17 Aug 06
Try stopping a pawn on the A file and a pawn on the H file with a knight, then try it with a bishop. That'll tell you the difference is strengths of bishop v knight. count the number of squares controlled by a bishop in the center of the open board, then a knight. In closed positions knights can sometimes be superior, however.
17 Aug 06
Originally posted by ShinidokiQuite right. like the game I won above I should have lost or at least drawn but the opposition played without a plan an kept both of his bishops bad until they we gone. Knights are also stronger in open endgames with pawns on only one side of the board because the bishop can only go to one color and its long range capabilities are of no use.
^ play as the position demands...
17 Aug 06
Originally posted by tomtom232Right right, that we all know. I was just saying in general. Most higher rated players generally favour bishops a tiny bit.
Quite right. like the game I won above I should have lost or at least drawn but the opposition played without a plan an kept both of his bishops bad until they we gone. Knights are also stronger in open endgames with pawns on only one side of the board because the bishop can only go to one color and its long range capabilities are of no use.
Anyways it's not important.
18 Aug 06
Originally posted by MIODudeFirst game, Bf4 on move 5 not the best move. And then the knight moves, Nh4 and Nd5, waste of moves. Game was positionally lost very early on.
1. MIODude - 1574 (but.. I lose more often against 1600+ people. I can't stay consistent above 1600
2. 2 years on the site.. i think I need to show more improvement
3. Currently playing 24, but usually have about 40 on the go. Typically 2 minutes a move.. sometimes more.. if its an obvious swap, much less
4. No.. i haven't dropped below 1500 for a while.. ...[text shortened]... a major piece down.
I'll go back to your "how to get to 1400" and see what it says too
Second game, blunder as you said.
Third game, Not asking what the threat is. Bad development and waste of moves.
Fourth game, bad planning and development again.
Fifth game, not asking what the threat is. Giving up a bishop for a knight for no good reason.
Once's I spotted somethign wrong with all these games I stopped, I didn't go any futher. I'm just picking out the general themes. There is a pattern so far. I hope everyone can see it?
18 Aug 06
1 edit
Many players, (and top computers for that matter) , but a base value of 3.0 of a Knight and 3.5 for a bishop
so: -
2Knights=6
2bishops=7
^ thus, a top computer may consider sacing a pawn just for 2 bishops.
*of course, the far more complex evalution features will often negate/nutralise/magify this 0.5 preference for bishops.
18 Aug 06
Originally posted by zebanoGame 1, you had that one as you mentioned. To me giving up your bishop for his knight was a mistake. When there are pawns on both sides the bishop is prefered from what I have read in several endgame books.
I may too highly rated for this but perhaps you'll be nice and give me some hints...
1. Zebano: 1668 (peaked at 1770 and immediatly crashed back down to 1500 - a lot of wins followed by a lot of losses)
2. I would like to compete for our state title in the next couple of years (we only have 2 experts and the rest of the field is class A and below, so I thin ...[text shortened]... pawn with no compensation. It just got worse from there Move 26 was another obious blunder.
Game 2, Opening up the diagonal for his bishop was a bad idea. I play this opening differently and try to challenge his bishop or block the diagonal with pawns. Just an opinion, you play what you like. Tactical blunder lost the game.
Game 3, Moving the queen out to early. Not developing quick enough. Tactical blunder again.
Game 4, Na4 you got better things to do. Finish developing first then attack. Blunder again. Not knowing the opening.
Game 5, Not seeing the threat with the pawn. Downhill from there.
The main thing I see is not knowing the opening well enough and tactics.
18 Aug 06
Originally posted by Shinidokihaven't seen IM kaufman's 'evaluation of material imbalance' posted for a while, so here it is:
Many players, (and top computers for that matter) , but a base value of 3.0 of a Knight and 3.5 for a bishop
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
the results are based on statistical analysis of the games of 2300+ players. and the results are interesting, especially:
OK, what did I discover? Let's start with the age-old question of bishop vs. knight. The conclusions are clear and consistent: although the average value of a bishop is noticeably higher than the average value value of a knight, this difference is entirely due to the large value of the bishop pair. In other words, an unpaired bishop and knight are of equal value (within 1/50 of a pawn, statistically meaningless), so positional considerations (such as open or closed position, good or bad bishop, etc.) will decide which piece is better.
18 Aug 06
3 edits
getting to 1600 from 1200?
i enjoyed my rise in understanding up to 1600 .. even though it took some determination and blood.
i cannot say what joys would result from a rise to a 2000 rating ... unfortunately i may never know ...
but if the joys of a rise from 1600/1700 to 2000 are the same as the rise from 1200 to 1600 then I will do it if i have the chance ... even if it costs me some more scars.
... keep trying ...
enjoy the deeper understanding ...
18 Aug 06
Originally posted by wormwoodI thought kaufman was a GM?
haven't seen IM kaufman's 'evaluation of material imbalance' posted for a while, so here it is:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
the results are based on statistical analysis of the games of 2300+ players. and the results are interesting, especially:
OK, what did I discover? Let's start with ...[text shortened]... s open or closed position, good or bad bishop, etc.) will decide which piece is better.
anyway, its an interesting article you posted, its given me a few new idea's to think about.
18 Aug 06
Originally posted by tomtom232Game 1, attacking before finishing development. Left your king in danger.
1.tomtom232 1223
2.I am trying to get good at chess becaues I want to be a grandmaster as fast as I can even though it will be a while
3.6 and about three minutes a move
4.yes but I already know most of the stuff and I think I should be over 1400 but I play higher rated players and underestimate some lower rated players
5.
Game 2309860
Game 2307915
Game 2317903
Game 2271051
Game 2297778
Game 2, development again. Good sacrifice?
Game 3, Lost because of tactics and not seeing the threat.
Game 4, Not seeing the threat. I don't know you were doing that game. Can't understand your moves.
Game 5, Not seeing the threat again.
I seriously suggest you read my 1400 thread. Can't do anything else for you unless you start asking what the threat is before every move.
19 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKI haven't submitted any games, but I have been following this thread with interest. First, thank you Rahim for your continued effort to help people, it counts for alot. Second, even though I am currently 1685(ish) and peaked at a little over 1700, my game really isn't that good. I had a streak of lucky wins that gave me a nice little boost, but reality is setting in in my current games. My tactics are spotty, sometimes I see them rather naturally, sometimes I am blind as a bat. The VikingChess articles that you posted were great. I read those some time ago, and read them again when you posted them. My bigggest problem is just that issue, finding a useful plan. My recent lucky streak was owed largely to the fact that I started using opening databases. The problem was that when I ran out of book moves, I found myself in positions that I was compeltely unfamiliar with, and had no idea how to continue. Like I said, the Viking chess articles were good, but I feel like there was something missing that I just can't grasp. I have read enough books (some very good ones included) to know that I am not going to learn and retain anything useful from reading books. I will probably have to find some good software to help with planning issues. I tried Squares Strategy vol 1. I know that Bedlam is a big fan of this series, but I found vol 1 to be simply awful. Well, that's my story, and I'll keep plugging, but thanks again for what you are doing.
So you guys who posted you wanted help and sumbitted 5 games each.
Do you guys see a link between all your games and the common mistakes? I pointed out the themes for each lose.
Anyone see a pattern?
BLR