Okay, for everybody's and mateulose's amusment, I offer Game 604572 as my most embarrassing loss on the site. I was playing one of my archrivals and it was certainly an interesting and tense game. On move 30, I believe he errs and allows the game into a favorable endgame for me with good winning and few losing chances. However, I find a way to lose in dramatic style: a rook move to h4 or h5 or even h8 maintains somewhat of an advantage, but I boneheadedly allow an exchange of rooks with my opponent having a passed pawn outside the square! OUCH!! I'm still looking for one of the pieces that went flying off the side board I had set up! Chess blindness strikes again.😳
Originally posted by no1marauderOh dear. What happened, did the phone ring at the wrong time?
Okay, for everybody's and mateulose's amusment, I offer Game 604572 as my most embarrassing loss on the site. I was playing one of my archrivals and it was certainly an interesting and tense game. On move 30, I believe he errs and allows the game into a favorable endgame for me with good winning and few losing chances. However, I find a wa ...[text shortened]... of the pieces that went flying off the side board I had set up! Chess blindness strikes again.😳
Originally posted by no1marauderno1, look harder at the board, not just the big peices. A lot of ppl think because he has a queen, and I don't, he must be winning, but look HARDER. I lost my queen, for a knight, rook and TWO pawns, that is MATHEMATICLY a big advantage by far. Queen= 9, Rook = 5, Knight = 3 Pawns = 1, so 5+3+1+1 is greater then 9, by 1 point, and even the slight 1 point lead is misleading, because again, ask anyone, would they rather have an ending with a rook, knight and two pawns, or just a queen, and we all know what they would awnser, they would pick the ending with a lot of peices vs just the one, any good player would.
Hate to embarrass you even further, but you were almost always behind in this game according to Fritz4, never had any significant advantage and made several blunders. You lost your Queen, for cripes sake!! You richly deserved to lose this game and your opponent outplayed you, although he, unlike you, missed several winning chances earlier. You se ...[text shortened]... was crappy and got lucky mold". BTW, your opponent didn't even MOVE HIS QUEEN UNTIL MOVE 30!!!
Again, look harder at the board, instead of a quick glance. Also, I didn't sacrefice my queen for a knight and rook for "no reason", he had a sacreficial mating combo if I didn't do that, I'll let you guys find it, clue, he sacrefices a bishop to start it.
Originally posted by mateuloseMateulose, I know how to read a board when I'm analyzing. You lost your Queen (not sacrifice, LOSS) because you blundered on move 31 with Nd2; Bxe4 simply wins a pawn as if he takes the Bishop you have Qf7+ regaining the piece. So then you had to give up your Queen to prevent mate because of a blunder; if you're really so stupid as to think I missed that in my analysis you're sadly mistaken.
no1, look harder at the board, not just the big peices. A lot of ppl think because he has a queen, and I don't, he must be winning, but look HARDER. I lost my queen, for a knight, rook and TWO pawns, that is MATHEMATICLY a big advantage by far. Queen= 9, Rook = 5, Knight = 3 Pawns = 1, so 5+3+1+1 is greater then 9, by 1 point, and even the slight 1 point ...[text shortened]... ombo if I didn't do that, I'll let you guys find it, clue, he sacrefices a bishop to start it.
The value of your pieces depends on their mobility. His Queen was extraordinarily mobile while your pieces were limited in scope. While I would agree that an ending with Rook, Knight and two pawns against Queen would be in your favor (slightly) THAT WAS NOT THE ENDING YOU HAD: he had 3 pawns to your 5. As the Queen is much more effective in attacking loose pawns then a rook and knight when your King is in the middle of the board (as it was) THIS ending favored your opponent. It is difficult to defend pawns, avoid material winning divergent checks AND mating threats from an active Queen on an open board like that one as you should have learned from this game. In practical play, THAT ending favored your opponent although with hard work you may have been able to earn a draw. But you were never ahead in the game.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you admit I was up in material, ok, thanks, I guess, you even stated I had 5 pawns while he had 3, and I had a rook and knight, that is a material advantage.
Mateulose, I know how to read a board when I'm analyzing. You lost your Queen (not sacrifice, LOSS) because you blundered on move 31 with Nd2; Bxe4 simply wins a pawn as if he takes the Bishop you have Qf7+ regaining the piece. So then you had to give up your Queen to prevent mate because of a blunder; if you're really so stupid as to think I mis ...[text shortened]... ough with hard work you may have been able to earn a draw. But you were never ahead in the game.
Secondly, puting a king in the center of the board in an ending isn't a bad thing.
Thirdly, I mean, seriously, No1Marauder, how hard is it to put a queen in the center of the board in a queen ending? Not too hard I'm willing to bet, what do you want me to do, prevent the queen from going on all the e4,e5,d4,d5,c4,c5,f4,f5, etc squares? Good luck with that, if he wants to put it there, he's gonna put it there. To say that's a winning endgame idea is just plain silly, if that was the case, GM's would resign a great many queen endings where a queen reaches say, e5, don't be this silly please, you know you are going a bit too far with this. I lost because I did a gross blunder in an ending, my opponent did nothing extrodinary, it was an embarassing loss that I HANDED to my opponent.
In the end you even fess up and admit the game is probably a draw, and I allowed myself to be mated, so allowing yourself to be mated in a drawn endgame is not embarassing? I would say it is. . .
