Chess lessons.

Originally posted by Eladar
[pgn]1. e4 e5 2. Ng1f3 Nb8c6 3. Nb1c3 Ng8f6 4. Bf1c4 d6 5. Nf3g5 Bc8e6 6. Bc4xe6 fxe6 7. Ng5xe6 Qd8e7 8. Ne6xf8 Qe7xf8 9. Nc3b5 O-O-O 10. O-O a6 11. Nb5c3 Nc6d4 12. a3 h5 13. d3 h4 14. Bc1e3 Qf8f7 15. b4 h3 16. g3 Qf7g6 17. a4 Nf6h5 18. Nc3d5 [/pgn]

After white plays 18.Nc3d5, what is his threat? What is it about black's position that white can take advan ...[text shortened]... hop? In this game the knight was king, but for the most part which is the better piece for you?

In this game after 18.Nc3d5 the threat to black is the fork if whites next move is Nf7. Both the king and queen would be under threat and in this instance the black queen would be lost.

Black needs to defend against this move perhaps? Having looked at it there seem to be quite a few ways that this may be achieved. Rd8 to e7, Nd4c6, there again the queen could cover e7 I'm not sure if the queen is better left where she is.

I think that I would play the Rh8e8 this covers the e7 move and defends against the fork. It also brings the rook more into play along the e file.

Regards.

Willy.....

Originally posted by Sirdubalot
So after white plays 6.d4 there is a direct threat on the black pawn on e4, having looked at it black has to do something now as whites next move will probably be 7.d5 developing a pawn fork on the knight and bishop on c 3 and 5.

I'm not 100% certain what black should play but my thoughts lead me to e5 x d4 threatening the knight on c3 and removes t ...[text shortened]... n the d file, I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing to be honest.

Regards

Willy.....

In that situation I'd play dxe4 without a second thought. I wouldn't concern myself with doubled pawns since I am certain that after being a pawn up at the moment white is going to win back that pawn.

Notice that d4 is being attacked twice by black and defended once by black. White is free to retake d4 with Nxd4.

In the end black does not lose a piece needlessly and does not give the game away.

Perhaps after seeing this you will see that maybe it is better to not develop your bishop and knight in such a way that they can be forked by a pawn.

One other thing about the first game I posted, why play 4.d6 a pawn move which cuts off your black bishop? Why not play the developing move 4.Bc5, it would develop a piece (better than a pawn move in the opening) as well as add force on the d4 square at the same time attacking f2. You would be free to castle as well as play d6 later to support your pawn on e5

Originally posted by Sirdubalot
In this game after 18.Nc3d5 the threat to black is the fork if whites next move is Nf7. Both the king and queen would be under threat and in this instance the black queen would be lost.

Black needs to defend against this move perhaps? Having looked at it there seem to be quite a few ways that this may be achieved. Rd8 to e7, Nd4c6, there again the que ...[text shortened]... nst the fork. It also brings the rook more into play along the e file.

Regards.

Willy.....

As you can see there are many ways to defend against losing black's queen. You've got to see the threat before you can defend against it. Another possibility would be to simply move the king or queen to a different color square.

A knight can never fork a queen and king who are on different color squares.

You didn't answer one of my questions:

Which piece do you believe is your better piece? A knight or a bishop?

Originally posted by Eladar
As you can see there are many ways to defend against losing black's queen. You've got to see the threat before you can defend against it. Another possibility would be to simply move the king or queen to a different color square.

A knight can never fork a queen and king who are on different color squares.

You didn't answer one of my questions:

Which piece do you believe is your better piece? A knight or a bishop?

It is said that in 9 of 10 situations the Bishop is better. (Perhaps exaggerated). It can swiftly move to many squares. BUT! It can only control squares of one color. Some textbooks rate the bishop as 3.5 pawns and the knight as 3 pawns.

2 bishops or 2 knights togheter cooperate well (the knights can protect each other).

Some textbooks say theat the king has the firepower of 3.5 pawns.

