25 Aug 06
Game 2334949
I was leading this game in space and material and ended up screwing myself over... I know 29.Rg4 may have been my first mistake which brought on many more and I was tactically out played in the end and that is why I resigned, what should I have done differently?
25 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessJesterwell one thing I want to know is why when you had so many chances to exchange you did not take them when you a whole piece up.
Game 2334949
I was leading this game in space and material and ended up screwing myself over... I know 29.Rg4 may have been my first mistake which brought on many more and I was tactically out played in the end and that is why I resigned, what should I have done differently?
25 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ChessJesterafter taking a quick glance at 29. Rg4, why didnt you take the knight afterwards? 30. Ng2 pxN, if he takes back then then you just take with bishop winning material, if he pushes his pawn blocking ur bishop, just take bishop with pawn with a double check, king has to take, then get move ur bishop away, that's what i saw anyways...
Game 2334949
I was leading this game in space and material and ended up screwing myself over... I know 29.Rg4 may have been my first mistake which brought on many more and I was tactically out played in the end and that is why I resigned, what should I have done differently?
after this, you would have went up material even more
25 Aug 06
Hmmm... thanks for the replies... I didn't take the knight because... Hmmm I don't know why I didn't take the knight! Ah darn, I see a perfect tactic now. 30.Ng2 fxg2 Bxg2 Nf3+! winning the rook! and if he didn't take the pawn and took my knight instead, I can win material again like you already pointed out.
Augh, maybe I was just not in the zone that day. haha, it was horribly played... this should be a lesson on why not to give up!
25 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by TEXASmadeinstead of taking with his bishop he could have played Nf3 check winning a rook.
after taking a quick glance at 29. Rg4, why didnt you take the knight afterwards? 30. Ng2 pxN, if he takes back then then you just take with bishop winning material, if he pushes his pawn blocking ur bishop, just take bishop with pawn with a double check, king has to take, then get move ur bishop away, that's what i saw anyways...
after this, you would have went up material even more
EDIT: i didn't type fast enough
25 Aug 06
Originally posted by tomtom232This also is a good point, I could have easily exchanged down into a simpler position that was easier to controll like after 23.Nf3 I could have played 23...Nxf3 24.gxf3 and his kingside pawns are all screwey, if he takes with the bishop I trade bishops down to an even better game.
well one thing I want to know is why when you had so many chances to exchange you did not take them when you a whole piece up.
25 Aug 06
Originally posted by tomtom232taking with the bishop is better, you'll at least be up 2 bishops in the end game and not to mention once your dark squared bishop takes pawn, after he takes the knight, you are threating discovered check which in turn will give you the rook anyways. then, instead of being up 1 rook, he would be up 2.
instead of taking with his bishop he could have played Nf3 check winning a rook.
EDIT: i didn't type fast enough
25 Aug 06
Originally posted by TEXASmadeif you play Nf3 check you win it not threaten it also you would have two rooks and two bishops vs one rook although he has an extra pawn that you will win back easily.
taking with the bishop is better, you'll at least be up 2 bishops in the end game and not to mention once your dark squared bishop takes pawn, after he takes the knight, you are threating discovered check which in turn will give you the rook anyways. then, instead of being up 1 rook, he would be up 2.
25 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232lol, there are a lot of different variations here, all of them winning, i dont think Rg4 was bad, i think 30. pxp was bad, you should have just taken his knight, why didnt you?
if you play Nf3 check you win it not threaten it also you would have two rooks and two bishops vs one rook although he has an extra pawn that you will win back easily.
25 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TEXASmadeOk ok, maybe that was the first mistake setting off the chain reaction... I didn't want to lose my knight and didn't see the tactics you have mentioned. It was an oversight that seems to have cost me the game... I think i was a bit tired that day :o
lol, there are a lot of different variations here, all of them winning, i dont think Rg4 was bad, i think 30. pxp was bad, you should have just taken his knight, why didnt you?
I also should have took his bishop on move 37
25 Aug 06
Originally posted by ChessJesterive been there, lol, i usually stay up till 3 or 4 in the morning on here and it has definitely cost me some games.
Ok ok, maybe that was the first mistake setting off the chain reaction... I didn't want to lose my knight and didn't see the tactics you have mentioned. It was an oversight that seems to have cost me the game... I think i was a bit tired that day :o
25 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ChessJesternot only do you keep your lead when you exchange but your lead actually increases.say you have three pieces and he has two you exchange a piece now you have two and he has one now you have twice as many pieces. instead of him have two thirds the amount of material as you have he now only has half.
Maybe I should write a rule down.
- When ahead in material, exchanging pieces will always keep your lead and also lessen your opponents chances of equality.