Use your brain too, using chess engine won't help you.
You may let Rybka run on one position for 10 minute then see which move he make. But you have also to understand them
In the staunton Gambit
After
1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5
You come at a terrible choice, theorie consider Nc6! even if this give back the pawn, the Knight goes to f7. But there is also c6 which allow black good game. In both way you lose the pawn.
(I wish I knew how to make FEN )
Originally posted by Sophy"I wish I knew how to make FEN"
Use your brain too, using chess engine won't help you.
You may let Rybka run on one position for 10 minute then see which move he make. But you have also to understand them
In the staunton Gambit
After
1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5
You come at a terrible choice, theorie consider Nc6! even if this give back the pawn, the Knight goes to f7. But the ...[text shortened]... hich allow black good game. In both way you lose the pawn.
(I wish I knew how to make FEN )
It's quite easy really.
But go to Site Ideas and ask if we can have a position-setter-upper.
We enter the moves on a screen, click a copy button and when we
paste it into our posts it will add on all the [fen] tags.
Originally posted by SophyI played this line as white in a postal game 10 years ago.
Use your brain too, using chess engine won't help you.
You may let Rybka run on one position for 10 minute then see which move he make. But you have also to understand them
In the staunton Gambit
After
1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5
You come at a terrible choice, theorie consider Nc6! even if this give back the pawn, the Knight goes to f7. But the ...[text shortened]... hich allow black good game. In both way you lose the pawn.
(I wish I knew how to make FEN )
I look at the final position now and think I should perhaps have played on, instead of agreeing the draw. The opening leads to a complex and unbalanced position as you say.
- 8
- a
- 7
- b
- 6
- c
- 5
- d
- 4
- e
- 3
- f
- 2
- g
- 1
- h
| 1. | d4 | f5 |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | e4 | fxe4 |
| 3. | Nc3 | Nf6 |
| 4. | Bg5 | Nc6 |
| 5. | d5 | Ne5 |
| 6. | Qd4 | Nf7 |
| 7. | Bh4 | g5 |
| 8. | Bg3 | Bg7 |
| 9. | O-O-O | c6 |
| 10. | Nxe4 | Qb6 |
| 11. | Qxb6 | axb6 |
| 12. | Nxf6 | Bxf6 |
| 13. | Kb1 | d6 |
| 14. | h4 | cxd5 |
| 15. | Bb5 | Kf8 |
| 16. | hxg5 | Nxg5 |
| 17. | Bh4 | Be6 |
| 18. | Bxg5 | Bxg5 |
| 19. | Nf3 | Bf6 |
| 20. | Nd4 | Bf7 |
| 21. | Bd7 | Bxd4 |
| 22. | Rxd4 | e5 |
| 23. | Rb4 | Ke7 |
| 24. | Bf5 | Bg6 |
| 25. | Bd3 | e4 |
| 26. | Be2 | Rhf8 |
| 27. | f3 | Rac8 |
| 28. | Rxb6 | Rc7 |
| 29. | Re1 | Kd7 |
| 30. | Ka1 | Rxc2 |
| 31. | Rxb7 | Kc6 |
| 32. | Rb4 | Kc5 |
| 33. | a3 | Rc8 |
| 34. | Bb5 | exf3 |
| 35. | gxf3 | Rf8 |
| 36. | Rd1 | Rxf3 |
| 37. | Ba4 | Rff2 |
| 38. | Bxc2 | Bxc2 |
| 39. | Rc1 | d4 |
| 40. | b3 | Kd5 |
| 41. | a4 |
It would be interesting to have analysis from a strong player but only after you've worked
hard at analysing the game your self.
The problem I have with engine analysis is that I look at it and go oh yeah thats a better
move oh and so is that and oh look I got that just the same as the engine (a recapture)...
and that's it. This is not at tall taxing and has minimal value.
But if you spend a lot of time on a position stretching the knowledge and ability you have then some analysis/comments from a stronger player might just reveal something. But there is no short cut.
We all have a thing called - (and I love this expression) "zone of proximal development" and this refers to the stuff which is within our capability to learn next. A talented chess teacher like a talented music teacher will give you something just on the horizon of this zone - something you can just grasp if you work. But being spoon fed information from beyond that zone probably wont mean much. This is one of the reasons there are so many different opinions
about chess books. It's not just the right chess book, it's the right chess book - at the right time.
Trying to leap frog onto a level beyond can be quite futile - I know I've tried it. I went to a Doveretsky lecture at the London Chess Centre. It was aimed at higher rater players and I
was really glad to go...but I just didn't get it.
Hard as I tried, and hard as I stared at the demo board and hard, as I listened to the words he was saying - almost nothing made any practical sense. I struggled with elementary matters in the positions shown even asking a few questions didn't help much. It was more a glimpse into the ocean of knowledge beyond. A reminder of how much there is to learn.
So my recommendation would be to study one of your own games really thoroughly before asking a stronger player to look over it.
And bear in mind that not all stronger players are good at communicating their knowledge. A strong chess player may think in terms of the chess moves and variations but lack clarity
or struggle to find appropriate simplifications when it comes to squeezing their knowledge
into tangible verbal explanations.
Originally posted by MahoutWell said. Rec'd.
It would be interesting to have analysis from a strong player but only after you've worked
hard at analysing the game your self.
The problem I have with engine analysis is that I look at it and go oh yeah thats a better
move oh and so is that and oh look I got that just the same as the engine (a recapture)...
and that's it. This is not at tall taxing ...[text shortened]... ations when it comes to squeezing their knowledge
into tangible verbal explanations.
Originally posted by Mahout..thats was deep
It would be interesting to have analysis from a strong player but only after you've worked
hard at analysing the game your self.
The problem I have with engine analysis is that I look at it and go oh yeah thats a better
move oh and so is that and oh look I got that just the same as the engine (a recapture)...
and that's it. This is not at tall taxing ...[text shortened]... ations when it comes to squeezing their knowledge
into tangible verbal explanations.