I was going over some of Korchnoi's games and I noticed that something always bugs me. You going over the game and right in the middle of it, one of the players resigns.
Yes, I fully understand that at their level even a slight positional advantage/disadvantage assures victory/defeat. But nonetheless, it drives me nuts spending 10 minutes trying to figure out why they resigned. Does anyone else do this?
I wonder if one day they will get so in-depth that they will start resiging in the opening. 😲
Originally posted by saintnickmouse2 and goldfish1 and I spent large parts of two days last summer debating who, if anyone (Black or White), should resign before the game begins...
I was going over some of Korchnoi's games and I noticed that something always bugs me. You going over the game and right in the middle of it, one of the players resigns.
Yes, I fully understand that at their level even a slight positional advantage/disadvantage assures victory/defeat. But nonetheless, it drives me nuts spending 10 minutes trying to fi ...[text shortened]...
I wonder if one day they will get so in-depth that they will start resiging in the opening. 😲
Originally posted by saintnick
it drives me nuts spending 10 minutes trying to figure out why they resigned. Does anyone else do this?
I wonder if one day they will get so in-depth that they will start resiging in the opening. 😲
you can work it out in just 10 minutes? - you must be a master yourself !!!!!!!!
"resigning in the opening" - i often do this, so i am beyond grandmaster level 😏
Originally posted by royalchickenapparently, if a perfect chess program was created-twould resign before it's first move if it was black because it would see there was no chance of it winning...
mouse2 and goldfish1 and I spent large parts of two days last summer debating who, if anyone (Black or White), should resign before the game begins...
Originally posted by geniusI disagree. It is a common notion in GM circles that perfect play on both sides leads to a drawn position. It is only when one side blunders. Of this i must agree, even if i can't find a drawn position to save my life 😛
apparently, if a perfect chess program was created-twould resign before it's first move if it was black because it would see there was no chance of it winning...
Originally posted by marinakatombsome people reckon you might both be wrong: white is in zugzwang and should resign imediately.
I disagree. It is a common notion in GM circles that perfect play on both sides leads to a drawn position. It is only when one side blunders. Of this i must agree, even if i can't find a drawn position to save my life 😛
but of course this is rubbish: if there was a perfect chess playing computer it would be down the pub enjoying fun games of imperfect drunken chess with its mates.
Good point, huntingbear. The notation never shows the time or really how they lost. Maybe that will make me sleep better, but I think most of the time it's because they are looking 30+ moves into the game. I believe the others are right also, If no one makes a mistake, it should leave to a draw. The hard part is trying to figure out what was the mistake and what was the resulting advantage that caused a resignation. (they all look like normal moves and both sides look even 🙄 )
Originally posted by saintnickI once read an issue of Chess Life that featured a game between two GM's that ended in Black losing. The headline of the article was "Where's the mistake?" And sure enough, none of the GM's who had looked at this game could see where Black went wrong. I wish I could remember what issue that was.
. I believe the others are right also, If no one makes a mistake, it should leave to a draw. The hard part is trying to figure out what was the mistake and what was the resulting advantage that caused a resignation. (they all look like normal moves and both sides look even 🙄 )
Last saturday I watched two woman masters duke it out in a womans tournament in chanhassen Mn. They are both russians. It looked as though the game was into a pretty closed middle game and they both looked at eachother and shook hands ending the match in a draw. All of us just looked at eachother trying to figgure it out. Then they started pushing peices around the board and working through the endgame and sure enough it would have been a draw. I guess that with two strong equally rated players like that you cant count on one making a bad blunder. If it goes piece for piece there was nothing left but the kings.
Mike
Originally posted by rapalla7This sort of thing comes from close study of end game techniques. They were probably going on certain charactaristics. In a rook end game for example, a pawn on the edge of the board is statistically harder to convert to a queen than a pawn in say, the c file. Once you have studied this particular rook end game you will be able to tell if the position is drawn (and more importantly find the draw). The same goes for most endings, be it bishops v bishops, knights v bishops, whatever. ~>*😛
Last saturday I watched two woman masters duke it out in a womans tournament in chanhassen Mn. They are both russians. It looked as though the game was into a pretty closed middle game and they both looked at eachother and shook hands ending the match in a draw. All of us just looked at eachother trying to figgure it out. Then they started pushing peice ...[text shortened]... making a bad blunder. If it goes piece for piece there was nothing left but the kings.
Mike