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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 26 Sep '12 23:03 / 2 edits
    Game features a nice positional rook sacrifice in the endgame, quite a mellow game,
    no real fireworks, but some little tactics and rook sacrifice. Its best to invert the
    board so that the annotations make sense - regards Robbie.

    unity36 v robbie carrobie
  2. 26 Sep '12 23:20 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Game features a nice positional rook sacrifice in the endgame, quite a mellow game,
    no real fireworks, but some little tactics and rook sacrifice. Its best to invert the
    board so that the annotations make sense - regards Robbie.

    unity36 v robbie carrobie
    [pgn][Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"] [Date "2012.09.21"] [ r my horrendous effort with the white pieces, losing badly.} 0-1[/pgn]
    Not a positional sac. It is well known that a R+K can't stop a K+3p that far advanced with the King in front of the pawns.

    This was you trying to be artistic but I think it spoiled the rest of the very well played game. Better was the simple dxc which you're whole play seemed aiming towards.... there is no beauty in an abrubt switch of ideas.

    Sorry buddy but its the truth. Sometimes there is beauty in simplicity.

    I think the most beautiful thing in this game was your gallant knight.
  3. 26 Sep '12 23:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Not a positional sac. It is well known that a R+K can't stop a K+3p that far advanced with the King in front of the pawns.

    This was you trying to be artistic but I think it spoiled the rest of the very well played game. Better was the simple dxc which you're whole play seemed aiming towards.... there is no beauty in an abrubt switch of ideas.

    Sorry b ...[text shortened]... eauty in simplicity.

    I think the most beautiful thing in this game was your gallant knight.
    dxc is lame!
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    27 Sep '12 05:07
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    dxc is lame!
    I agree. I like your rook sac better. I guess it is just a matter of taste as to how one goes about winning. Good game. I can't believe that is your game.
  5. 27 Sep '12 08:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I agree. I like your rook sac better. I guess it is just a matter of taste as to how one goes about winning. Good game. I can't believe that is your game.
    I can't believe that is your game - RJH

    LOL, I find such a statement hilarious Ronald my friend considering you believe all sorts of crazeeee other stuff, ironic really

    chess arteeest baby, chess arteeest!
  6. 27 Sep '12 10:13
    It's a very interesting position. I looked at the sac without an engine first and after studying it for ten minutes decided that it looked drawn with best play. Then I turned the engine on and it found a nice winning line for Black which involved saccing the c-pawn rather than playing Kb4. Unfortunately I don't have any chess software at work but I'll post the line tonight if no-one does it before me. It was something like:
    52. ... c2!
    53. Rc7 b4
    54. Rxc2 b3
    and Black's queenside pawns get through.
  7. 27 Sep '12 10:42
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    It's a very interesting position. I looked at the sac without an engine first and after studying it for ten minutes decided that it looked drawn with best play. Then I turned the engine on and it found a nice winning line for Black which involved saccing the c-pawn rather than playing Kb4. Unfortunately I don't have any chess software at work but I'll post ...[text shortened]... ething like:
    52. ... c2!
    53. Rc7 b4
    54. Rxc2 b3
    and Black's queenside pawns get through.
    sacking the c pawn, wow, none of these things occurred to me during the game fatlady,
    not tomos dxc and not your sacking the c pawn, its a thinking deficiency and playing
    too fast on my part, please provide the variations its really quite interesting to be
    honest, if the game could be drawn I would be amazed.
  8. 27 Sep '12 14:50 / 2 edits
    Hi Robbie.

    Was wondering why all the chat was about endings.

    Had to wait a long time to see it. Not a postional sac I'm afraid.
    These are middle games tricks when the end cannot possibly be calcualted
    (as oppossed to a tactical sac).
    Yours is more of a 'let's make things difficult for myself type of sac'.
    Don't worry mate, played a few of those in my time.

    Could supply 100's of examples but as the last blog is still fresh in mind
    here is an opening pos-sac.
    The first game in the last blog there is a pos-sac in theory in that line.



    Had wry smile at the note after move 15...Nb6


    'heading for the natural outpost at c4'

    Had that set up dozens of times. Not the exact position but the bones are there.
    They all go for Nc4. Moths to a flame.
    Once it get's there it does sod all but block my bait on c3.
    In your game you had to re-deploy the Knight to get it going again.

    White's plan of holding c3 was doomed to failure.
    Look at his position after move 23.

    .
    Yuk!

    Back here:


    His centre pawns told him to get rid of his Bishop. So 14.Bg5 was the move.
    Then hold c3 tactically letting it go at the right moment.
    Had loads of games with this line. Won some lost some, draw some.

    14...f5


    Not too sure about this one. exf6 and he now has a weak pawn on an opening file.

