No Pawn Left Behind

Originally posted by tomtom232
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.

1) I see what you're saying; but had I fallen for it, would it still have been a mistake?

2) This is debatable. Wouldn't this just be a matter of opinion? Maybe it wasn't the "best" move, but it really a mistake?

I might want to add, that this game (my latest on this site) was against a supervisor from my job. I've played other co-workers, and he has an idea of how I play. That's why I feel that he was anticipating a certain position from me.


But then again, I'm a newbie on this site, and i don't even fully understand chess notation. I completely see where you're coming from that the fifth move was unnecessary. You've made a lot of good points, and you're probably right; this wasn't a mistake-free game.

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.

[b]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 goo ...[text shortened]... players around here), so he made some very bad moves which you were able to capitalize upon.[/b]

Yes maybe you are better at getting things across than I am. 🙂

Originally posted by vivify
1) I see what you're saying; but had I fallen for it, would it still have been a mistake?

2) This is debatable. Wouldn't this just be a matter of opinion? Maybe it wasn't the "best" move, but it really a mistake?

I might want to add, that this game (my latest on this site) was against a supervisor from my job. I've played other co-workers, and he ...[text shortened]... e a lot of good points, and you're probably right; this wasn't a mistake-free game.

I understand where you're coming from about mistake free but I guess what constitutes a mistake is based on the level of the person who identifies the mistakes.

Some people even say that when you don't play the 'best move' it is a mistake. I dont agree on that though.

I have to say you played a pretty good game. Let the next ones be as good this one for you! Good luck.

Yashin

Originally posted by yashin
Some people even say that when you don't play the 'best move' it is a mistake. I dont agree on that though.

I have to say you played a pretty good game. Let the next ones be as good this one for you! Good luck.

Yashin

Thank you!

Hi Viv.

A bold statement that: " no blunders."

The White Knight sally on move 4 was poor judgement White simply
lost his 1st move plus and a couple of tempo. But not a blunder

However I'd call Whites 19.a2 and 20.Na4 blunders.
He had to Castle and face what ever was coming down the g-file.
Allowing himself to be checked with 20...Re8+ put him a whole h1-Rook down.

There was a tacical blunder which you said was the turning point of the game.
The Black game was totally won the moment you checked on e8 and even before
that you were clearly on top.

Here White to play his tactical blunder.


He played 25.Rc1? which was answered by 25...Rxe2 winning the Rook with check.
He had to play 25. Rd1 to get the Rook away from the Queen.
35.Re1 Rhe8 and the Knight is pinned to doom.

After 25.Rc1 Rhe8 wins by sheer force of numbers as the h1 Rook
is a complete spectator.

A good game by you. ( the mate was a bit brutal.) 😉
I saw right away the old sac-pin and win routine.



There have been quite a few games over 30 moves where one side has won
with all 8 of his pawns left.

snjortp - bobbybez RHP 2006 Game 1571262 is just one.


He actually finishes with 7 pawns as he promotes one. 🙂

Originally posted by vivify
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 ...[text shortened]... istake. Right? Or do you guys see a way he could've avoided losing being down a pawn?

It was a mistake for your opponent to have arrived at a position where losing a pawn was unavoidable. Do you really believe that all of your moves up to that point were mistake-free, and that there is no refutation for your play? Or that there was no other sequence or series of moves that would have avoided the loss of a pawn?

The language of chess discussion often has to be as precise as the play itself. If the game were this easy, we'd all be on a poker site now.

Originally posted by vivify
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?

This is a little semantic, but all mistakes are in retrospect, because no rational player intentionally plays a mistake when they move-unless you are Greenpawn34 and setting a trap, of course!

Our evaluation of the current position is based on our evaluation of the probable future moves stemming from that position. We assess the position based on anticipated future courses of action for both players, and move accordingly. When a move is revealed to be a mistake, it is because the reality of the position varies from the players anticipated assessment of it, in a manner that is worse for the player.

I remember when I was new to the game, and it took me a while to wrap my head around the depth and complexity of the game, so I feel your pain!

Paul

Originally posted by vivify
1) I see what you're saying; but had I fallen for it, would it still have been a mistake?

Yes. If you would have fallen for it, you would have made an even bigger mistake. However, if one likes, one can call it a trap, too. In the end it is a matter of how you define it.

And the game you posted, GP. There was a small chance (unless early resignation) to mate with the pawns, leaving all eight on board, no?

Yeah he could have done it quite easily with just pawns.

From here



to here


cannot be prevented. Black can only play Ka8-b8-c8-b8-a8.

White can lose a tempo with the h-pawn setting up the
above position with him to move and then it's d7+ c7 mate.

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!)

11 Bg5 is not a blunder, but it's certainly a strategic mistake. Letting White give you tripled pawns (with your own king still stuck in the centre) should have been the same, had not White retaliated by refusing to castle when he could. Result: a juicy king attack, and that open line is useless because he didn't have his rook out.

Richard

Originally posted by vivify
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.

No, it wasn't and you wouldn't. Rook to c1 protects the c pawn; the a pawn is covered by the knight on c3, and no other pawns are even en prise at that moment.

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.

That scenario is only possible when you've captured the pawn on e4, that is, after the blunder. If he had played 7. Rc1 instead of 7. e4, he would not have lost any pawns. He still would have been positionally slightly inferior due to his careless 4th and 5th moves, but he'd have been materially even.

Richard

Originally posted by vivify
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.

No, it wasn't. An easily defended threat is only a legitimate strategy if, after it is easily defended, your position is equal to or better than before it was executed, and your opponent's position is not better. In this case, his position was worse after you defended against his threat - his knight is soon repulsed, meaning that he has lost two whole tempi and gained nothing. Meanwhile, you have developed a knight (not ideally, true, but it's in play) and a pawn.
In other words, his "threat" only hindered his own development and helped yours. And it gained nothing at all; it would only have done so had you made a considerably worse blunder than this move itself was. How is that legitimate?

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.

Threatening position? It's already in a threatening position! Its position on f5 (more precisely, on the b1-h7 diagonal) is the main thing which prevents him from freeing up his position. Moving it to g4 would have done nothing at all. That's only strong if there is a knight on f3, no pawn on e2, and a queen to be threatened on d1. In this case, only the queen was there. After 5. e3 Bg4 6. Be2, where on earth would have been the threat?

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".

It has nothing to do with the French. Do you mean the Alekine-Chatard variation? That's h4, supporting a bishop on g5 and, if possible, launching a counter-attack against the Black king. Nothing like h3 with no bishop of his own, no attack, and no reason for you to play Bg4.
And yes, it's a mistake. Not a massive one, but it's a mistake.

Richard

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
It was a mistake for your opponent to have arrived at a position where losing a pawn was unavoidable. Do you really believe that all of your moves up to that point were mistake-free, and that there is no refutation for your play? Or that there was no other sequence or series of moves that would have avoided the loss of a pawn?

No, not at all. I just defined "mistake" as making a clear tactical error.

Surely someone could've outplayed me, but I didn't think there was any "mistake". But again, some of you have already made a lot of good points, and I see that this was indeed a game full of mistakes. At this point, I'm only asking questions for clarification on why certain moves could be considered mistakes.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
No, it wasn't. An easily defended threat is only a legitimate strategy if, after it is easily defended, your position is equal to or better than before it was executed, and your opponent's position is not better. In this case, his position was worse after you defended against his threat - his knight is soon repulsed, meaning that he has lost two ...[text shortened]... g4.
And yes, it's a mistake. Not a massive one, but it's a mistake.

Richard

Well spoken. I see your point.