Fabuloso Friday 2/Fabuloso Chess/Move9

From zefrank

Jump to: navigation, search

Dumping Ground for NON GAME SPECULATION arguement threads. Links have been inserted where conversations have been altered. If anyone disagrees with this action, please feel free to contribute your opinions.

  • My Opinion: How can we expect to beat Ze at a simple game if we're too busy jamming up the wiki with back-and-forth insults (direct or veiled) or philosophical debate? Let's keep the speculation to the GAME, and leave the rest at the curb. ßrigaderant 14:08, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
    • agreed. perhaps we can argree to stop taking evaluations of the value of a move as personal insult?

Bxc3

Speculative Move
Image:chess_zhor_22.png
Image:chess_zver_22.png
a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8
a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7
a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6
a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5
a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4
a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3
a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2
a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1
Image:chess_zver_22.png
Image:chess_zhor_22.png
Speculative Move: 9. a3 Bxc3
  • Possibly the best of the exchange variations, although we're exchanging our (slightly more valuable) dark bishop for his (slightly weaker) Knight, however we maintain tempo and control his next move (most likely bxc3, but there may be alternatives). ßrigaderant
  • not "possibly" definitely. Simply the only move that doesn't leave black in a pssive position after white blows up the center. Kingpatzer 12:16, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Yeah, I can't believe Ze didn't do 9. cxd5. Bxc3 capitalizes on his goof and brings us closer to parity. I wonder if he's toying with us or if he's just not trying or not very good? Jeff
  • But what happens if he doesn't use bxc3 to recapture? Is Bxe4 decisive? (Each of us has lost a piece, and has a piece threatened, so it's still an even exchange) .. ßrigaderant
    • Yes, Bxe4 is strongly in black's favor. 10. Bxe4 fxe4. Black would then have captured a Bishop & a Knight, while White would only have captured a Knight. White could then take our bishop, but would end up trading his Knight for a pawn. Ze's only real move is bxc3, giving us control on our next move. Shadowcrash 12:56, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
    • guys, you can't examine his worse move. You have to assume he'll play the best move on the board. Anything else is losing chess. Kingpatzer 12:59, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
      • We're not 'examining his worst move' .. we're evaluating potential responses .. and establishing what his best move is. Question: This is the obvious response, but what about this vague response? Answer: No, the vague response is worse than the obvious one. Instead of criticizing everyone else, why not be constructive instead and help with the analysis? ßrigaderant
        • Seriously. If you (as in kingpatzer) want to sway the masses away from brigade's view, which has pretty much been running the show, you'll have to convince people to agree with you. While it may be valuable and necessary, teaching all of the people voting about chess theory will never happen. If you want people to vote for the best move (or as you say, the least bad move), then I believe it has to be shown WHY it is such. While you may not think any move is good, you are going to have a very hard time selling a move as "the least worst" vs. Brigade who is selling it as "the best". Try and put your best foot forward. This isn't chess man, this is propaganda, which is why I've just been nitpicking for the most part and seldomly voting. arc
  • Maybe we're going about this the wrong way. I am convinced this is the best move for Black. If anyone (i.e. ßrigade) thinks this is not, then please say what you think the best move is and what you think White's best response to this is. That way we can narrow it down to just two branches of the tree. What I'm proposing is that we should just try an adversarial approach using moves rather than words. Jeff
    I'm not suggesting that this move is good or bad .. I haven't made that decision myself yet on what our move should be. I'm just tired of getting blasted for trying to help myself and others figure out what our best move is. This is supposed to be a fun community effort, which doesn't require a chess philosophy debate or trading insults. I don't vote on a move, and I don't try to defend a move, unless I myself believe it to be the best we have. I've both voted for and against moves that I myself have suggested .. hell I even suggested this one as a possibility .. which is what I'm trying to do .. evaluate our options so we can play well together. ßrigaderant
  • I don't think the 'community' will get anywhere unless we debate the pro and con of various options. Right or wrong, my impression is that a lot of the 'community' vote along with your recommendation. That is the only reason I addressed this specifically to you. Please pick a move now at least temporarily so we can pare down the possibilities. Jeff
  • the most promising line from this position is 9. ... Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ba6 (pressures the c pawn and helps protect our center) 11. Ne5 when we have a couple of choices:
11. .. dxc4 is playable but dangerous as we pretty much agree to trash our pawn structure after 12. Bxe4 fxe4 13. Qxe4 we're effectively a pawn down (we can't keep the e pawn for long) and will still probably lose. However, we have a good line for our bishop and some temporary advantages that we might be able to make use.
11. .. Ng5 12. cxd5 Bxd3 13. Nxd3 Qxd5 14. c4 and we have a better pawn structure, though still not optimal, two knights against a bishop-knight pair. We can make this work but we'll have to be carefull to trade off our backward pawn as soon as possible.
11. .. Nf6 plays out the same as the above line more or less.
in both of the above lines, instead of Qxd5, exd5 can be played which leads to a better pawn structure but presents a challenge in stopping a future pawn advance by white should we ever lose the c pawn. Kingpatzer 13:41, 7 July 2006 (PDT)


