Crazy imbalanced endgame

I remember you, you're that guy that kicked my ass. 😞

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
I remember you, you're that guy that kicked my ass. 😞

Knowing myself well, I probably did that in some boring, unremarkable way.

Just looked it up. Yeah, an early ending in the Scandinavian. That's me. 😛

Hi RJ

"The idea that the well established point system should be ignored is ridiculous."

It is a very dodgy way of thinking to assume you are winning because your
points tally is higher than your opponents.

It's a beginners way of thinking and is reasponible for a lot of needless losses.
The value of the pieces fluctuate all the time from move to move from position
to position.

The points system is a basic guidline for total beginners and should be
discarded once the student has a few games under his belt and realises you
must read the board to get a clearer idea of what is going on and not count
the total of the pieces OFF the board.

Why did you as White agree a draw here with Kingshill.


White is ahead on points and is about to bag another 3 with Qxe7.
(a good game by the way...and I can see why a draw was agreed and it
has nothing at all to do with points.)

I know dozens of strong players personally, I've analysed with them,
I have never heard any counting up points or saying "White is 4 points up."

Show me a book that is above a chess primer.
A collection of players games for instance where the points system is
used to evaluate a position.

The lad who posted the original position said it's not point counting position.

Even you yourself in a recent thread said you prefer having a Knight & Bishop
instead of a Rook & pawn for tactical reaons.

But a N + B = 6 points and a R+P = 6 points. Surely it's equal.
What tactical reasons are this? How do we use the points system to score
tactical reasons. Thread 147521 One of your better efforts.

The only strong player I know off that uses and depends on the point
scoring system is.............a computer.

Hi danilop

I knew my OTB league match line would not stand up to any cold analysis but
I'm afraid it is the way I would have gone. It was my last chance to set a trap
and avoid the ending.

I've seen and been part of that many blunders that I have complete faith
in all my opponents to blunder.

I always think if they have ended up playing me then they cannot be all that good.
I respect no title, no grades, no names and I expect the same.

They get a handshake, a smile and a "Good Luck"
Then I am going to trick, trap and cheapo them and I fully expect them
to fall into any trap I lay in their path.
I'll worry about the consequences after I've played the move.

If I started showing respect then I'd never set another 'twopenny' trap again.

If I lose (and after overcoming the complete shock that I lost)
They get a handshake, a smile and 'Well Done."
They are not better than me, they just happened to play better than me in
that one game.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi danilop

I knew my OTB league match line would not stand up to any cold analysis but
I'm afraid it is the way I would have gone. It was my last chance to set a trap
and avoid the ending.

I've seen and been part of that many blunders that I have complete faith
in all my opponents to blunder.

I always think if they have ended up playing me t are not better than me, they just happened to play better than me in
that one game.

I thought as much, gp. I just wanted to show black's plan. 🙂

You and I have very different styles, I think. You usually try to set up traps to avoid endings. I usually try to avoid the traps and set up the endings. :p

I bet I can avoid an ending before you get into an ending.

I'll resign in the middle game. 🙂

I do that a lot too. Usually after falling for a trap. 😉

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi RJ

"The idea that the well established point system should be ignored is ridiculous."

It is a very dodgy way of thinking to assume you are winning because your
points tally is higher than your opponents.

It's a beginners way of thinking and is reasponible for a lot of needless losses.
The value of the pieces fluctuate all the time from move I know off that uses and depends on the point
scoring system is.............a computer.

I have already pointed out that I learned the point system from chess books as a general rule to tell who was ahead in material. I did not mean that is the only factor that should be considered in evaluating a position.

In the position you pointed out I thought I was winning until he surprised me with the Rook move attacking my Queen and he asked for a draw. I accepted the draw because I knew he was a stronger player than myself and he would have a strong attack on my king after I took the bishop. To prevent mate I would have to give up my queen for his rook and I was not sure I could win with two rooks against his queen in the exposed position that my king was in.
I did not wish to take that chance with a draw offer in hand.

P.S. Also, I gain rating points with a draw against a higher rated player.

