From zefrank
This is an experimental move challange page... We are still not quite sure how we will do this. My idea right now is that it is quite free format so basically anyone can make the moves, but obviously only for the side they think is stronger... If you disagree with a move that someone else on your "team" has made, we should branch the game, and then you sign your section and then only you respond... that will then form a challange me from this position section... maybe? The branching can get completely out of control, but maybe it won't...
- Out of control branching would be cool as hell. Would the wiki gain a machine intelligence from the branches and circular logic? --Medwards
- Short note on the tabled diagrammes: if you put diagrammes next to eachother, don't forget the pipe (the '|' symbol) before the templates!
Qc2 -- black to play
|
|
End position
|
|
| 5. ... Ne4 6. Qc2 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Ba5 8. Ba3
|
|
- I think the game can play out on the board to the right by keeping the move history in the captions, and here we can just leave some comments about the current state of the board. Oh but I forgot to comment: uhm... I have already crushed your attack, you knight is moving around in circles in the desert! gelbitalk
- If he moves Qc2 it is not a threat to us, the Queen isn't threatening our Knight (our knight is covered by a pawn) ßrigaderant
- Do you still think it is harmless? gelbitalk
- I'd fight tooth and nail against 6. Qc2 O-O, 6. Qc2 Nxc3 or 6. Qc2 Bc3 would be the move. 6. Qc2 f5 would also work to cover the Knight (for those that don't want to exchange)
- Yes, I'm starting to believe in this... but now we have to move the bishop, just continue a few more moves. --gelbitalk 18:01, 29 June 2006 (PDT)
- I adjusted the board for Ba5 for retreating the bishop .. although I personally think I'd rahter defend the knight with 6. Qc2 f5, advancing another pawn and keeping our knight 'in his face'
Continue with the more likely pawn trade 8. cxd5 exd5 and look where things wind up. No lead or momentum for black. The only option is to bring out the next knight and try the same nonsense again. A lot of chopping but no firewood... in fact I think white gains ground. Me no likey. muyfabulosotalk 18:51, 29 June 2006 (PDT)
- You can do that move anywhere... I mean anytime... Ba3 prevents black from castling! The exchange would come very soon indeed. Either way, the current board doesn't look good for us! --gelbitalk 18:56, 29 June 2006 (PDT)
6. Bd2
Knight Exchange -- white to play
|
|
|
Hypothetical 7. bxc3 Ba5
|
|
| 6. Bd2 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Ba4 8. Qa4+ Nc6
|
|
- I see Ze's next move being (for the above end senario senario, and assuming the exchange) 8. c4Xd5. We then could take with the Queen at ... Qxd5, but the answer (this is getting quite far thought out, and there could be other responses.) would be to move pawn to e4, forcing the Queen to backpedal, losing a move. Also, once again there is a huge amount of movement for Ze, in both the end result of senario Qc2, and my above pan-out of this speculation. In comparasin with Bd2, that one, though an exchange, gives us more forward momentum, whereas this senario means we are on the backfoot, (the exchage means we still are the one's causing the situation, whereas this move we are reacting to his situation. I prefer being the proactive one in a chess game, not the reactive. - Danetrix
Support Knight -- white to play
- This would be the 'book' response, attempting to un-pin his knight, and would probably progress as 6. Bd2 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Be7 doubling his pawns and shredding his queenside pawn structure. ßrigaderant
- Why does he do 7. Bxc3 when he could do 7. bxc3 ... leading to (all other plays remaining the same) to 7. ... Bxc3 8. Bxc3 leaving him dominate with a bishop? medwardstalk
- Valid point .. if he re-captured the Knight with 7. bxc3 then I'd counsel for retreating the bishop. Note that this is ONLY if we wanted to exchange knights .. there's a few other lines there that I'll work out if you want me to. I'll go ahead and update the line/board. Note that Ba5 doesn't work here, as 8. Qa4+ loses the bishop.ßrigaderant
- 8. Qa4+ Nc6? medwardstalk
- Yea .. that's one likely line, and his attack stagnates. He'd probably make a 'development move' and then we'd castle and/or counter threaten his queen with 9. .. a6 and 10. .. b5 (assuming he leaves his queen out, and/or exchanges his c-pawn for our d-pawn .. the lines branch out a LOT at this juncture. ßrigaderant
- Actually .. after 8. Qa4+ Nc6 9. .. Bd7 would be brilliant .. allowing us to pick up a free pawn (by moving our Nc6 knight, we'd uncover our bishop and threaten to capture his queen, forcing a retreat. ßrigaderant
- True, this would shread the queenside pawn structure, however, we end up with Ze having a large percent of the centre control, and the diagonals, and a coloum are opened up, with him most likely to gain the coloum control first. Expecially when Ze would then decide to get rid of his c4 pawn in an exchange, and possibly gain more space for his white Bishop to extend. I personally don't like the book response if the game would pan out this way. To much line control given to Ze for just an exchange of peices. Also, we won't have enough peices out there to defend an advance on said line control because we aren't as developed. Danetrix
Take the Bishop down!
Why not take it down?
6. Bd3??
|
|
|
End position
|
|
| 6. Bd3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Bxc3+
|
|
- This would be a BAD move for Ze, and we would capitalize on it by exchanging knights, winning a pawn, then putting him in check and taking his rook. Note that there is no immediate way to re-take our bishop (after Bxa1) but we'd probably lose it. However, rooks are more valuable than bishops (5 points to 3.25 points) and we'd have a winning endgame unless we made a big mistake that allowed him to equalize. ßrigaderant
- You're right, this was my gut response to your move and I would have been toast. But what about 7. Qc2 ... which removes the need to immediately capture the knight with bxc3 (although we can now safely take him and threaten the bishop) medwardstalk
6. a3??
- Again, a fork of his Rook/King, forcing a loss. Just another example of a 'bad' Ze move (basically, if he makes any move OTHER than Qd3 or Bd2, he'll lose his rook and a pawn on forced exchanges.
