible. I get the feeling I'm aiming way too high, trying to emulate the play of masters when my understanding/experience does not support it at all.

    I've been way too hung up with winning in each chess game which has led me to go for it too early, so I'll probably just be more patient and let my opponent mistakes, there's no rush to win the game.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I can take some satisfaction from basically outplaying someone 100 points higher in the middlegame, and for the early portion of the endgame as well (not that that was hard). According to the engine the final position in which I resigned was -0.06. I guess I need to look over rook and pawn vs rook endgames because I assumed I was just lost. In reality, it's very easy to figure out what went wrong - I allowed his king too much activity. That's basically it. There was also certainly a degree of complacency with the advantage. I am just trying to learn something I guess as however stupid I may be, I will not become less stupid unless I learn I guess..

    I think the primary way of winning chess is what Silman has said in articles, creating targets. If your opponent has an isolated or backward pawn, this is easy. If your opponent has an obvious hole that would be perfect for a piece, it is easy. If there is a file that is ripe for the taking, this is easy. Failing that, perhaps push pawns and hope for the best...it sort of is a case of waiting for a tactical mistake, but these often come when you put someone under pressure (indeed, when you put someone under pressure they can hang a piece straight up, let alone miss a tactic).

    I mean, this is something I did quite well in my last game, ignoring the ending. Once the c file opens up, I make it my business to occupy it with all my major pieces. I then attack the e7 bishop, but my real "target" is the f7 square. I bring my rook into the game, "pinning" the bishop to f7, while the rook is stuck defending the bishop, and the queen has no worthwhile squares. I'm tying them down to defending a target. Then I am in prime position to focus on the other weaknesses, a6 and d6, ultimately winning them.
    There's also a common saying that you need two weaknesses to win a chess game (in this game the two + weaknesses I guess would be the sensitive f7 and the queenside pawns, although I lost it it was clearly winning from the middlegame..). If you just play solid and focus only on one, or, indeed, none, then your opponent has nothing to worry about, I guess.
    Put this one through the computer: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1717787331

    Yep I resigned in a completely won position. Can't blame myself though, since my annoying parents were telling me to do stuff so had to go anyway. At least at uni I won't be restricted to 1 game a day at very specific times due to the risk of other people ruining my hard-fought games.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Put this one through the computer: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1717787331

    Yep I resigned in a completely won position. Can't blame myself though, since my annoying parents were telling me to do stuff so had to go anyway. At least at uni I won't be restricted to 1 game a day at very specific times due to the risk of other people ruining my hard-fought games.
    Gives you 16 centipawn loss with 2 inaccuracies 17. ...Ne4 and 18. ...Bh4. Final evaluation is -3.63.
    Just got a draw against a 1700, but I've beaten them before and I miscalculated a crazy tactical line, which ended up giving me back a pawn I'd lost but losing an exchange I'd won, when I thought it would win a whole rook. In the end it was queen and rook vs queen and rook; had their rook in a pin and it was a draw by perpetual (had to make sure to go to the right squares or the queen would hit my rook and I'd lose material lol, stressful)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Gives you 16 centipawn loss with 2 inaccuracies 17. ...Ne4 and 18. ...Bh4. Final evaluation is -3.63.
    Just got a draw against a 1700, but I've beaten them before and I miscalculated a crazy tactical line, which ended up giving me back a pawn I'd lost but losing an exchange I'd won, when I thought it would win a whole rook. In the end it was queen and rook vs queen and rook; had their rook in a pin and it was a draw by perpetual (had to make sure to go to the right squares or the queen would hit my rook and I'd lose material lol, stressful)
    Assuming the tactical line was the reason for losing the exchange? If it wasn't not sure why you did that. Anyway once again I'm surprised that a 1700 missed such a basic tactic (a4 and the fork). You had quite a few opportunities to win there; seems like you were a bit tentative in the part of the game where you were up the exchange. He didn't really have any threats at that point so infiltration with the queen would've been quite strong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Assuming the tactical line was the reason for losing the exchange? If it wasn't not sure why you did that. Anyway once again I'm surprised that a 1700 missed such a basic tactic (a4 and the fork). You had quite a few opportunities to win there; seems like you were a bit tentative in the part of the game where you were up the exchange. He didn't really have any threats at that point so infiltration with the queen would've been quite strong.
    Yeah. Basically, if he can't block that last check with the queen on a nice square, he's toast. For some reason I didn't think of him blocking the way he did, where the queen is protected and only attacked by my queen.

    I wouldn't say I was tentative, I was trying to find some kind of attack, going for the check and then preparing the discovery, moving my rook to unblock the diagonal and encourage weakening of the second rank should I get another check in, but there wasn't much to go for, his king was reasonably safe. Unless you mean just mopping up all the pawns. Too boring lol.

    Rematch he won easily because of an utterly horrific position in the French.
    So that's four 30|0 losses in a row not counting a draw. Wonderful.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Yeah. Basically, if he can't block that last check with the queen on a nice square, he's toast. For some reason I didn't think of him blocking the way he did, where the queen is protected and only attacked by my queen.

