What do you mean with "if Gustaran didn't help him"?
|
Chess
|
(October 3rd, 2013, 09:57)MJW (ya that one) Wrote:(October 3rd, 2013, 05:44)regoarrarr Wrote: I won It's true that the wikipedia article on queen vs. pawn endgames was very helpful. Whether I'd have found that article without Gustaran pointing it out we may never know... I have referenced the various wikipedia endgame articles before so it's quite possible. In the future though, at least for me, I would prefer the RB-style lurker policy at least for my games. It's too bad there's not a chess "lurker thread" where you guys can all make fun of my crappy play  I also invited Krill, darrelljs and Pindicator to join our team match. Anyone else reading, feel free to signup - it's a fun way to play without too much pressure. Rowain - you should definitely sign up!!  (October 3rd, 2013, 10:13)Rowain Wrote: What do you mean with "if Gustaran didn't help him"? He is referring to a Wikipedia article about general Queen endgame strategy I posted which roughly applied to regoarrarr's position. It is similar to you posting a strategy article in a Mafiawiki for a new player. That being said, I doubt MJW has a lot of experience in real correspondence play. Before the Internet era in 2000 it was very common for players in chess clubs to bring their correspondence games to the club meetings and get opinions on their position and this included complete moves and variations from several players. Another correspondence server with a large team league system featured a private team forums where it was normal to ask your teammates for help in certain positions (engines were banned though). Traditionally correspondence play is about finding the best move even with help of opening encyclopedias, databases and endgame manuals. That always was a huge difference to over-the-board play. I must admit I am not really interested in playing correspondence chess team matches with no communication between teammates. What's the point, so we can look at the results once the match is over and give each other a virtual pat on the back if more people from RB won? I can respect that there are people who want to play for themselves without any interference and chitchat, but again: I don't really understand why I would want to play a team match in that case? Why not play solo format? (October 3rd, 2013, 13:32)Jkaen Wrote: I agree to a degree, there is just a balance to be had between us doing everything in isolation, and you playing all our games for us. I think what we have right now is about right Given that I have not recommended a single move in all games I'd say we are rather far away from me playing for anyone else.  You always have to make the choice. It's great to know the general "rule" that you should exchange pieces when ahead, but as you have experienced yourself missing one tactical reply from your opponent makes these rules pretty useless.
Thanks for the analysis Gustaran - I just read it and enjoyed it. When I killed (I intended it as a "sacrifice" but didn't really get any gain from it so it's hard to really call it that
) my passed pawn - I could not see any way to break the stalemate. Your analysis helped me see a few, including early on in the endgame when I should have played g4+ since he couldn't capture the pawn since it would have allowed me to pass my king and then promote my pawn. I also enjoyed seeing where I missed the zugzwang. I WAS actually looking for that but just missed it.Wikipedia was very helpful in the late endgame and you're right that I missed a move on move 60 - I just played the wrong move. I also didn't realize that I could have lost even when it was down to the queen vs. 7th-rank pawn - very nice! To prove I'm not a complete end-game doofus, I did just win one http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=76193674 Though I'm sure I made plenty of mistakes in that one too.... 
|