GM Khalifman, who also is a mathematician, has published a paper where he claim to have proven onece and for all that Bishops actually is better than knights. I see that as "mainly an accademic knowledge".

Some textbooks rate the pawns on files A and H as 0.5 pawns and the pawns on D and E as 1.5 pawns. My understanding of this although shallow. Is that these "rules of thumb" is mainly for helping people in the thinking process. Also could that information easily qualify as "mainly an accademic knowledge".

Originally posted by Eladar
As you can see there are many ways to defend against losing black's queen. You've got to see the threat before you can defend against it. Another possibility would be to simply move the king or queen to a different color square.

A knight can never fork a queen and king who are on different color squares.

You didn't answer one of my questions:

Which piece do you believe is your better piece? A knight or a bishop?

Hi Eladar,

Sorry my mistake, when given the opportunity when playing I would rather loose a knight over a bishop, I believe the bishop is a better piece for me I like to put them in places where they can command long diagonals.

Many thanks

Willy.....

Originally posted by Sirdubalot
Hi Eladar,

Sorry my mistake, when given the opportunity when playing I would rather loose a knight over a bishop, I believe the bishop is a better piece for me I like to put them in places where they can command long diagonals.

Many thanks

Willy.....

Most people do prefer bishops to knights, they are easier to play with but if you can get really good with knights you will really improve your game.

Having said that, look at the second game where you were playing with the white pieces.

After black's 5th move you can take black's bishop with either your knight or your bishop you decided to sac the bishop and follow up with your knight. Why not simply take with the knight allowing you to keep your bishop? You'd have the bishop pair and have the advantage of both colors versus just one.

Originally posted by bikingviking
It is said that in 9 of 10 situations the Bishop is better. (Perhaps exaggerated). It can swiftly move to many squares. BUT! It can only control squares of one color. Some textbooks rate the bishop as 3.5 pawns and the knight as 3 pawns.

2 bishops or 2 knights togheter cooperate well (the knights can protect each other).

Some textbooks say theat ...[text shortened]... thinking process. Also could that information easily qualify as "mainly an accademic knowledge".

K+B v K+N is a dead draw, checkmate is not possible. With K+R v K+N checkmate, or at least helpmate, for the side with the knight is possible:

Checkmate is not possible for the side with the bishop in K + B v K + R:

here black is forced to interpose with the rook and after white takes he's got a draw, but there is no win with K + B v K.

If black has a pawn either piece can checkmate, again this is a help mate, there's no way of forcing this:

So is the knight better? It can beat a rook but a bishop can't. In general bishops are better in open positions when they can control diagonals, knights are better in closed positions when the bishop's are hemmed in by pawns, but the knights are still mobile.

Here are a couple of endings to illustrate this. In the first one black's knight wins because the white bishop has little scope:

Game 1060430


In this one the bishop wins because it can protect a passed pawn from a distance. It's a good demonstration of how the short range of the knight can make it a liability:

Game 1388116


Pawns on the edge of the board can be a real asset in an ending, don't think the are necessarily worse than the ones in the centre of the board. The assessment of how good or bad any of these things are depends on all the pieces on the board. It's the whole position that matters, not just whether you've got a knight or a bishop.

Originally posted by Eladar
Most people do prefer bishops to knights, they are easier to play with but if you can get really good with knights you will really improve your game.

Having said that, look at the second game where you were playing with the white pieces.

After black's 5th move you can take black's bishop with either your knight or your bishop you decided to sac the bish ...[text shortened]... your bishop? You'd have the bishop pair and have the advantage of both colors versus just one.

I remember contemplating that move, if I recall my thought behind it were that if I took the bishop in such a manner, the knight would then threaten my oppenents Queen.

I do see your point though, is it better to have two bishops or two knights over maybe a bishop and knight combination.

Regards,

Willy............

