I thought I would post this to see what analysis would be given. Pay special attention to the combination White starts on the 37th move which leads to a won endgame. Any analysis would be welcome. Was it a sound combination in your mind? I saw that my opponent didn't have to take on d5, which would allow the fork, and the win of material. But, what an exciting gamble. That kind of thing is what seperates playing a human from playing a computer. You can bluff a human.
[Event "Open invite"]
[Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2006.12.04"]
[EndDate "2006.12.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "AlphaAlekhine"]
[Black "C H A R L E S"]
[WhiteRating "1436"]
[BlackRating "1420"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "2840537"]
1. Ng1f3 d5 2. g3 Bc8f5 3. Bf1g2 Nb8c6 4. O-O Ng8f6 5. d3 e5 6. Bc1g5 Bf8e7
7. Rf1e1 O-O 8. Bg5xf6 Be7xf6 9. Nb1d2 Qd8d7 10. e4 Bf5g4 11. Qd1c1 dxe4
12. Nd2xe4 Bf6e7 13. a3 Nc6d4 14. Nf3xe5 Qd7f5 15. f3 Bg4xf3 16. Ne5xf3 Nd4xf3
17. Bg2xf3 Qf5xf3 18. Qc1e3 Qf3xe3 19. Re1xe3 f5 20. Ne4f2 Be7c5 21. Re3e2 f4
22. gxf4 Rf8xf4 23. Kg1g2 Ra8f8 24. Ra1f1 g5 25. c3 h5 26. d4 Bc5d6
27. Re2e6 Rf4h4 28. h3 g4 29. Re6g6 Kg8h7 30. Rg6g5 gxh3 31. Kg2g1 Rh4f4
32. Rg5xh5 Kh7g6 33. Rh5xh3 c5 34. Rh3g3 Kg6f5 35. Kg1g2 Kf5e6 36. Rg3g6 Ke6d7
37. Rg6xd6 Kd7xd6 38. dxc5 Kd6xc5 39. Nf2d3 Kc5c4 40. Rf1xf4 Rf8xf4
41. Nd3xf4 b6 42. Kg2f3 a5 43. Kf3e3 b5 44. Nf4d3 Kc4b3 45. Ke3d4 Kb3a4
46. Kd4c5 b4 47. Nd3xb4 axb4 48. cxb4 1-0
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhineI don't think it was sound. I think, without spending too much time analysing, he could have just played the calm Kc6 tying up your rook and king to the defense of the knight (and not allowing any gain of tempo checks by either knight or rook to get out of the bind) and slowing picked off your pawns.
I thought I would post this to see what analysis would be given. Pay special attention to the combination White starts on the 37th move which leads to a won endgame. Any analysis would be welcome. Was it a sound combination in your mind? I saw that my opponent didn't have to take on d5, which would allow the fork, and the win of material. But, wha ...[text shortened]... . Nf4d3 Kc4b3 45. Ke3d4 Kb3a4
46. Kd4c5 b4 47. Nd3xb4 axb4 48. cxb4 1-0
I think.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakYes, but as I said, that is why I prefer playing humans. Sometimes you can willingly play unsoundly; hoping your opponent bites. Just like in real battle, I guess you could say. I think that is what makes human play much more entertaining that computers, wouldn't you say?
I don't think it was sound. I think, without spending too much time analysing, he could have just played the calm Kc6 tying up your rook and king to the defense of the knight (and not allowing any gain of tempo checks by either knight or rook to get out of the bind) and slowing picked off your pawns.
I think.
D
Thank you for the analysis by the way.
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhineYou were lucky. With no significant difference in rating, your opponent usually sees what you see. I think it's bad strategy to hope that your opponent will overlook the best move. But if it's your game, I guess you can play as risky as you like.
Yes, but as I said, that is why I prefer playing humans. Sometimes you can willingly play unsoundly; hoping your opponent bites. Just like in real battle, I guess you could say. I think that is what makes human play much more entertaining that computers, wouldn't you say?
Thank you for the analysis by the way.
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhineHope chess isn't a good chess strategy.
Yes, but as I said, that is why I prefer playing humans. Sometimes you can willingly play unsoundly; hoping your opponent bites. Just like in real battle, I guess you could say. I think that is what makes human play much more entertaining that computers, wouldn't you say?
Thank you for the analysis by the way.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakAnd yet we have gambits and sacrifices, which could be deemed as risky. There are whole styles of play that are considered as such. Not that I don't understand what you are saying, and not that this is typical of the way I play. I just thought it was an interesting representation of humans being humans. Do you mean to tell me that you have never successfully baited an opponent, when they had a simple refutation at hand? If none of us were to take chances here and there, play would become very dull I would think.
Hope chess isn't a good chess strategy.
D
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhineMost commonly played gambits are sound, or at least lead to really sharp games, where there are tactical chances for both sides. If you think you are tactically better than your opponent, then a gambit can be a good option. You normally receive an advantage in position or development after a gambit.
And yet we have gambits and sacrifices, which could be deemed as risky. There are whole styles of play that are considered as such. Not that I don't understand what you are saying, and not that this is typical of the way I play. I just thought it was an interesting representation of humans being humans. Do you mean to tell me that you have never su ...[text shortened]... If none of us were to take chances here and there, play would become very dull I would think.
Your move was unnecessary because with correct play, you would have given up your winning advantage for equality.
There have been examples in the past where I have tried things in the off chance that it might work, normally as a last resort from a lost position. This is probably the best example of an unsound complicating sac getting a result, when the win was very straightforward otherwise. Move 16...Rxc3 in gameGame 2956434.
D