Originally posted by mateuloseRead what I wrote:
So you admit I was up in material, ok, thanks, I guess, you even stated I had 5 pawns while he had 3, and I had a rook and knight, that is a material advantage.
Secondly, puting a king in the center of the board in an ending isn't a bad thing.
Thirdly, I mean, seriously, No1Marauder, how hard is it to put a queen in the center of the board in a quee ...[text shortened]... , so allowing yourself to be mated in a drawn endgame is not embarassing? I would say it is. . .
In practical play, THAT ending favored your opponent although with hard work you may have been able to earn a draw. But you were never ahead in the game.
Actually what you could have avoided in that game was blundering away your Queen. You originallty claimed you had a win and an easy one at that; I doubt any experienced player would have wanted your side at any point in that game.
Answering your posts is starting to be too much of a headache for me; you won't listen and you adopt a snotnose attitude. Between your garbage and the bigots in the Debates Forum, posting in and reading the forums is really starting to be no fun anymore at all. I think I'll just stay in the Clan Forum from now on; I still enjoy it there and people seem to have fun - the rest of the forums are just one big contentious drag lately. I believe in free speech and think people should be able to say what they want (almost) but I'm not going to keep doing something I'm beginning to hate; life's too short.
Originally posted by mateuloseMateulose im not sure if point counting is the right idea. I mean you may have more points but it depends on the co-ordination of your peices and the position on the board at the time. I mean eventually you may have been able to use that 1 point advantage but i think it would be difficult not to have dropped some pawns.
no1, look harder at the board, not just the big peices. A lot of ppl think because he has a queen, and I don't, he must be winning, but look HARDER. I lost my queen, for a knight, rook and TWO pawns, that is MATHEMATICLY a big advantage by far. Queen= 9, Rook = 5, Knight = 3 Pawns = 1, so 5+3+1+1 is greater then 9, by 1 point, and even the slight 1 point ...[text shortened]... ombo if I didn't do that, I'll let you guys find it, clue, he sacrefices a bishop to start it.
I have to agree....I don't claim my endgame is good at all, but even if you didn't get mated he had a perpetual with Qc2+ / Qb1+ so you really can't claim a winning position. You are right about being up in material, and in most circumstances I would choose your side. But his queen is active and your pawns suck....that is what having the queen is all about: winning more material. And since you had weak pawns everywhere and his queen was active I would say that black had a good game. I am not sure about a technically evaluation though, I suck at endgames.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!It's important to note his pawns were pretty weak aswell, in fact, his weak pawns is how I gained another one. If the rook and knight attacks a pawn at the same time, he pretty much losses it, there is no defense, the queen obviously cannot defend such attacks, and even with help of the king and queen, I would sacrefice my knight and rook for his queen and pawn. That's the very important feature of this endgame, as long as you watch out for forks and don't fall into them, I'm conviced no matter what no1 says, I could defend my pawns against any queen attack with my knight, rook or king (all centralized, so lack of mobility of these peices vs the queen is irrelevant), while he has no way to defend his pawns at all (queens are very lousy defenders).
I have to agree....I don't claim my endgame is good at all, but even if you didn't get mated he had a perpetual with Qc2+ / Qb1+ so you really can't claim a winning position. You are right about being up in material, and in most circumstances I would choose your side. But his queen is active and your pawns suck....that is what having the queen is all abo ...[text shortened]... black had a good game. I am not sure about a technically evaluation though, I suck at endgames.
It's one of those IMBALANCED openings, but I beleived I had the advantage and that is very subject to opinion. Of course most will say I didn't have the advantage because I simply walked into mate, this is a natural knee jerk reaction, but I don't agree with it, perhabs some super high rated RHP can play out the endgame and see what they think.
Originally posted by mateuloseOK, Mateulose, let's try and analyze the actual game. Let's take it from the endgame where you think you have the advantage. Obviously, 48 Nf5 was a blunder and lost quickly. The move you should have made was 48 Nf3. All other lines are bad, but I'll analyze them if you want me to. Black then plays 48 .... c4. You either take it where Black follows with Qxc4+ and those lines lead quickly to another one of your pawns falling (I think; propose a line and I'll look it over) or if you don't take it he pushes it giving him a passed pawn on your 3rd rank. Where is your advantage in these lines? And please let's try to keep this civil and just analyze the game.
It's important to note his pawns were pretty weak aswell, in fact, his weak pawns is how I gained another one. If the rook and knight attacks a pawn at the same time, he pretty much losses it, there is no defense, the queen obviously cannot defend such attacks, and even with help of the king and queen, I would sacrefice my knight and rook for his queen an ...[text shortened]... ree with it, perhabs some super high rated RHP can play out the endgame and see what they think.
Originally posted by mateuloseWhen are you going to get the chance to mobilize these pieces you have? They are doing crap and his queen is making you look foolish.
It's important to note his pawns were pretty weak aswell, in fact, his weak pawns is how I gained another one. If the rook and knight attacks a pawn at the same time, he pretty much losses it, there is no defense, the queen obviously cannot defend such attacks, and even with help of the king and queen, I would sacrefice my knight and rook for his queen an ...[text shortened]... ree with it, perhabs some super high rated RHP can play out the endgame and see what they think.