Originally posted by DeepThought
Game 1388116
[pgn]
[FEN "8/p2Pk3/1p4p1/7p/2P1p3/6PB/n2K1P1P/8 w - - 0 43"]
44. Kd2e3 Na2c3 {Black wants to keep his pawn} 45. Ke3d4 Nc3d1 {He wants to keep his knight even more} 46. Kd4d5 {If I take the pawn he can fork my king and bishop and I'll lose the passed pawn as well} a5 {This is a passed pawn and passed pawns should be pushed, but the ...[text shortened]... ack played on for another 15 moves and resigned when I'd taken his two passed pawns} 1-0
[/pgn]

I'm s*!te at endings. But I still wonder: what would have happened if, as was my intuitive reaction, black would've taken f2 with his Nd1 on move 3 instead of moving a7-a5?



Note that this a. covers the central pawn; b. simultaneously upgrades that pawn into a passed one, and as a bonus c. threatens the bishop.

Originally posted by Sirdubalot
I remember contemplating that move, if I recall my thought behind it were that if I took the bishop in such a manner, the knight would then threaten my oppenents Queen.

I do see your point though, is it better to have two bishops or two knights over maybe a bishop and knight combination.

Regards,

Willy............

You bring up another point:

Assume your opponent will see what you see. Never hope your opponent is an idiot and will make a bad move. Always assume your opponent will make a good move, but hope for a blunder. 😀

I'm not saying never give your opponent an opportunity to blunder, but don't pass up a better move simply because you think that your opponent will blunder if you make an inferior move.

Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
What is the difference between Nunn's book and Chernev's "Logical Chess Move By Move"?

Edit: I notice that in the section on positional chess, Nunn covers many of the same things Nimzowitsch does in "My System" with the addition of color complexes, the isolani, the two bishops, queenside attack and the bad bishop.

Chernev is OK, but he tends to have the annotator's bias that the winner must have played good moves throughout the game, and writes with "hindsight bias".

I gave away my last copy, but I remember that there is a position after move 3 that appears twice in the book, and he thinks it is great when the winner played it, but not good when the loser played it, even though it is exactly the same.

It is the most clear-cut case of "annotating to the result" that I have ever seen, and it put me off the book a bit. That said, there is still a treasure trove of knowledge in it, and worth reading.

I just think Nunn's is far better.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
I'm s*!te at endings. But I still wonder: what would have happened if, as was my intuitive reaction, black would've taken f2 with his Nd1 on move 3 instead of moving a7-a5?

[pgn]
[FEN "8/p2Pk3/1p4p1/7p/2P1p3/6PB/n2K1P1P/8 w - - 0 43"]
44. Kd2e3 Na2c3 45. Ke3d4 Nc3d1 46. Kd4d5 Nd1xf2 {Edit: like this?} *
[/pgn]

Note that this a. covers the cent ...[text shortened]... b. simultaneously upgrades that pawn into a passed one, and as a bonus c. threatens the bishop.

Then I lose, the games were meant to illustrate the principle rather than be perfect. I could have done a bit more checking when I was writing the post, but it took quite a long time to write, and I was doing the annotation inside the post rather than using the database tool. In my defence the game was from ages ago and I just couldn't remember what I'd been thinking in it.

Having said that he can still lose, he doesn't have time to take the bishop as my king gets to c7 if he does.



If he doesn't take the knight, my best hope is probably something like:



So you're right, 46. ... a5 was result changing. I need a minor miracle to even draw without that.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Then I lose, the games were meant to illustrate the principle rather than be perfect. I could have done a bit more checking when I was writing the post, but it took quite a long time to write, and I was doing the annotation inside the post rather than using the database tool. In my defence the game was from ages ago and I just couldn't remember what I'd been thinking in it.

Thank you - I didn't mean to implicate that you'd missed anything, more to wonder whether I had and whether my intuition was right this time. As I said, I'm not normally good at end games. Or middle games. Or openings, to be honest.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Thank you - I didn't mean to implicate that you'd missed anything, more to wonder whether I had and whether my intuition was right this time. As I said, I'm not normally good at end games. Or middle games. Or openings, to be honest.

No problem, you're right to point it out. a5 did his position a lot of damage as it lets my c-pawn through. Quite possibly he had a lot of games on and didn't connect Nxf2 with the e-pawn getting through.