when should you resign.

Thx tharkesh, looking at it your analysis seems spot on , I hate playing black and have no idea how to gain equality , unless my opponent makes a hash of it ,even then its hard work. Time to go to the london chess centre and get some books.

Originally posted by kaminsky
Thx tharkesh, looking at it your analysis seems spot on , I hate playing black and have no idea how to gain equality , unless my opponent makes a hash of it ,even then its hard work. Time to go to the london chess centre and get some books.

Hopefully no opening books.Judging by that game you don't need them,you came fine out of the opening.
The mistakes you made will not be remedied by the study of openings.

Let's see.

7...,Be6? rule of thumb: don't block your pawns like that.Only on rare occassions the bishop can be developed this way.I don't think this is one of those.
You have set yourself up for queenside expansion.So expand (perhaps after castling) with b5 and develop the bishop to b7

after 10....,Bd7 you have now lost a tempo due to the poor 7th move.

However,look at the position.What's wrong with it?Where is black's disadvantage?I see none.The opening was not your problem.

12....,Qb6 Why?Random attack on the b-pawn?If white leaves it undefended you cannot even capture it!You've also pinned your own c-pawn,maybe not a huge issue but always something to take into account.
Again I advocate queenside expansion with 12....,b5.

16....,Bd4?? You don't slaughter the chicken that lays golden eggs!When you set up your king with a fianchettoed bishop that bishop is your chicken.Personally I even hesitate to trade it for a rook.There are white strategies revolving entirely around trying to trade off that bishop.You voluntarily offer it!
Play 16....,f5 before white gets to do it.

17....,Nf6?! I think now you're getting into trouble.After 17....,Bxe3 18.Qxe3,Ng7 you still look ok to me.


19....,e5? Cut your losses,another important concept.You're losing a pawn,nothing you can do about it.But don't make matters worse!Keep a cool head,say goodbye to your pawn and get on with the game.
Hard to find good moves though.My candidates would be Bc6 to improve the worst placed piece,Rac8 to activate that rook or even Kg8 so the knight is no longer an undefended piece.But I don't really see what Rac8 does or even if I want that rook there.I'd probably play 19....,Bc6 that also frees d7 for the knight.

21....,Qd6 drops a piece.I guess Qc7 was forced.But it's a tough position to be in.

Hope that helps a bit.

Thanks for the advice torten , your point about the fianchettoed bishop is extremely important , frankly ive no idea what the purpose of fianchettoed bishop is, obviously something to look up. . 12....Qb6 was just a crude attempt to provoke a response, I was running out of ideas. I need abit more time to digest the other problems . thanks again .

Originally posted by kaminsky
Thanks for the advice torten , your point about the fianchettoed bishop is extremely important , frankly ive no idea what the purpose of fianchettoed bishop is, obviously something to look up. . 12....Qb6 was just a crude attempt to provoke a response, I was running out of ideas. I need abit more time to digest the other problems . thanks again .

There are at least two purposes for the fianchettoed bishop. One is to provide defence for the king's position (if you castle that way) which is why you don't sell it too cheaply. Another is that it provides long range firepower down the diagonal it sits on, a1 to h8 in this case. There are occasions when one can "throw away" the fianchettoed bishop but this isn't one of them. A particular instance where exchanging the bishop off can work comes after 1.d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5 and now if white plays 4. d5 or 4 dxc5 then 4.... Bxc3+ can make things difficult for white, so much so in fact that I know inveterate d4 players who won't play 3. Nc3 if black plays 1.... g6. White can end up with doubled pawns, not too bad maybe, but trebled isolated pawns after dxc5 are not going to cause much joy in the white camp. This, incidentally, is one reason some people play 1. ... g6 rather than 1. ... d6, the bishop's line of fire is unobstructed until it becomes clear that it is better to wall him up behind the knight.

Don't tell me....

Game 8310105 and Game 8310103

Jesus wept.

skeeter

Originally posted by skeeter
Don't tell me....

Game 8310105 and Game 8310103

Jesus wept.

skeeter

You replying to me or someone else? Either way I can't see the point you are trying to make unless you are trying to bully your opponent into resignation?

I've noticed that if a player has been stalemated
once on RHP then they will always go for it.

And why not?
There is a lad on here who has been involved in a stalemate 10 times!

A few examples.

Soni - Talonboss RHP 2006


White to play. (he can't - stalemate).

Cheshire Cat - Soni RHP 2007


Black played 70...Rg8+ forcing 71.Kxg8 stalemate

And this I think this example may cheer a certain lady up.

