Or my opponent for that matter? I offered a draw, BECAUSE I WAS GETING SICK OF THIS REPETITIVE GAME, and my opponent immediately accepted. Beware, this game is quite long, and quite boring.
Game 662364
Originally posted by mateuloseIt looks like as dead a draw has I've ever seen; the pawn structure makes it so White can never force entry with his King to win any of the pawns and Black's Rook is confined to the back row to prevent mate. I don't see any way for either side to make progress even though you're up a pawn. Draw.
Or my opponent for that matter? I offered a draw, BECAUSE I WAS GETING SICK OF THIS REPETITIVE GAME, and my opponent immediately accepted. Beware, this game is quite long, and quite boring.
Game 662364
Well, pawns are even actually, I felt like I had a slight advantage this entire game right from the start, but couldn't convert because of my opponents cute defending. I thought with the active rooks, the weak backward pawn, and the possible threats of backrank mate, would be enough to try and force a win, but alas, it is not so. As Kasparov once said theory does not always = practice. All theory considered, white should of probably won this game, but it was a draw all along in practice.
LOL. Sorry, but Mateulose you crack me up sometimes. You're not as bad a player as you like to portray yourself, man.
Actually, white is not up a pawn, material is equal.
To be fair, I played not very well in this game and I think white had a win at one point.
But you see, I was practicing my "king-shuffle"....from f7 to f8 and back again, like the endless cycles of reincarnation in Buddhism/Hinduism....which contributed to the game being possibly the MOST BORING in history...😴
LOL
I obviously gave the board a cursory glance at first; material is even. I thought he was asking if the final position is drawn; the answer to me is yes for the reasons that I gave above. To the question could I have won the game; well, the answer to that question is always yes if you had played better than your opponent. I only looked at the final position, not the entire game; you'll always find some better moves somewhere, but there are usually better moves for the opponent as well.
mateulose,
I looked at your game and everything up to move ten wasn't bad. After the pawn exchange down the middle at dxc5, both your next moves were a perfect description of the momentum throughout the entire 53-move draw. There's no agressive tactic. Both of you played way to safe. At move ten, I would have wanted to see a significant challenge for tactical position, i.e. perhaps king's knight to e5 and then take Chuck's knights away in exchanges. His bishop is stuck way back in the corner. Move 11 was completely wishy-washy from the get-go. You'd so obviously set yourself up to castle in move 10, and then you did next turn. Chuck responded with a really weak pawn development that you did capitalize upon by developing your rook. But then in move 15, white, TAKE THE KNIGHT. I mean, oh my GOD. 15w - Nf3xd4, then Chuck's pawn takes your knight, your rook takes his pawn, and from the looks of it you would've set up your rook for major offensive development. Instead, you got your king in trouble under a super-trivial 'check' and all Chuck's and your rooks then suddenly got slightly huffy and standoffish over a basically rather impotent center, finally leading to an anticlimactic draw. White, your move 17 was kind of ridiculous. And the development after that was just totally ineffective on both sides.
I don't know. Just my 2 cents. 😕
Excellent job, Mindbuzz. An appropriately detatched and subtly derogatory analysis of a solid contender for the Most Boring Game in history...
But what did you expect from a game played by Charlie Brown? While I was playing I even managed to get my kite entangled around my head...
😉
Mindbuzz....from your analysis...
"TAKE THE KNIGHT. I mean, oh my GOD. 15w - Nf3xd4, then Chuck's pawn takes your knight, your rook takes his pawn..."
No man, you missed the bishop hiding on h8. If rook takes pawn, then bishop gobbles rook and Blockhead wins...
😲
Well, if there is a title for this game, it should be the "Game of Positional Boring Cowardice".
You have to understand, at the time we played this, Chuck was a 1700 rated player, or almost at that level, and I was just over p1600, which is very unclear position to be in, rating wise. I got that p1600 rating off beating 1500, and 1400 rated players, so you can see how playing a 1700 rater is a whole different ballpark. I didn't know how good, or how bad, I was at correspondance chess, or RHP for that matter, so I gave my opponent too much respect it seems. It seems chuck did the same thing, not knowing what to expect from a p1600 at that time.
In the end, I played perhabs the only game in my history that involved absolutely ZERO tactical play. The game was so boring and simple, that I was playing moves, drunk like a b-astard, at 2am in the morning, and still didn't find a way to lose. 😴
Originally posted by rosenkilde1988I actually spent a very long time thinking what pawn to push, f5 looked good, but then black simply pushes, avoids pawn exchanges, by playing g5, and white's h pawn is weak, overextended and in trouble. For example, black has a little "sanctuary" for his king on g6, which also attacks the undefended isolated h pawn, and would likely freeze up one of my rooks.
I think 35w - g5 was the desicive mistake by white. 35w - f5 looks like a won endgame for white.
This simply gives black a fighting chance, and I dicided that it was better to play a drawish game with a white slight advantage, then to actually give black a chance to fight. I wanted to keep the black king in it's cage, unfortunenately, I never considered the king had just enough breathing space left to simply move back and forth. At many times during the game, I said to myself, "if only he moved his rook", but no, LOL!
Originally posted by Chuck BrownYou're right. This is why I can't play blitz chess. But the first point was still valid. Mat's knight takes knight. Chuck's pawn or bishop (probably the bishop) takes mateulose's knight. And then DON'T take with the rook. Different game entirely as a result. Chuck, your bishop would be in line to strike, but he lacks good backup. Mat's bishops are in about the same predicament.
Mindbuzz....from your analysis...
[b]"TAKE THE KNIGHT. I mean, oh my GOD. 15w - Nf3xd4, then Chuck's pawn takes your knight, your rook takes his pawn..."
No man, you missed the bishop hiding on h8. If rook takes pawn, then bishop gobbles rook and Blockhead wins...
😲[/b]
The g6 square isn't aviable for blacks king because of the pawn at f5 😀 Blacks pieces are tied to the weak pawn at e7. All these factors gives you a winning position if you plays the endgame right. (the h6 pawn is weak..... But how can black attack it??? It seems impossible)
Originally posted by rosenkilde1988There's one thing missing from your appraisal of the position. How is White's king supposed to get into the Black position? And Black's pawn on e7 isn't "weak". Names like "backward" don't make a pawn weak; pawns are only weak if you can effectively attack them. This one is easily defended here by the rook and king. And they don't mind defending this pawn because there are absolutely no other points of attack anywhere.
The g6 square isn't aviable for blacks king because of the pawn at f5 😀 Blacks pieces are tied to the weak pawn at e7. All these factors gives you a winning position if you plays the endgame right. (the h6 pawn is weak..... But how can black attack it??? It seems impossible)
Also, how is the pawn on h6 weak? It can't be reached by the Black king, or either of the rooks.