|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-27-22
 | | OhioChessFan: How is that insufficient material? Here's one example of a loss.
click for larger view |
|
May-27-22
 | | Fusilli: <OCF> You are right. It is not according to FIDE rules. But chess.com automatically declares a loss on time a draw in situations like this. I think the system acts on the assumption that the losing side will not help the winning side mate them. They make 2 knights a draw too. So, if you have a pawn vs 2 knights and your opponent flags, you win. But if you do, it's a draw. Some people have complained, but I do see chess.com's point, since it's blitz. Say, someone with king and knight vs someone with king and pawn but extra seconds on their clock would just make sure not to capture the pawn and it is nearly impossible to meet the 50-move rule. While I do think that time is one more piece, and thinking more than your opponent carries its risks, I agree that there can be limits to some excesses. |
|
May-27-22
| | OhioChessFan: I don't agree with chess.com then. |
|
May-27-22
| | OhioChessFan: I guess chess.com will get by without my approval. As for the point of your post, that 38...Re6 is suprisingly a draw, that illustrates the value of an outside passer, especially with no major pieces on the board. |
|
May-28-22
| | Fusilli: <illustrates the value of an outside passer, especially with no major pieces on the board.> True. Well, in this case, two connected passers. One would not be enough. Incidentally, I had my own example of a single outside passer neutralizing a knight here: Sungho Yim vs M Sana, 2017. I think the game illustrates the limitations of the short range of a knight on the endgame board. A bishop in situations like this is better. Compare this position from the game: 
click for larger viewwith this one, where I can even have the luxury of placing the black king as far away as possible and black still wins: 
click for larger view |
|
May-29-22
| | OhioChessFan: I've learned from sad experience that you don't want to get into an end game with N vs. B if there are Pawns on both sides of the board. |
|
May-29-22
| | OhioChessFan: I'm sure you realize it, but I will say beyond the range issue, a Bishop can lose a move, the Knight is zugzwanged, and that point often decides the game. |
|
May-30-22
| | Fusilli: <a Bishop can lose a move, the Knight is zugzwanged, and that point often decides the game.> True. |
|
Jun-04-22
| | Fusilli: I just updated my profile, adding the paragraph about multiple sclerosis. There is a 4-round Swiss next Saturday at the Nashville Chess Center. Time control is 45 min with 5 sec increments. That's a good time control for me. I no longer have energy for more than one 2hr game per day. I am pondering playing, but to be honest, I am still traumatized from my pre-pandemic World Open disaster... |
|
Jun-05-22
| | OhioChessFan: A shame to hear that news. As for the tournament, beat up on some lower rated players online to regain your confidence. Just saying... |
|
Jun-05-22
| | Fusilli: <OCF> Good advice! |
|
Oct-05-22
| | Fusilli: Random thought. The famous first sentence of Anna Karenina is “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” From Wikipedia: "The Anna Karenina principle states that a deficiency in any one of a number of factors dooms an endeavor to failure. Consequently, a successful endeavor (subject to this principle) is one for which every possible deficiency has been avoided." I often find it bizarre when some folks comment that a super-GM is "not very good at something" (like endgame skill, positional play, strategy, tactics, cool-headedness, you name it). Super-GMs do not have major deficiencies. They are very, very good, at everything. That's why they are super-GMs. Sometimes I wonder why I didn't get further in chess. The answer is easy. I had (and have, but more of them now that I am older) fundamental deficiencies: a) I never liked studying chess much, and I did not have a regular, long-term coach. b) I was always an inconsistent player. I had some great days (when I could put up a fight against anyone below GM level) and some awful days (when I could lose to anyone). c) I always had lapses. I could make 40 good/great moves, and in one blunder blow the game. This happens to everyone, but I always felt it happened to me more often. d) I was always slow, relatively speaking.