    Here is a game I posted on here October last year.
    The notes are the original - I've not tampered with them. Thread 142331
    My comments about Knights heading for c4 and weak pawns on e6 are there.
    (you also commented on the game in the thread)

    G.C. - M.Ridge Edinburgh Lothians 2011

  9. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    27 Sep '12 16:30
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    sacking the c pawn, wow, none of these things occurred to me during the game fatlady,
    not tomos dxc and not your sacking the c pawn, its a thinking deficiency and playing
    too fast on my part, please provide the variations its really quite interesting to be
    honest, if the game could be drawn I would be amazed.
    Fat Lady has a point for after 53...Kb3 54. Rb7! b4 55. Kd1 the Black king is forced to c4 to avoid checkmate.

    However, 53,,,Ka3! still wins, because if 54. Rb7, b4 55. Kd1 b3 56. Kc1 Ka2 57. Rb4 a3 58. Rb6 b2+ 59. kc2 Ka1 and the b-pawn queens with 60...a2 61...b1(Q).
  10. 27 Sep '12 20:58
    There are a couple of nice lines where White wins if Black pushed too hard.
    e.g.


    and

  11. 27 Sep '12 21:20
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    There are a couple of nice lines where White wins if Black pushed too hard.
    e.g.
    [pgn]
    [FEN "8/3r4/4p1p1/kp2Pp1p/p4P1P/2pR1KP1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
    {--------------
    . . . . . . . .
    . . . r . . . .
    . . . . p . p .
    k p . . P p . p
    p . . . . P . P
    . . p R . K P .
    . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . .
    white to play
    --------------}
    1. Rxd7 Kb4 2. Ke2 Kb3 3. R ...[text shortened]... Kc1 c2 6. Rb6 a2 7. Ra6 Kc3
    8. Rxa2 b3 9. Ra3 Kb4 10. Ra6 Kc3 11. Rc6+ Kd4 12. Rxe6
    [/pgn]
    Before he got his sacrificial idea, I assumed that Robbie Carrobie was winning.
    After he played 50...Rc3, I thought, "Sacrificing the rook could win, but there
    seem to be some pitfalls along the way, and I doubt that Robbie calculated
    deeply enough to foresee them all before he played his sacrifice." My first
    impression was: "Is this sacrifice really necessary to play for a win?"
    His sacrifice at least seemed to give his opponent some hope that he could
    find a way to avoid losing in a suddenly materially unbalanced position.

    So, if a player has an apparently winning position, should one attempt to find a
    way to win with less risk rather than going after a (hypothetical) brilliancy prize?
  12. 27 Sep '12 22:09 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Before he got his sacrificial idea, I assumed that Robbie Carrobie was winning.
    After he played 50...Rc3, I thought, "Sacrificing the rook could win, but there
    seem to be some pitfalls along the way, and I doubt that Robbie calculated
    deeply enough to foresee them all before he played his sacrifice." My first
    impression was: "Is this sacrifice really find a
    way to win with less risk rather than going after a (hypothetical) brilliancy prize?
    my dear Duchess64, you are absolutely correct I had not calculated deeply enough
    and made my decision purely on instinct (with a little calculation) After fatladys lines
    I shudder to think what could have happened had my opponent played the best
    lines. After a little reflection I simply chose the line that seemed the most forcing
    and aesthetically pleasing. I still don't understand why it is not to be considered a
    positional sacrifice, surely sacrificing material for something like a past pawn is a
    positional sacrifice in every sense, at least it seems that way to me. The main thing
    that I should be concerned about are these things that you mention, sacrificing
    when its unnecessary, or not calculating in depth and other thinking deficiencies as
    mentioned by GP and Tomo and which the lines posted by fatlady illustrate and yet
    the romantic within me cries out for duelling with French foils at dawn for some
    slight on a ladies honour, oh hopeless romantic who can help you with your
    delusions?
  13. 28 Sep '12 02:07
    Hi Greenpawn. I enjoy reading your posts, and I was pleased to find out about the Sicilian Pin Variation. I'd lost interest in the Sicilian, but this variation resembles the type of play I enjoy in the Nimzo-Indian or, sometimes, in Owen's Defence: a pin of white's QN with black's KN adding pressure. I'd be interested to see a couple of sample games with this pattern, be it the Sicilian or another opening. Thanks!
  14. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    28 Sep '12 03:09
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Game features a nice positional rook sacrifice in the endgame, quite a mellow game,
    no real fireworks, but some little tactics and rook sacrifice. Its best to invert the
    board so that the annotations make sense - regards Robbie.

    unity36 v robbie carrobie
    [pgn][Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"] [Date "2012.09.21"] [ ...[text shortened]... r my horrendous effort with the white pieces, losing badly.} 0-1[/pgn]
    I liked it, although as Tom said...
    But you found an idea and went with it and made it work, that's good chess IMO.
  15. 28 Sep '12 07:31
    Originally posted by ChessPraxis
    I liked it, although as Tom said...
    But you found an idea and went with it and made it work, that's good chess IMO.
    thanks CP, I really do appreciate the comments, its so easy to get discouraged.