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

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    22 May '11 22:32 / 3 edits
    Here's a game I played as black, where not a single one of my pawns was lost.What makes this even more remarkable, is that this was a mistake-free game; no blunders by either me or my opponent. Re6xe2 (25th move) was the turning point of a very even game.

  2. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    23 May '11 00:37
    Originally posted by vivify
    this was a mistake-free game; no blunders by either me or my opponent.
    I wouldn't say that.
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    23 May '11 04:27
    If 7. e4 isnt a blunder what is? Loses a pawn with no compensation.

    Interesting that you had all your pawns left but be careful about callimg a game free from mistakes (particularly if its not a draw!)
  4. 23 May '11 05:41
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    If 7. e4 isnt a blunder what is? Loses a pawn with no compensation.

    Interesting that you had all your pawns left but be careful about callimg a game free from mistakes (particularly if its not a draw!)
    I remember some discussion years ago as to whether perfect play by both sides results in a white win or a draw. Have computers resolved that question?
  5. Standard member vivify
    rain
    23 May '11 20:31 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    If 7. e4 isnt a blunder what is? Loses a pawn with no compensation.

    Interesting that you had all your pawns left but be careful about callimg a game free from mistakes (particularly if its not a draw!)
    I don't think that's a mistake, because losing a pawn was unavoidable in that situation. No matter what he did, I would've come out ahead in that position. For example, if he tried to capture my knight with his, I would've simply captured his knight with my bishop, and still been ahead. Furthermore, I would've been able to go to C3 with no problem (because he's obviously not going to try to capture my knight or bishop with his queen, and defending that pawn with the rook is usless since I can just go to A1 with the knight, causing him to have to waste a turn in order to avoid losing his rook).

    However, if he *could* avoid losing a pawn and didn't, then it would be a he could've.mistake. Right? Or do you guys see a way he could've avoided losing being down a pawn?
  6. Standard member vivify
    rain
    23 May '11 20:38
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I remember some discussion years ago as to whether perfect play by both sides results in a white win or a draw. Have computers resolved that question?
    Surely there have been games between grandmasters where the deciding factors weren't mistakes, but simply achieving betting positions, right?
  7. 23 May '11 20:40
    whites fourth and fifth move were the mistakes that led to an undesirable position.... this game is chalk full of mistakes. sorry. Finishing a game without losing a pawn is also not unheard of.
  8. 23 May '11 20:41
    Originally posted by vivify
    Surely there have been games between grandmasters where the deciding factors weren't mistakes, but simply achieving betting positions, right?
    Letting your opponent achieve a better position is a mistake.
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    23 May '11 21:26
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Letting your opponent achieve a better position is a mistake.
    But this would only be a "mistake" in retrospect. I always thought of a mistake as a bad move based on the current position, not a move which turns merely turns out to be disadvantageous later. Right?
  10. Standard member vivify
    rain
    23 May '11 21:27
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    whites fourth and fifth move were the mistakes that led to an undesirable position.... this game is chalk full of mistakes. sorry. Finishing a game without losing a pawn is also not unheard of.
    But at the time they were made, would you have considered them mistakes?
  11. 23 May '11 21:34
    Originally posted by vivify
    But at the time they were made, would you have considered them mistakes?
    Yes. The fourth move was an uneccessary knight move not only that but it was the second time that piece was moved in the first four moves of the game. The fifth move was also a time waster and uneccessary.
  12. Standard member vivify
    rain
    23 May '11 21:44 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Yes. The fourth move was an uneccessary knight move not only that but it was the second time that piece was moved in the first four moves of the game. The fifth move was also a time waster and uneccessary.
    A few things:

    1) The knight move (move number four) wasn't "unnecessary", he was trying to fork my king and and rook. He was trying to gain an advantage. True, it was an obvious move, but still, it was legitimate strategy.

    2) The fifth move was to keep my bishop form getting into a threatening position, and limit the bishop's immediate effectiveness. True, it wasn't necessary right then and there, but I'm guessing that he was anticipating my next strategy. I think this is akin to the French Defense, where at one time, it was considered to be an inferior (according to Wikipedia, anyway). But I don't know if it's really a "mistake".
  13. 23 May '11 21:47 / 1 edit
    No huge blunders true, but still mistakes are in the eye of the beholder.

    Our judgement can only be based on our level of understanding.

    1) The knight move (move number four) wasn't "unnecessary", he was trying to fork my king and and rook.

    It was easily defended and repulsed, which makes it a bad move. Your opponent obviously isn't very good at chess(compared to good players around here), so he made some very bad moves which you were able to capitalize upon.
  14. Standard member vivify
    rain
    23 May '11 21:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    No huge blunders true, but still mistakes are in the eye of the beholder.

    Our judgement can only be based on our level of understanding.
    You may have hit the nail on the head.

    Maybe I shouldn't have said this game was "mistake-free", maybe I just should've said there were no blunders...unless that's considered to be the same thing.

    Still, you make a good point about the "eye of the beholder".
  15. 23 May '11 21:49
    Originally posted by vivify
    A few things:

    1) The knight move (move number four) wasn't "unnecessary", he was trying to fork my king and and rook. He was trying to gain an advantage. True, it was an obvious move, but still, it was legitimate strategy.

    2) The fifth move was to keep my bishop form getting into a threatening position, and limit the bishop's immediate effectivenes ...[text shortened]... ecessary right then and there, but I'm guessing that he was anticipating my next strategy.
    answers:

    1)He was trying to gain an advantage by playing hope chess. He was hoping you wouldn't see the threat. If you happen to see the threat(you did) then it leads to an inferior position... conclusion? I was a mistake.

    2)This is an easy one... your bishop is better off where it is at right now then to go to g4. It has no threats to create on g4.... conclusion? It was a mistake.