By the way, if I used the point system alone to determine who should win, then with the two rooks total of 10 verses the queen 9 then the two rooks should win. However, each side has 4 pawns to consider as well as the safety of the kings, threats, space controlled, location of pieces, tactical considerations, and which side has the move. There may be other factors too. I have never seen any book written by a grandmaster giving a systematic way of determining who has the best position in all situations. I just do the best I can with the knowledge and experience I have and hope for the best. I was in no way claiming I had perfect knowledge in evaluating chess positions.

Looking at the position in the OP I would say only Black has winning chances but he has to push back White's K and get those kingside pawns rolling. The queenside pawns are useful as bait to divert White's R or N. An idea is

46. Nc6 Bc3 threatening to advance the a-pawn or Bd2ch
47. Nxa5 Be5ch
48. Kf3 b5

Followed by advancing the King and K-side pawns.

Hi RJ

So...

""The idea that the well established point system should be ignored is ridiculous."

...is maybe not so ridiculous.

Blame Korch. (bless him)

He often PM'd telling me not to make so many jokes (I think it was something
like never castle until you have sacced something....that sounds lik me)

A lot of weaker players read this forum. Believe me my PM bag will tell
you that. A lot.

Most don't have any chess books (maybe one) so they pick up what they can
to improve from this forum (God help them.)

So if Mr 2200 is mooning about using a Rook = 5 a Knight = 3 method to work
things out so will they.
I'm only trying to save a few souls from wondering how come they lost
when they were winning 17-12.

It can take 10 minutes to pick up a bad chess habit (always sac something
before you castle) 😉 but it can take years to undo.

OK start counting.

I should start by saying I was the Black player in this game, and thank danilop for his kind comments, he also is a worthy and tough opponent and we both agreed this was the strangest endgame we had both played on the site.

The line is one I picked up from Avrukh's 1. d4 Vol2, and it is also referenced in Palliser's recent Chess Developments: The Modern Benoni. I used the line as White against atticus2 in another game and got smashed when he broke out the bishop on h8 by saccing his rook for White's dark squared bishop. He then used the weakened dark squares on the White kingside to ratchet up the pressure and I eventually blundered in a difficult position (where, guess what, material was level, with him having two pawns for the exchange!).

I tried to replicate some elements of that game in the game against danilop. The bishop has to be busted out but I missed a great chance to do it. On Black's 38th, if I get the rook out of harm's way with tempo, I can play Bxf6. 38. ..Rg4+ is much better than the pawn grab I played, which allowed White to keep the bishop in the coffin. After Rg4+, Bxf6 follows and White has to worry about b2 falling when Black has five (!) connected passed pawns on the flanks. But no... I grabbed the b2 pawn...

And after 43. Ne1 all I could see was the knight coming to g5 and forcing mate (Ng5+, Kh6, Rxh8🙄. The only way I could see to stop this was to give up the rook for one of White's minors, and given the situation of the Bh8 it had to be White's bishop. So I felt Rd2 and Rxd4+ were forced. Initially I was positive of winning the endgame, but that soon faded when I realised I couldn't make anything of the queenside passers. After 53. Rb6+ I felt the game could well be over. Pushing the h-pawn and chasing it with the king is Black's only hope; I can't sit still or White's king will get back in front of the pawns and that will be that.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi RJ

So...

""The idea that the well established point system should be ignored is ridiculous."

...is maybe not so ridiculous.

Blame Korch. (bless him)

He often PM'd telling me not to make so many jokes (I think it was something
like never castle until you have sacced something....that sounds lik me)

A lot of weaker players read this ...[text shortened]... Atkins - Jacobs 1915. The score is White = 8 Black = 25. Black has been checkmated.}[/pgn]

I still stand by my statement. It is an established system because it is useful, but not at the end of a game when a King has been checkmated. You don't know everything about chess either, Spanky.

At least you are standing by your statement. I admire that.

I did say Black was checkmated. 5 moves before Black was mated
the score was White - 17 Black 24. (so who is winning?) 😕