    I wouldn't say I was tentative, I was trying to find some kind of attack, going for the check and then preparing the discovery, moving my rook to unblock the diagonal and encourage weakening of the second rank should I get another check in, but there wasn't much to go for, his king was reasonably safe. Unless you mean just mopping up all the pawns. Too boring lol.

    Rematch he won easily because of an utterly horrific position in the French.
    So that's four 30|0 losses in a row not counting a draw. Wonderful.
    Yeah that's what I meant, going full-on pacman eating all his second rank pawns lol. Boring but at least your queen would get a full meal XD.

    Well like I said it's important to ignore results for now and just play to improve your chess. Winning comes later.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've noticed that this thread has just turned into a convo between me and 13 lol. Still good chess discussion though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Yeah that's what I meant, going full-on pacman eating all his second rank pawns lol. Boring but at least your queen would get a full meal XD.

    Well like I said it's important to ignore results for now and just play to improve your chess. Winning comes later.
    To be fair that might be what I'd resorted to had I not got overly excited with tactics.

    Indeed that's part of the reason why I have the seek set to [my rating - 50, inf). That's the highest minimum it allows I believe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Electrospective)
    I suck at chess. :ahee: But I wanna play chess so....


    Let the chess games begin!

    EDIT: SOME OF YOU MAY NOT HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT BUT IT'LL BE AN ONLINE GAME OF CHESS......

    Editededit: Quote me or tag me and I'll add you to the list below
    Spoiler:
    Show
    First round:


    umar39 vs CheeseIsVeg --------> umar39 PROGRESSES TO ROUND 2

    Me vs. Matrix123 ------> DRAW 4 TIMES SOO.....BOTH PROGRESS


    13 1 20 8 42 vs XOR_ -----> 13 1 20 8 42 PROGRESSED TO ROUND 2


    trustmeimlying1 vs Brahmin of Booty -----> BOOTY WINS


    PharaohFromSpace vs K-Man_PhysCheM -----> K-Man_PhysCheM WINS AND PROGRESSES TO ROUND 2


    RayApparently vs EnglishMuon ------> EnglishMuon PROGRESSES TO ROUND 2


    john2054 vs IrrationalRoot -----> john2054 PROGRESSES TO ROUND 2


    ROUND 2!


    umar39 vs me


    Matrix123 vs K-Man_PhysCheM



    EnglishMuon vs john2054


    13 1 20 8 42 vs The Sexathlete



    How do I play?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    How do I play?
    You (or someone else) can set up an open game on lichess and then post the link here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    To be fair that might be what I'd resorted to had I not got overly excited with tactics.

    Indeed that's part of the reason why I have the seek set to [my rating - 50, inf). That's the highest minimum it allows I believe.
    Yeah that's a good thing to do, most people aren't brave enough to do that lol.
    It's funny though, I haven't even changed my rating seek once but I always seem to find players who are 100 rating points higher lol.

    Just played a decent game https://www.chess.com/live/game/1718626578.

    Upon analysing the game I made a lot less mistakes than I thought, though I still played the early middlegame pretty badly as expected.
    I was feeling that I was lost after 14. e5 (which I felt I had to play to stop black from getting super active and smashing me on the e-file; I did consider Rf3 as the computer suggested but thought it looked superficial and even straight up silly).

    But after he got greedy and snacked on the c2 pawn I thought I may have something (still knew I was worse) and pushed for an attack, ignoring the potential loss of a pawn in the centre or the b2 pawn etc. Luckily my opponent demonstrated a significant lack of defensive skill and cracked under the pressure
    - although it must be said that it is far easier to attack than to defend in chess.

    I'm not that happy with my play since I outplayed him in the opening and then more or less threw my advantage away with a seemingly strong Nd5, but I'm happy with my attitude in the sense that I played for activity and an attack on the queenside to try to keep the pressure on despite feeling like resigning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Yeah that's a good thing to do, most people aren't brave enough to do that lol.
    It's funny though, I haven't even changed my rating seek once but I always seem to find players who are 100 rating points higher lol.

    Just played a decent game https://www.chess.com/live/game/1718626578.

    Upon analysing the game I made a lot less mistakes than I thought, though I still played the early middlegame pretty badly as expected.
    I was feeling that I was lost after 14. e5 (which I felt I had to play to stop black from getting super active and smashing me on the e-file; I did consider Rf3 as the computer suggested but thought it looked superficial and even straight up silly).

    But after he got greedy and snacked on the c2 pawn I thought I may have something (still knew I was worse) and pushed for an attack, ignoring the potential loss of a pawn in the centre or the b2 pawn etc. Luckily my opponent demonstrated a significant lack of defensive skill and cracked under the pressure
    - although it must be said that it is far easier to attack than to defend in chess.

    I'm not that happy with my play since I outplayed him in the opening and then more or less threw my advantage away with a seemingly strong Nd5, but I'm happy with my attitude in the sense that I played for activity and an attack on the queenside to try to keep the pressure on despite feeling like resigning.
    Pretty nice. His opening the c file was not the smartest decision in the world lol. Yeah I think the thing about Nd5 is any response except O-O-O justifies it, but after O-O-O you don't really want your knight taken so you're pretty much obliged to take yourself and the doubled pawns aren't really an issue (in fact black might like the g file).