  • We're not going to argue chess theory for the remainder of the game .. we're trying to discuss strategy. It detracts from the game itself, which is what we're trying to do, win a game. We cannot fixate on ONE potential good/bad move of Ze's .. we need to analyze and evalaute as many potential threats as possible, in a short span of time, and optimize our position to take into account both his threats and his weaknesses. ßrigaderant
    • if you don't understand the way the game is played you can't optimally analyze moves. Looking at your oponents sub-optimum responses is a waste of time precisely because they are sub-optimum responses and thus good for you. A move is bad for you if there is ONE response to it that demonstrates that the move weakens your position. It doesn't matter how many ways your oponent can blunder away the win. Kingpatzer 13:14, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
      • I tend to agree with kingpatzer about this point. We should plan for his best possible responses and rejoice when he scrws the pooch. By the way I was the one who initially proposed this move, just so you know I am trying to be objective.... SalMancini
        • I agree with Brigade. Its stupid to not choose a move just because your opponent can utterly cripple you with his response to it. We have to consider all the posibilities. What if we make this move and Ze resigns? Wouldn't that be something! Wophugus
      • I thought the point was to win. I play alot of 5 minute blitz games. In short games likethat you can reliably count on your opponent screwiing up and just not thinking as far ahead or as quickly as you. This is the exact opposite of that. I am not completely comfortable with this deep analysis approach, but it does make sense in this situation. I hope this is not going to digress into a popularity contest. Several of my suggestions got shot down pretty bad and i took it like a man.SalMancini
  • Brigade -- I'm sorry if you find my curt evaluations as some sort of personal insult. They are not intended that way. Kingpatzer 14:12, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
    • Man .. I'm not insulted. We're both passionate people who believe in the game. We just have different opinions on the game (in general, figurative sense) .. I have no issue with you or with your vision, but we don't need to be debating our relative belief systems on the open boards. It detracts from the actual speculation, and only causes confusion. That's why I moved everything here. Let's just keep it to simple analysis and leave the heavy-fisted stuff at the door. ßrigaderant 14:15, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
      • cool. btw, still waiting for a response move in our game :) Kingpatzer 14:20, 7 July 2006 (PDT)

