Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 09 May '11 15:42 / 1 edit
    Chess is much easier when you are allowed as many take backs as you'd like.


    Discuss.

    Seriously though, I think the take backs are helping. I'm having to use them less and less often. It gives me confidence knowing that if I can avoid a couple of blunders, I'm good enough to win.

    One other thing, I need to learn how to finish off a queen vs knight end game.
  2. 09 May '11 16:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Chess is much easier when you are allowed as many take backs as you'd like.


    Discuss.
    With enough takebacks, you can play a perfect game. 😛

    (They should remake "Groundhog Day", but add chess to it.)
  3. 09 May '11 16:55
    I'm not that patient! Sometimes I just get myself into such a bad situation that I'd have to go back half way through the game to fix it!

    I've done that once or twice, but usually I just resign. 😛
  4. 09 May '11 22:06
    As for the Queen vs Knight endgame, I think I just figured out the pattern. It took me a few different times playing with this site: http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-training/king-and-knight-vs-king-and-queen.php

    Pretty much took the black king to the side of the board and forked the knight in just a few moves. Very nice not being frustrated by chasing the king around the middle of the board.
  5. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    09 May '11 23:26
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Chess is much easier when you are allowed as many take backs as you'd like.


    Discuss.

    Seriously though, I think the take backs are helping. I'm having to use them less and less often. It gives me confidence knowing that if I can avoid a couple of blunders, I'm good enough to win.

    One other thing, I need to learn how to finish off a queen vs knight end game.
    The trick is to call it 'analysis' - then you can take back any number of moves and see what the engine thinks about each different line of play. It also avoids people lecturing you on the evils of takebacks. 😀
  6. 10 May '11 01:18 / 2 edits
    And I'm just the guy to lecture people on the evils of taking back a move.

    The OP said we were to discuss it, so......... 🙂

    Don't do it or allow in an OTB game even friendlies it encourages
    very sloppy thinking and is against the rules.

    Here however. You can play your move on the board.
    Look at it very carefully to see if it is a blunder.
    If it is you can take it back and choose another move.

    Before you 'send', you can take back as many moves as you want. That is OK.

    The time to 'Take Back' a move was here in your game v Lord Shark
    played in May 2010. Game 7434598

    In this position with you White to play.


    You castled Kingside.


    Taking back that move before your pressed 'Send' would have been a good idea.

    Guess what Black played to bring the game to a sudden end. 😉

    You could have set a wee trap here instead of castles King-side.

  7. 10 May '11 15:57
    Thanks for the trap! I don't understand why you retreated the bishop. Was it to waste a move to allow black to play the bad move?

    I think h3 would have worked too if I really wanted to play 0-0.
  8. 10 May '11 16:55
    To Greenpawn, who says don't even allow it for OTB frendly games...

    What about the casual "player" who doesn't know about en passant? I always offer to allow them to take back their two-square pawn advance. That's the sporting thing to do, right?

    Also, you be surprsed how often I've been told, "That's not a rule! You just made that $&@! up!"

    Google has ended a few potential fights 🙂
  9. 10 May '11 17:11
    There ought to be a rule, if you are going to drudge and display one of a guy's biggest blunders, then you should also have to post one of his better games.

    Of course you might have to do a bit of digging to find one such game of mine, but I'm sure there is a decent game in there somewhere.
  10. 10 May '11 17:55
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    And I'm just the guy to lecture people on the evils of taking back a move.

    The OP said we were to discuss it, so......... 🙂

    Don't do it or allow in an OTB game even friendlies it encourages
    very sloppy thinking and is against the rules.
    Taking back moves in chess is like backing up your save files in Roguelikes. Beginners always seem to think it's a good idea "for learning", but in fact it only teaches you sloppy habits. Don't do it. I don't mean don't allow it; I mean don't do it yourself, even if your opponent does allow it. It's bad for you.

    Richard
  11. 10 May '11 18:03
    When I play with friends (they are around 1100-1250 elo), I always allow take backs to make the games longer and more enjoyable for them. That being said, I don't think it's beneficial, because they keep making the exact same tactical mistakes every time. On the other hand, it's good for the player who isn't allowed take backs for obvious reasons. All in all, I think they are good for the game, because it makes games more enjoyable for both if there is a big gap in skill.
  12. 10 May '11 21:19
    I agree. I think that once the rating difference gets high enough the game really isn't a game. I think the outcome is pretty much decided. Sure, it is possible to win that one in a hundred game, but it isn't much fun trying to pound your head against the wall until you either wander into a very good line combined with a blunder or two.

    If I lower the computer's level down a notch or two I can beat it about 1 in 3 games. If I take it down one more level I can beat it pretty much every time.
  13. 10 May '11 23:14
    Yeah the Bishop retreat was waiting move setting the trap.
    (try to refrain from moving a pawn as a waiting move when setting a trap.)

    The 'hole' I was wanting you to see.

  14. 11 May '11 13:45
    I saw the pawn trap, but I didn't see why it was a better move. In the line you just gave, white trades two pawns and a rook for a bishop and a knight (6-7: white is down a point). I don't see how that's better than white trading a pawn for a bishop(3-1: white is up two points).

    Perhaps there's a positional advantage here I wasn't taking into consideration.