    Speaking of attacking vs defending, I played a 30|0 game just after waking up this morning. As might be expected, I blunder a pawn (one won in a gambit anyway, but still) and am stuck in probably the worse side of an IQP position, but tactics save the day. He is better up until the very last move (only like -0.2 here though, despite being up a pawn) he makes when he blunders mate in 3.. https://www.chess.com/live/game/1718580509
    (well actually, not better up until that point, but at that point)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Pretty nice. His opening the c file was not the smartest decision in the world lol. Yeah I think the thing about Nd5 is any response except O-O-O justifies it, but after O-O-O you don't really want your knight taken so you're pretty much obliged to take yourself and the doubled pawns aren't really an issue (in fact black might like the g file).

    Speaking of attacking vs defending, I played a 30|0 game just after waking up this morning. As might be expected, I blunder a pawn (one won in a gambit anyway, but still) and am stuck in probably the worse side of an IQP position, but tactics save the day. He is better up until the very last move (only like -0.2 here though, despite being up a pawn) he makes when he blunders mate in 3.. https://www.chess.com/live/game/1718580509
    (well actually, not better up until that point, but at that point)
    What you said in the first paragraph exactly sums up my thoughts about the move after the match lol. In the game I made sure that I considered possible replies and it looked like a good move, but I had forgotten to consider O-O-O and yeah taking isn't as good as it might look at first.

    Yeah I looked at that game already (I like looking at other people's games lol) and it was interesting to see how you handled the Albin. Will probably analyse it as well since it'll help in the event that I have to play against that opening.
    And yeah it looked pretty even until he made a very silly blunder - too eager to trade queens.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    What you said in the first paragraph exactly sums up my thoughts about the move after the match lol. In the game I made sure that I considered possible replies and it looked like a good move, but I had forgotten to consider O-O-O and yeah taking isn't as good as it might look at first.

    Yeah I looked at that game already (I like looking at other people's games lol) and it was interesting to see how you handled the Albin. Will probably analyse it as well since it'll help in the event that I have to play against that opening.
    And yeah it looked pretty even until he made a very silly blunder - too eager to trade queens.
    I guess O-O-O is often not on the radar, especially in systems where it's not that common.

    I think it's a pretty poor opening for black. Had I not blundered a pawn for no reason, and just taken out his attacking knight, I would have been significantly better I think. Apparently after c5 instead of Qg3+ I was up like 1.8 - I don't really understand the vast differences there lol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Pretty nice. His opening the c file was not the smartest decision in the world lol. Yeah I think the thing about Nd5 is any response except O-O-O justifies it, but after O-O-O you don't really want your knight taken so you're pretty much obliged to take yourself and the doubled pawns aren't really an issue (in fact black might like the g file).

    Speaking of attacking vs defending, I played a 30|0 game just after waking up this morning. As might be expected, I blunder a pawn (one won in a gambit anyway, but still) and am stuck in probably the worse side of an IQP position, but tactics save the day. He is better up until the very last move (only like -0.2 here though, despite being up a pawn) he makes when he blunders mate in 3.. https://www.chess.com/live/game/1718580509
    (well actually, not better up until that point, but at that point)
    Lol I was analysing while typing that last message and nice to see you playing perfectly for the first 10 moves. Unfortunately missing Bxg6 means that you lose the whole advantage and after that it's roughly equal for a long time.

    Towards the end though there were quite a few cute tactics available that could've won you the game, mainly exploiting mate threats (such as c5) but most notable was Bc7 (following Nd7) which had a nice fork idea in response to Rc8.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Lol I was analysing while typing that last message and nice to see you playing perfectly for the first 10 moves. Unfortunately missing Bxg6 means that you lose the whole advantage and after that it's roughly equal for a long time.

    Towards the end though there were quite a few cute tactics available that could've won you the game, mainly exploiting mate threats (such as c5) but most notable was Bc7 (following Nd7) which had a nice fork idea in response to Rc8.
    Yeah I looked at Bc7 from the computer. Pretty fun stuff. I think it was still better for a bit after Nxf6.
    Just lost two blitz games on time because I forgot about them lol. Oops.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Yeah I looked at Bc7 from the computer. Pretty fun stuff. I think it was still better for a bit after Nxf6.
    Just lost two blitz games on time because I forgot about them lol. Oops.
    Lol, I might start playing some blitz just for the bantz. Don't know whether I'm brave enough to play rated games though...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Lol, I might start playing some blitz just for the bantz. Don't know whether I'm brave enough to play rated games though...
    Well your blitz rating doesn't really say that much about your chess ability. I mean, great chess players are invariably great blitz players, but I think at lower levels, when there is less experience and not the same instant understanding of a wide array of positions and tactical motifs that facilitates fast play, being poor at blitz can be forgiven. So I try not to worry too much about my blitz rating (and, indeed, overall percentile) being inferior to my others. And bullet ratings, lol, doesn't matter at all.
 
 
 
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 4, 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.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

Quick Link:

Unanswered Forum Games Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Study resources

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.