I am finishing a game in which the end game I entered into I saw from the start of it.
I knew he had nothing on the side his king was on so I gave him that side. I had a bishop on my side I could sac to stop the passed pawn he could make. On my side it was my king and pawn against his pawn.
I saw that this was a win after deciding I could not save my two pawns on the side his king controlled.
This is new to me, making a decision to enter a known won endgame. How often does this happen for you?
Originally posted by @moonbusPerhaps bad form so I should edit out the paticulars. But then I am not discussing the game, just describing my thinking once the game is all but over. I'm not sure why that should be bad form.
1. Discussing an on-going game is bad form.
2. Knowing which endgames are won, lost, or drawn is the critical decision-point when to trade down in a mid-game.
3. In every game where no blunder occurs in the opening.
In any case, it is a first for me to see how things would go that far off.
...How often does this happen for you?
Quite often. The two big questions for me are:
1. Where should my King go?
2. What pieces do I want on the board?
Question 1 often involves if my King should be attacking enemy pawns or helping my pawns advance.
Question 2 involves getting rid of Bishops and Knights if I have a passed pawn or keeping them on the board if my opponent has the passed pawn. I think the theory is Bishops and Knights are excellent blockaders of passed pawns.
Originally posted by @montymooseHow many moves out do your thoughts go? Are they relatively short ideas of moving pieces or general plan of how the game will be played out from that point forward?
...How often does this happen for you?
Quite often. The two big questions for me are:
1. Where should my King go?
2. What pieces do I want on the board?
Question 1 often involves if my King should be attacking enemy pawns or helping my pawns advance.
Question 2 involves getting rid of Bishops and Knights if I have a passed pawn or keeping th ...[text shortened]... passed pawn. I think the theory is Bishops and Knights are excellent blockaders of passed pawns.
Knights are blockades while bishops can work both sides of the board.
I saw what has taken about 11 moves to work out, with about 5 more to queen then however many to mate k q vs k.
I've never seen this far out.
Originally posted by @montymooseGenerally I agree with you. In the case that I described the position was such that I knew the exact moves that would be played.
With pieces on the board, I usually have short term plans, 2-3 moves ahead, but no more than that.
With passed pawns I see a general plan on how to win and work towards that goal. This becomes a matter of technique, not planning as such.
It was a unique situation for me and wondered if stronger players have this happen more often or if it very rare even for them.
Originally posted by @eladarWhen this sort of thing happens less and less, when you bring it to fruition more and more, you will know that you are advancing towards strategic understanding of the game.
Generally I agree with you. In the case that I described the position was such that I knew the exact moves that would be played.
It was a unique situation for me and wondered if stronger players have this happen more often or if it very rare even for them.
Originally posted by @eladarI just finished this one, deliberately trading down to opposite-color bishops because I saw he could not stop my pawns.
I am finishing a game in which the end game I entered into I saw from the start of it.
I knew he had nothing on the side his king was on so I gave him that side. I had a bishop on my side I could sac to stop the passed pawn he could make. On my side it was my king and pawn against his pawn.
I saw that this was a win after deciding I could not save my ...[text shortened]... s new to me, making a decision to enter a known won endgame. How often does this happen for you?
ZorroTheFox vs. BDP