Soni - Very Rusty RHP 2007


White has just played 57.a7 Stalemate.

Yep. VR never had any OTB nous and I note that our little friend is definately manoeuvring towards a stalemate senario, on both boards.

I'm onto it.

skeets

... and accomplished.

skeets

You were lucky Skeets. Soni is just a Candidate Master of Stalemate.

The Grandmaster of Stalemates on the site is Marko Krale User 115856
27 Stalemates to his name.

I bet if you add up all the stalemates involving all the top players
from Steinitz to Anand they would not exceed 27 (I can only think of one,
a Karpov v Korchnoi WC games ended in a stalemate.)

Soni and Marco have met and of course there was only one outcome.

Soni - Marko Krale RHP 2007


Black played 94...d2 Stalemate.

94...Bf3+ wins easily but that is not the Marko way.
Both players would have been very happy with this result.

lol

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The Grandmaster of Stalemates on the site is Marko Krale User 115856
27 Stalemates to his name.

Well, yeah. But he's also the top of three players who have played the most games on this site by far. It's not surprising that among that many games, there are also many stalemates. A better measure would be to ask how many games someone has needed per stalemate. Maybe Soni is high up in that list, but I'm not about to do the drudge-work.
Going by raw numbers is a bit like saying that China has the most left-handed people of all countries - undoubtedly true, but also quite meaningless. What we want to know is: how many southpaws per thousand.

I bet if you add up all the stalemates involving all the top players
from Steinitz to Anand they would not exceed 27 (I can only think of one, a Karpov v Korchnoi WC games ended in a stalemate.)

That's not because they see stalemate as inferior, though - rather that they are able to see it coming from a longer distance. Then the attacker is either are able to avoid it, when possible, or if not, to agree to a draw before the actual stalemate is reached.
It's similar to how many more amateur games end in a checkmate, not just in toto, or even just per game, but even per won game. A grandmaster doesn't have to have it proved to him that queen vs. rook is won. Many amateurs need to have it proved that it leads to mate.

Richard

Another thing about beginners and checkmates is that they believe a real win is only achieved through an actual checkmate. I remember playing some games with a guy and he complained that he had not won a single game. I had to remind him that I had resigned one of those games, but he said it didn't really count because he didn't actually checkmate me.

It's just a fact. (....and a piece of fun) Marko has had 27 stalemates on here.

I just find the number 27 incredible and testament to Marko's dogged
determination.

I've never had a go at a player for not resigning.
(and in future if anyone does you can quote Marko Krale)
Stalemate is part of the game.

I was however way off in my estimation of top players games.
It's something I never considered before.

I have what I call an untainted DB, good players games only and not
all the dross you get with these Mammoth Databases. It shows 107 stalemates.
(it only goes up to 2000 after then I stopped taking the game so seriously).

I cannot find one from Lasker, Capa, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer or Kasparov.

All other strong players you can think of including Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Euwe
Spassky, Tal, Larsen, Smyslov, Nimzo, Karpov(2), Korchnoi, Keres, Bronstein,
Petrosian, Kotov etc etc have at least one. Taimanov is top with 3.

Some Examples:

Tartakower - Reti Baden-Baden, 1925 (final postion)


I wonder how Reti felt being forced to demonstrate he could
draw a simple King and pawn ending.

Anand - Dreev Madreas 1991


This is good, Anand played 58. g8=Q+ Kx Q 59.a7 Bxa7 (forced) Stalemate.

Larsen - Korchnoi Brussel 1987


This one reeks of time trouble, Larsen played 59.Qa6 stalemate.

Of course GM's prevent them or agree to a draw if they see one coming.
(Except if you are playing a joyful Tartakower)

The great pity is in lost postions they often won't try a stalemate swindle
and I wonder how many GM's resignations would ended up drawn or
stalemated had they continued and went for it Marko style.

Karpov v Topalov Linares 1994


Topalov played QxN and resigned a three moves later.

He should have tried Rd1+ and Rg1+

Originally posted by greenpawn34
You were lucky Skeets. Soni is just a Candidate Master of Stalemate.

The Grandmaster of Stalemates on the site is Marko Krale User 115856
[b]27 Stalemates to his name.

I bet if you add up all the stalemates involving all the top players
from Steinitz to Anand they would not exceed 27 (I can only think of one,
a Karpov v Korchnoi WC gam ...[text shortened]... easily but that is not the Marko way.
Both players would have been very happy with this result.[/b]

This is my vote for post of the year. Rec'd, of course!