♡ 49 ( +1 | -1 ) Rook ending QuestionI'm studying the french advance variation and read a suggestion to play the fallowing position with the black peices to get a feel for playing against whites weak d-pawn in an end game: White: King at g1; Rooks at c1, and f1; pawns at a2, b2, d4, e5, f2, g2, h2. Black: King at g8; Rooks at c8, and f8; Pawns at a7, b7, d5, e6, f7, g7, h7. I know black has at least a tiny advantage, but when I play the computer I end up losing or fighting for a draw. I hope some one out there could shed a little light on this as to ideas and motifs. Thanks
♡ 133 ( +1 | -1 ) After ...1 ... Rc4 (standard procedure for contesting a file = outpost your Rook to promote doubling when there is a faceoff as per game) and things pretty much fall in place for Black considering the d-pawn is presently unguarded leaving no time to play 2.b3. Now: 2.Rxc4 dxc4 -or- 2.Rfd1 Rfc8 3.Rb1 R8c6(Rc2 not yet needed since Rd2 by wt not good.) 4.Kf1 Rc2 etc ............... 3.Ra1 Rc2 4.b3 R8c6 2.Rcd1 Rc2 3.Rb1 Rfc8 4.Rfd1<--(forced aka "box" or the pawn win of 5...Rd2 6.Rfd1 Rxd1 7.Rxd1 Rc2 8.Rb1 Rd2 and 9....Rxd4) ...4....Re2 5.Rdc1<--(box or R8c2 kills)Rxc1+ 6.Rxc1 g6 7.Rb1 Rd2 In the last, it is very trappy if BL substitutes Kf8 for g6. And you might want to look at that to see who is trapping who after Rc8+ occurs. Don't be superficial as there are many resources for WT to try there. And is interesting, but a study unto itself almost. Anyway. That is the gist of the start position you gave as I see it, rat-baby . I think it presents most of the main ideas. If the Rf1 were already guarding the d4 pawn, or pawn on b3 instead of b2 it gets harder. Ideas there would be: to conduct a Q-side minority attack trying to gain space to double your rooks against the d4 pawn. Or trying to make the weakened d4 pawn into a weak e5 pawn. But I dont think BL can actually force a win then. But if you work it out to a win ... Well, I'll be in big trouble when you get ahold of my French Defence }8-) Regards, Craig A.C.
♡ 50 ( +1 | -1 ) Why did any of you bother to post any thing under this thread? It does not matter who's to move, or if I gave the position in Fen, algebraic, or by drawing a picture. I'm just looking for a feel of what black should be aiming at. Like in "Basic chess endings", Fine will have a position and say white's plan involves 4 steps: 1.fixing h5 2. Getting a passer on the Queen side, etc.. I guess you guys have no clue as what to do so you hide behind a bunch a lame tachnicalities to look smart.
♡ 17 ( +1 | -1 ) okok my friend. if that's the way you feel. though it sure looked like craig gave some solid points. if you're not interested in FEN then you're not interested in FEN. i don't really care :)
♡ 30 ( +1 | -1 ) to clear things up a bitAll technicalities aside, algebraic notation can very well be used to describe a position. It just can't be fed into a chess program like FEN. The majority of posts on this board actually have used algebraic to describe the position (probably because not many of us are familiar with Forsyth).
♡ 74 ( +1 | -1 ) id=ccmcacallisterdoesnt need to "look smart with a bunch of lame technicalities" and he's not hiding. He has forgotten more than most people on this site will ever know about chess. PArticulalry CC. His attempt to assist you may have not been helpful because he assumed you know a lot more about chess than you actually do. I know. He taught me. and you are fortunante to have had him even respond to you, let alone ignored your obviously juvenile remarks about the effort he made.
His assessments are not only accurate they are extremely well thought through ffrom several angles. His advice could not have been more solid. Your response could not have been more fluff.
♡ 78 ( +1 | -1 ) I second deadofknight and his post. rat-baby you may not make it to rat-adult, it is you that have no clue as to manners. You have now alienated the very people who you seek advice from? Have fun figuring it out for yourself, as the advice from a former CC IM didn't seem to impress you... Maybe you should play ccmcacollister in blitz and put your new found un-knowledge to the test? There are many willing to help, even bend over backwards to help but drop the attitude, you catch more bees with honey ;-)
♡ 18 ( +1 | -1 ) Thanks.Thats the first time anyone agreed with me. Just for kicks I'd love to see Mooses resume posted on here. He would be shy about it, but I just love to read it.