I had a decent understanding of openings and endgames, good enough strategic skill, patience, decent tactical sense, and other virtues, but in the end, the Anna Karenina principle sets your ceiling. |
|
Oct-05-22
| | OhioChessFan: I'll suggest another ceiling for the lower classes that is rarely talked about. I suspect if you can't visualize, you'll top out at maybe 1700, and I'm probably being generous. When I first learned to play, and sat with a book playing over games, I was astounded to find people who could do it <without a board!>. I absolutely can not visualize a thing. IIRC, <YouRang> had the same limitation. I currently know an 11 year old who's ELO has gone up 300 points in a year, and he can easily rattle off lines in his head and see pieces moving and whatnot. He told me he could do it naturally and never put any effort into it. It's simply impossible for me. I know <DomDaniel> said it was the easiest thing in the world, and blindfold chess on one board is simple. He mentioned he thought nearly any 2000 could do it. I'm pretty sure the reason it's so seldom mentioned is the players good enough to be accepted as teachers could always do it, and don't realize that it's not a universal skill. And I can affirm from sad experience, no, working at it doesn't help, doesn't make you better. You can't practice what you can't begin to do. |
|
Oct-05-22
| | OhioChessFan: <I often find it bizarre when some folks comment that a super-GM is "not very good at something" (like endgame skill, positional play, strategy, tactics, cool-headedness, you name it).> Well, everything is relative. Until recently, Caruana wasn't very good at blitz compared to his classical peers. Reshevsky admitted to not being very good in openings. Of course, that was relative to his peers. <Sometimes I wonder why I didn't get further in chess. The answer is easy. I had (and have, but more of them now that I am older) fundamental deficiencies:a) I never liked studying chess much, and I did not have a regular, long-term coach. b) I was always an inconsistent player. I had some great days (when I could put up a fight against anyone below GM level) and some awful days (when I could lose to anyone). c) I always had lapses. I could make 40 good/great moves, and in one blunder blow the game. This happens to everyone, but I always felt it happened to me more often. d) I was always slow, relatively speaking.
I had a decent understanding of openings and endgames, good enough strategic skill, patience, decent tactical sense, and other virtues, but in the end, the Anna Karenina principle sets your ceiling.> A, B and C are the classic reasons most people don't excel at most anything. As far as chess, you do realize you're in the top 1% of players? I understand, though, getting a little taste of superior achievement and not really getting to experience it much. |
|
Oct-05-22
| | Fusilli: <OCF> True about the relativity angle. Perspective! About my level of play... Thanks for the reminder! I hope I didn't sound bitter or disappointed though. I just made other choices in life, and I am very happy with them. Like almost anyone else, I probably would have gotten further had I tried harder... but I didn't want to! Frankly, I am not sure I was ever in the top 1% in the U.S. But I may have been close at some point. I remember being 98-th percentile back when they published percentiles. I think they don't do that anymore. I recently found I am in the top-100 in the category online blitz over 50, which was nice: https://www.uschess.org/component/o... And without ever cheating! |
|
Oct-05-22
| | OhioChessFan: Amusing to see you hot on the heels of <FSR>. |
|
Oct-05-22
| | OhioChessFan: Hmmm. Chessgames.com says Mark Ritter died in 2011 |
|
Oct-05-22
| | OhioChessFan: https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/p... The plot thickens..... |
|
Oct-06-22
| | Fusilli: <OCF> I see you brought him back to life! Funny, I hadn't realized that I was right after <FSR> |
|
Oct-06-22
 | | FSR: <Fusilli> Why is your position with two pawns against a knight a draw when the side with the pawns flags? It is certainly <possible> to construct a sequence of moves whereby the side with the knight wins the game. Cf. Firouzja vs Carlsen, 2019, where Carlsen won a game in the World Blitz Championship on time despite having only a bishop on the board. There are indeed endings where the side with the knight forces a win against one or more pawns. 
click for larger view White to move. Could Black have drawn J Nogueiras vs M Gongora Reyes, 2001 by letting his flag fall? |
|
Oct-06-22
| | FSR: <Fusilli> I see that you answered my question already. It's chess.com's rule, not FIDE's. So Black could indeed draw a game like J Nogueiras vs M Gongora Reyes, 2001, if played on chess.com, by letting his flag fall. In practice, of course, positions like that are extremely rare (a lone minor piece almost never wins), so chess.com's rule reaches an appropriate result in the vast majority of cases. |
|
Oct-06-22
| | Fusilli: <FSR> <It's chess.com's rule, not FIDE's> Right. Once clock increments or delays were introduced, I have trouble believing the outcome would ever be different between the two rules because under FIDE rules, with increments or delays, the side with the pawn would never flag. Unless they absolutely have to run to the bathroom, have a stroke, or get abducted by aliens. |
|
Oct-07-22
| | FSR: <Fusilli> Except that in a (very rare) situation like J Nogueiras vs M Gongora Reyes, 2001, where the side with the pawn would want to flag deliberately if that gave him a draw in what would otherwise be a losing position. |
|
Oct-08-22
| | Fusilli: <FSR> Oh wow, that one was painful. |
|
Oct-08-22
| | FSR: <Fusilli> I searched Endgame Explorer, and that was the only game in the database where a knight beat a pawn. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
