Originally posted by Eric LeFavour"Dame Elamef" I should say, good show.
Rock on Sir Elamef. She can play very tough. She has been playing chess for a while and does a great job. She deserves every bit of credit for winning. Shouldn't we ask Paul to change it to "Lady Elamef"? Seems more fitting for a lady. 😉
Eric
Quite a game and SG is correct a nail biter to the end.
Not knowing the result I was waiting for a Black own goal.
Some surface comments.
Surely White has better here than giving up that beautiful Knight...
...for the a8 Rook. And look at those pawn forkable Knights on d7 and f7.
Here is the games major turning point. White to play.
White played 25.Re3 here and walked into a pawn fork.
His play went right down hill after this and blundered away his Queen.
However ignore the Rook and get on the active diagonal 25.Qe3 NxR 26.Qd4
And the Black King is in a mating net (that d5 pawn is on this f6 is covered).
Black will have to shed a chess set to stop mate. (if he can).
So the White win was there, he just put the wrong piece on e3.
(if Black does not take the Rook then Qd4 anyway.)
The Queen blunder has all the symptoms of a 3 seconds glance and over confidence.
This game finished on the 19th June.
On the 6th of June Daverokudan had alreadu mated Elamef in 16 moves.
Game 7483374 so big slaps for him for not putting in a 100%
into every game and ignoring what has happened in another game.
(though you all do it.....I don't 'cos I'm perfect) 😏
Back to the posted game.
Elamef was doing OK. then that one serious blunder. 17...Qc8??
allowing the e6 pawn to go was a baddie that needs eradicating.
I can see no tactical idea behind the move nor any ghosts threats.
It was simply a very bad clumsy move.
She never took adavantage of the major difference between this and OTB play.
Here you get to see your move on the board before you play it.
She has to STOP and look at the position before pressing send.
(you all do!!......I don't 'cos I'm perfect) 😏
Once a Queen up she coasted home.
Just a wee nit-pick.
Black to play:
Black played 32...Ne4 closing in on the naked King with a
three piece over kill.
(perhaps she heard me saying 3 pieces always mate - however
if it's a Queen and Knight then you can count the Queen as two).
32...Nf5 and mate on g2 next move.
Best to despatch them as quick as possible. The game went on for another
6 moves. Which is 6 mores chances for you to chuck it.
Originally posted by greenpawn3432 ...Nf4 (Nf5?) just to prove your imperfect like the rest of us greenpawn dude!
Quite a game and SG is correct a nail biter to the end.
Not knowing the result I was waiting for a Black own goal.
Some surface comments.
Surely White has better here than giving up that beautiful Knight...
[fen]rq2r1k1/pp1nbnpp/4N3/3PPp2/P7/7P/1P1B1PP1/RNQ1R1K1 w - - 0 20[/fen]
...for the a8 Rook. And look at those pawn forkable Knights on ble. The game went on for another
6 moves. Which is 6 mores chances for you to chuck it.
By the way, i think i have discovered a brilliant way to get better at chess visualisation, all you need to do is read chess books without a chess set, you are kind of forced to visualise the variations. This i think has a real major advantage over computers where all we do is clickety click.
Hi Robbie
Deliberate mistake to see if anyone was paying attention.
Well done. I'll contact Russ and he will give you 5 more rating points.
Chess without a chess set.
A lot of the good players can do that but it's more fun (and easier)
with a set. I can do it but get lost if there is variation and no diagram
to pull me back.
The very odd thing is if someone is telling me the moves of a
game without sight of the board I 'see it' better with Black on my side.
(Try it yourself.)
Yet of all the games I have played over I'd say 99.9999% of the time
it has been with White on my side.
Including times I've been studying Black defences.
I suspect it's the same with most people.
An amusing tale relating to this subject.
Bells 1 and Bells III were playing different teams on tha same night.
I had won my game fairly quickly so wandered around looking at the Bells III games.
One of our lads had a winning shot on. He missed it.
(it always amazes how everyone in the room can see a quick trick
and yet both players at the board can miss it)
Later that night in the bar the Bells III player came up to me.
"Geoff have a look at this." handing me his score sheet.
I looked at it for 20 seconds. (actually looking for what move number
he played his missed shot on). I handed it back '24.Bxg6 wins.'
He laughed, everybody laughed.
They got out the bar set and true enough 24.Bxg6 won on the spot.
The silence of awe was deafening.
Of course I told them I saw the game at the critical moment but
not after I had gathered a pint or two
🙂
Originally posted by greenpawn34Good story, by the way!
[
Yet of all the games I have played over I'd say 99.9999% of the time
it has been with White on my side.
Including times I've been studying Black defences.
I suspect it's the same with most people.
I found this to be very interesting, but I'm not sure why. I am apparently the exception. I tend to play the game from the perspective that interests me most, whether it's the winner's side, a favorite player, etc.
If I am studying a book, I set up a board, and if it is a defense, I play the black side- even for losses- so I get used to how it looks at tournaments.
Occasionally I will turn the board around to see it from the white side, but that's usually only if I'm trying to figure out white's plan a little better (or I don't believe the book).
I am very curious to know what others think. Should this be in a separate thread?
Originally posted by greenpawn34I must be one of the few people who go through games as black only, the reason being:
Hi RobbieYet of all the games I have played over I'd say 99.9999% of the time
it has been with White on my side.
Including times I've been studying Black defences.
I suspect it's the same with most people.
a) I think whites extra move is a liability
b) The best defence is a great offence
c) Reaction and action differ by two letters
d) Although both players are trying to win, black always wins a moral victory with a draw
I would have thought you young 'uns would have taken the white side
all the time as most (all) of you have been brought on algebraic notation
which is easier to master, especially starting out, from the white's side.
It's designed for the white side.
Descriptive is flexible in as much that every square has two names.
e4 is white's K4 and Black's K5.
Although I cut my teeth on on descriptive and recorded in it up until 1980.
I always play over games from the white side.
Originally posted by greenpawn34That's interesting, as I was thinking the opposite- algebraic is easier from both sides, and each square is exactly the same, and has the same designation, no matter what side of the board you sit on. The g4 square is always the g4 square, but KN-4 depends on which side you are on.
I would have thought you young 'uns would have taken the white side
all the time as most (all) of you have been brought on algebraic notation
which is easier to master, especially starting out, from the white's side.
It's designed for the white side.
Descriptive is flexible in as much that every square has two names.
e4 is white's K4 and Black's K ...[text shortened]... scriptive and recorded in it up until 1980.
I always play over games from the white side.
I also grew up on descriptive, but my generation (I'm 44) saw the advent of computers from early in school, and I'm sure that influenced me.
I also think the old Battleship game also heavily influenced my conversion to algebraic- when I first was introduced to algebraic, that was the first thing that came to mind.
I'm good at Battleships. I use to beat my kids all the time.
I used the ploy of plotting my shells like knight moves.
Always firing a knight move away till I hit something.
Then out came the Rooks and Bishops.
I knew all this chess knowledge would make me good at something in life.
I can beat my kids at battleships.