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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 27 Jun '10 06:55
    I fail to see the forced win by w...n just resigned...I just see perpetuals after r back to b7... the p seems to nullify blacks advantage....Im sure im missing something...please enlighten me....
  2. 27 Jun '10 07:27
    Originally posted by JS357 (in the other thread)
    From my perspective, a narrow win. Once you got down to 6 on the board, it was fun to see what shredderchess.com thought W should do. And W hadn't really started doing it, yet. I suppose you resigned because you saw that the general scheme. to disrupt your protection of the pawn, take it, then maneuver to a fork to get the rook, would be successful.
  3. Standard member clandarkfire
    Grammar Nazi
    27 Jun '10 15:02
    I personally don't understand how the win is performed either; I've never spent a lot of time studying those types of endings. However, you can see how the win is done at an endgame tablebase like the one available at shredderchess.com
  4. 27 Jun '10 20:16
    Originally posted by clandarkfire
    I personally don't understand how the win is performed either; I've never spent a lot of time studying those types of endings. However, you can see how the win is done at an endgame tablebase like the one available at shredderchess.com
    yeah...I just looked up shredderchess endgame database and see that if rb7 then black wins in 24 moves! you would think that even a 2400 player would have trouble with that.
  5. 28 Jun '10 00:53
    Both players play advanced chess. Check the tablebases for the final position and you'll find the answer (and don't be surprised to find a verdict like "Black has a forced win in 38 moves"😉.
  6. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    28 Jun '10 02:30
    Originally posted by dustycat
    yeah...I just looked up shredderchess endgame database and see that if rb7 then black wins in 24 moves! you would think that even a 2400 player would have trouble with that.
    if you know your queen vs rook technique, it's trivial after the pawn drops (after OP's Rb7, Qd8 seems to do the trick). although, from the atypical looking queen moves I would guess that wasn't the case here. I would've certainly played on against a human player at least until he showed proper technique.

    about finding the optimal tablebase lines in this, or any long complicated ending, that's pretty much a pipe dream for a human. and stupid. precisely the kind of thing a strong player wouldn't touch with a ten feet pole in these kind of situations. instead you use good technique.
  7. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    28 Jun '10 03:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wormwood
    if you know your queen vs rook technique, it's trivial after the pawn drops (after OP's Rb7, Qd8 seems to do the trick). although, from the atypical looking queen moves I would guess that wasn't the case here. I would've certainly played on against a human player at least until he showed proper technique.

    about finding the optimal tablebase lines in this 't touch with a ten feet pole in these kind of situations. instead you use good technique.
    I have used the Namilov 6 piece tablebases to analyze my OTB games, with a very curious result:

    When the computer shows that I have a mate in X number of moves (I had one game where it said I had a mate in 51 moves!), I almost always win in FEWER moves.

    What I have learned is that defensive technique is very tough, and very often my opponents play nowhere near the optimal defense. As an example, in the above game, I actually won in 19 (although I hardly saw any of it- I knew I was easily winning, but I just played good moves until the game resolved itself).

    While we can't use tablebases here, we can use endgame books, and I agree with wormwood that the big W is more than capable of bringing home the whole point.
  8. 28 Jun '10 03:21 / 1 edit
    Didn't someone think about doing a match-up analysis of the entire game (except the portion where it is reduced to 6 pieces). I guess it would be very instructive.
  9. Standard member orion25
    Art is hard
    28 Jun '10 07:57
    Originally posted by cotoi
    Didn't someone think about doing a match-up analysis of the entire game (except the portion where it is reduced to 6 pieces). I guess it would be very instructive.
    You are free to do so. Now post something constructive or be quiet.
  10. 28 Jun '10 11:35


    Is this the game between a 1600 guy and a 2400 guy?
  11. Standard member orion25
    Art is hard
    28 Jun '10 12:13
    He's not really a 1600 is he? More like 2000 and probably better if his rating wasn't constantly dropping and rising...
  12. 28 Jun '10 12:30
    Originally posted by orion25
    He's not really a 1600 is he? More like 2000 and probably better if his rating wasn't constantly dropping and rising...
    This is a very funny thread. Evidently it was being discussed elsewhere and then guys continue the discussion here without filling us in on the details. There isn't a link to the game, a search revealed they have played each other 3 times.
  13. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    28 Jun '10 14:39
    Originally posted by cotoi
    Both players play advanced chess. Check the tablebases for the final position and you'll find the answer (and don't be surprised to find a verdict like "Black has a forced win in 38 moves"😉.
    advanced chess?
  14. 28 Jun '10 14:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    I have used the Namilov 6 piece tablebases to analyze my OTB games, with a very curious result:

    When the computer shows that I have a mate in X number of moves (I had one game where it said I had a mate in 51 moves!), I almost always win in FEWER moves.

    What I have learned is that defensive technique is very tough, and very often my opponen and I agree with wormwood that the big W is more than capable of bringing home the whole point.
    what is an endgame tablebase? in fact, whats an endgame? 😛
  15. 28 Jun '10 20:22
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    whats an endgame? 😛
    "A chess game is customarily divided into three parts, the opening, the middle game, and the endgame.
    During the opening you play to establish an advantage.
    In the middle game you try to turn the advantage into a winning position.
    The endgame is when you realize you are going to lose." - Saviely Tartakower.