No Pawn Left Behind

Originally posted by greenpawn34
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 hi ...[text shortened]... 4PK1/P7/7P/1P6/8 w - - 0 56[/fen]
He actually finishes with 7 pawns as he promotes one. 🙂

Very useful post. Thanks. Thank you also for posting that game where black retained his pawns.

This will be my last question on this topic:

Haven't any of you lost games where your logic and tactical decisions were all sound? Have any of you lost games not because you made a bad move, but because your opponent was simply a better tactician?

Originally posted by vivify
This will be my last question on this topic:

Haven't any of you lost games where your logic and tactical decisions were all sound? Have any of you lost games not because you made a bad move, but because your opponent was simply a better tactician?

Indeed, sometimes I lose without having a clue where I made a tactical mistake. Of course, better players can always point out where the mistakes were made.

Look for example at this recent one. Untill just a few moves before resigning, I really thought I was winning.

Game 8380731

Originally posted by vivify
This will be my last question on this topic:

Haven't any of you lost games where your logic and tactical decisions were all sound? Have any of you lost games not because you made a bad move, but because your opponent was simply a better tactician?

A "better tactician" is someone who is better at exploiting mistakes.

I'm a firm believer that all chess games are lost due to some sort of mistake on the loser's part. This takes nothing away from the winner, because it still takes skill to punish subtle mistakes.

Originally posted by tvochess
Indeed, sometimes I lose without having a clue where I made a tactical mistake. Look for example at this recent one. Untill just a few moves before resigning, I really thought I was winning.

Game 8380731

I think your mistake was around move 30, where you waited too long to employ your king. White spent four moves in a row moving up his king to his fifth rank, where most of the action was. It wasn't until his king was firmly established in the midst of battle, that you decided to move your king, because white's king had become a defensive and offensive threat.

By allowing white's king to get that high in rank, you gave white's pawn a protector while it moved to the eighth rank for promotion.

By move 30, White's Knight was vastly out-numbered near Black King's Queen-side. There were no other pieces to assist White's knight; this would've been a golden opportunity to gang up on White's knight, and keep him at bay while you move your pawn up the ranks. White's King was on the opposite side of the board, and would've had to use a lot of turns to get there, in order to be of any help.


But maybe this is just proof of SwissGambit's point; that all chess games are lost due to some mistake.

Originally posted by tvochess
Indeed, sometimes I lose without having a clue where I made a tactical mistake. Of course, better players can always point out where the mistakes were made.

Look for example at this recent one. Untill just a few moves before resigning, I really thought I was winning.

Game 8380731

An old saying, "Passed pawns must be pushed." 34...a3 would have presented White with many problems.

As played, of course 39...Nxc3 was the critical mistake, letting White's d-pawn promote.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
An old saying, "Passed pawns must be pushed." 34...a3 would have presented White with many problems.

As played, of course 39...Nxc3 was the critical mistake, letting White's d-pawn promote.

This was at least the point where I figured out that I was lost...

I never moved the king because I thought I could advance my a-pawn fast enough. Also I assumed that my opponent would use the king to attack my kingside pawns.

Originally posted by vivify
This will be my last question on this topic:

Haven't any of you lost games where your logic and tactical decisions were all sound? Have any of you lost games not because you made a bad move, but because your opponent was simply a better tactician?

As of now, there is no forced win for white or black in chess starting from move one, so I think we can confidently state that no one has.

The mistakes may be subtle, or they may require very deep analysis to discover, but I have not yet ever seen a game where the loser played no bad moves.

If you think you know of one, please post it, and we'll take a look!

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
As of now, there is no forced win for white or black in chess starting from move one, so I think we can confidently state that no one has.

The mistakes may be subtle, or they may require very deep analysis to discover, but I have not yet ever seen a game where the loser played no bad moves.

If you think you know of one, please post it, and we'll take a look!

I think he's asking if you've lost a game where you thought all your moves were logically sound. Once again I say logical only goes as far as one's understanding. Eventually we all play to our level, so even at best play our logic is really only as good as our vision and understanding.

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

Clear strategic errors are often worse than tactical ones.

And in reference to your later post: yes, sometimes. Most games I lose because I make a tactical blunder, but sometimes I don't - but in those cases, it's always because I make a strategic one.

Richard

Originally posted by vivify
Surely there have been games between grandmasters where the deciding factors weren't mistakes, but simply achieving betting positions, right?

I think technically ANY move that isn't mathematically perfect could be fairly called a "mistake" or blunder if someone was playing the chess God.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I think technically ANY move that isn't mathematically perfect could be fairly called a "mistake" or blunder if someone was playing the chess God.

No human can actually play 'perfect' moves all the time. Even not GM's. Recall the thread about chess engine matchup rates. In this sense, everybody would be making mistakes most of the time.

So the notions of blunder, mistake, good or excellent moves only have a relative meaning regarding the level of the one who performs the move.

I would consider following definition:

- normal/good moves are the moves that keep your rating stable. These are the moves that are linked to your level.
- excellent moves will increase your rating if you consistently play moves of this level.
- bad moves/mistakes will lower your rating if you consistently play moves of this level.
- blunders are mistakes that are even considered weak by/for players with a far lower rating.

In that way blunders made by GM's (e.g. a trap that can be easily defended with a large advantage for the defender), can be excellent moves for weak players (e.g. if the defender doesn't know the trap).

I believe everybody makes normal (good) moves all the time, with about 5-10% mistakes and 5-10% excellent moves. At least if you have a stable rating.

Originally posted by tvochess
I never moved the king because I thought I could advance my a-pawn fast enough. Also I assumed that my opponent would use the king to attack my kingside pawns.

I think your king was OK where it was. I think what you missed was that your passed pawn was a bigger threat than any attack White could create. You never should have wasted time moving your king and retreating your knight.

After 34...a3, White would have to play 35.Nb4 to prevent the a-pawn from promoting. Now, 35...Nb2! (threatening ...Nd3.) If you could safely get in 36...Nd3, White would be forced to either let the a-pawn promote, or block the a-pawn with his knight. One way or another, the white knight would be tied down to prevent the a-pawn advance, which would release your knight to start running rampant and gobbling up pawns faster than the white king could attack.

And if White tried something tricky like 35...Nb2 36.Ke4, no problem. Black replies 36...Nd1, hitting on two pawns simultaneously.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
I think your king was OK where it was. I think what you missed was that your passed pawn was a bigger threat than any attack White could create. You never should have wasted time moving your king and retreating your knight.
(...)

Mad Rook & vivify,

thanks for the advice.

It takes mistakes (regardless of which definition you use) to learn the game. And feedback afterwards is really helpfull...

Some here would consider 1. d4 to be a blunder.