Be7

Current Position
Image:chess_zhor_22.png
Image:chess_zver_22.png
a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8
a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7
a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6
a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5
a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4
a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3
a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2
a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1
Image:chess_zver_22.png
Image:chess_zhor_22.png
Last Move: 9. a3 Be7
  • I would like to keep the queen pointed up the middle while allowing the bishop to aplly pressure to the diagonal. d5 is vulnerable as well as e4.
    • Also potentially allows for us to respond to Ne5 with Bf6 .. ßrigaderant
  • as with Bd6, what's the response to cxd5, besides tears? Kingpatzer 12:18, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
  • I see three responses to cxd5, but we need to evaluate all of ze's options .. he's shown us in past moves (as well as this one) that he makes moves based on something that we cannot understand (for good or bad) ßrigaderant .. none of us proposed a3 during the last discussion .. that said:
9. .. exd5 maintains material exchange, but isolates our pawns at d5 and f5.
9. .. Nxc3 10. bxc3 Qxd5 might look a bit better, but deserves further analysis.
  • I think you mean 9. ... Bd7 10. cxd5 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Qxd5
9. .. c5. Let him have the pawn. He has a myriad of responses and we'll end up a pawn down, but what move can we make on 10. to capitalize on this?
  • So... 10. cxd5 exd5 11.Nd5? Salmancini
  • Think it loses for us. 11. Nd5 Qxd5 12. Bc4 pins our Queen .. so we're losing a pawn unless there's another option here. ßrigaderant
  • we can't evaluate all possible responses to a move, the tree's too big. We can safetly ignore those moves of his that negatively impact him. Remember in chess (as in any state game) it is impossible to do anything to make your position better. You can either keep your level of advantage/disadvantage the same or make it worse. You can not improve. Winning chess relies on making least bad movesThat said let's look at these lines:
9. .. Be7 10. cxd5 exd5 11. Nxd5 and now we have to waste tempo moving the bishop so Bb6 12. Nf4 and black is really hurting. we'll have a hard time protecting the a8-h1 diagonal and we're down a pretty important pawn.
9. .. Be7 10. cxd4 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Qxd5 12. e4 Qd6 13. exf5 exf5 14. Qb3+ Kh8 15. Ne5 black's not busted here but he's got a long way to go to prove it. Ze's completely developed and entirely passive.
9. .. Be7 10. c5 (once again BAD move in these sorts of positiosn, but we can dream) bxd5 11. b3 Ba6 etc. more or less equal game. But we get here by Ze making a very sub-optimal move Kingpatzer 12:52, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
  • We're not going to argue chess theory for the remainder of the game .. we're trying to discuss strategy. It detracts from the game itself, which is what we're trying to do, win a game. We cannot fixate on ONE potential good/bad move of Ze's .. we need to analyze and evalaute as many potential threats as possible, in a short span of time, and optimize our position to take into account both his threats and his weaknesses. ßrigaderant
    • if you don't understand the way the game is played you can't optimally analyze moves. Looking at your oponents sub-optimum responses is a waste of time precisely because they are sub-optimum responses and thus good for you. A move is bad for you if there is ONE response to it that demonstrates that the move weakens your position. It doesn't matter how many ways your oponent can blunder away the win. Kingpatzer 13:14, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
      • I tend to agree with kingpatzer about this point. We should plan for his best possible responses and rejoice when he scrws the pooch. By the way I was the one who initially proposed this move, just so you know I am trying to be objective.... SalMancini
        • I agree with Brigade. Its stupid to not choose a move just because your opponent can utterly cripple you with his response to it. We have to consider all the posibilities. What if we make this move and Ze resigns? Wouldn't that be something! Wophugus
          • I think you just defined what a bad move is. Yeah maybe he'll have a stroke and we'll win by default.SalMancini
          • Are you guys serious? You would advocate a move for Black even if you knew a White response that would cripple Black? OMFG. Jeff
          • Well, I can only speak for myself when I say that I was kidding. Maybe I should put sarcasm in italics from now on. SalMancini
  • I think Brigade's point is being missed. The midgame has such a broad range of possible approaches that it doesn't make sense to talk about a single perfect move that we need to respond to. We don't know / didn't think of the implications of a3 when we were planning last turn and we have no idea what his next move will be. Right now both sides can make quite a few good moves and an arbitrary focus on any one response won't necessarily benefit. Strategy games play on multiple fronts, we need to consider the whole board and a wide range of Ze's possible moves. It isn't a case of looking at 'sub-optimum' moves, it's a case of trying to discern our best response given that he could do any of a number of solid moves or moves that do not necessarily pay off immediately. Kingpatzer's previous message here made it sound as though there is one and only one way to play the perfect chess game and all chess games played are inferior attempts to replicate it. Chess is won or lost not by individual moves but by the overall thread of the game. Further if we have a strong idea of what his weak moves are, we'd be better able to take full advantage of them. He has the advantage of being able to see our planning while we can't see his, but we have the advantage of collective time - we're a distributed chess-playing network, we can analyze and play through more move trees in less time. We need to play to our advantages. He who says zonk 01:09, 9 July 2006 (PDT)
Personal tools