♡ 111 ( +1 | -1 ) Thanks for the kind words ....oblique , deadofknight & tertsius . Just wanted to note, I got a PM from rat-baby saying he wasnt including my post in his that followed it ... and was going to look it over. I find the FEN notation looks very interesting and useful. Hadn't seen it in that nice streamlined form. Tho we used to use something simliar for noting down adjourned positions in OTB Chess. But was stacked, like this : 1-K-R-4-R P-P-P-3-P-1 7-P 3-P-p-3 ******** The above would just be half a board of it. But would be saying Kb8,Rc8,Rh8, Pawns on a7,b7,c7,g7,h6 & d5 for the BLack pieces and shows a White pawn on e5. I don't know what it was called. But I really like the linear method from oblique . Nice ! That would make a nice Thread on its own, to show entirely. I'd like to see it all. Or might there be a LINK or SITE on it? ************* Regards to all }8-)
♡ 16 ( +1 | -1 ) Isn't it obviousrat-baby wasn't referring to Graig?
("I guess you guys have no clue as what to do so you hide behind a bunch a lame tachnicalities to look smart.")
♡ 39 ( +1 | -1 ) ConfusionMy guess is that rat-baby began writing his post before ccmcacollister 's message was posted and did not see the updated thread before hitting the "Preview/Post" button. Notice the little time elapsed between the relevant posts.
♡ 4 ( +1 | -1 ) i don'ti don't think that excuses his behavior.
♡ 16 ( +1 | -1 ) Enough is enoughhe apoligized to Craig in a pm. ANd Craig says thats good enough for him. I just wish Craig would post his resume again...it used to be on his profile.
♡ 134 ( +1 | -1 ) Some of my experienceComputer is a good helper in training technique. One way to train is to put up an endgame position, which is a technical draw/win and try to defend or win it against a computer (just the way rat-baby is doing). I train like this quite often and have created a database with aproqimately 100 positions to work on. I just give each side two minutes and try playing out one side. When I lose a drawn position, I switch sides - the computer has to defend the drawn position. Then I try the plan computer implemented to beat me, against itself. Shure enough, good old Fritzy shows the right defence. Again, I switch sides and now I have the tools to defend the position. Of course I end up losing later, but then again I can switch sides and try winning against Fritz. :)
This way I have learned a lot about endgames. One thing is to read a chapter from Dvoretsky, another one is playing it out until you can draw R vs R+P blindfolded.
P.S. Some funny things tend to happen when a computer wants to win - I have won several opposite color bishop endgames, that originally planned to defend a pawn down. Fritz just sacrificed couple of pawns trying to brake through and ended up losing. Felt nice beating that monster :)
♡ 5 ( +1 | -1 ) solkins...we all beat fritz like that....its no big deal. ;)
♡ 132 ( +1 | -1 ) Starting a resume' thread ...Well DOK, since you asked I did consider putting a new Profile back together. But got to thinking that I like seeing OTHER PLAYERS Chess History ... so I think I will start a thread so people can tell about the history of their Chess play. And Of Course ... I'll expect id= deadofknight will be among the first to post there !! :) *** Someone was asking me if soikins method of endgame practice was legal? ... Well of course not IF it were a position from an active game! Not wanting to "put words in his mouth" as they say; but I'm sure he is referring to positions from finished games or miscellaneous practice postions ... which would be a great idea IMO. I do like his computer training method in endgames. A person can get to where they can playout a drawn Rook ending at 20 or more moves per minute that way, for EG. So it is great for those of us who court time troubles in otb, especially! (yeah, me. Once had to play 40 R&P moves in little over a minute. It Wasn't pretty, but lived :). Great to practice basic mates vs a computer too. Like R or 2-B's or B+N against computers too. [And they don't complain ... except that Rude Comment Computer ... what's it called ?! haha. Think I need one of those too.] }8-)
♡ 79 ( +1 | -1 ) OOPS ...That last should have highlited deadofknight ! *** Just forgot to say, that there's voting to delete on this thread now, and the standing follows. Anyone wanting to vote can click "modify this thread" in the left top corner of this page. Then click "delete" to get rid of it or click "keep in Chess Forum" to vote against deleting it. (That keeps it here). There must occur a "difference" of 10 votes for action to be taken ... *** If you believe that this message thread doesn't belong in this forum, where do you think it should be?
- Chess related (2) - GameKnot related (0) - Tournaments forum (0) - Team Play forum (0) - Just delete this thread! (2)
♡ 35 ( +1 | -1 ) YesComputers can be good trainers. But IMO one needs to learn typical plans and themes before consulting Ftitz. Seeing correct moves isn'enough, one has to understand them! While rat-baby's way to express his opinions wasn't polite, he made a good point: nobody except Graig seemed to have a clue how to play the given position :-)