| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Am I right to offer a draw? game andrzejb (1695) vs. tugger (1727) After 40... Rb6+ I offered a draw with the message... "41. Nb3 Rxb3+... Good game, Happy Christmas". I spent a long time analysing this position, and I really wasn't sure my FOUR passed pawns were good! I had to worry about spite checks, and he has one more heavy piece than me, allowing him to attack the weaker pawns. But I have four passed pawns! Did I bottle it? |
||||||
|
wolstoncroft 28-Dec-09, 17:13 |
why draw? Where's the fighting spirit? |
||||||
|
wolstoncroft 28-Dec-09, 17:25 |
|
||||||
|
The reason for the message was simple... I had just postponed my games for Christmas through to New Year. Once I had decided I intended to force the draw, then why wait for the New Year? He wasn't going to walk into mate. I was basically telling him of my intention to force the draw. If he declined, he'd have a two week wait before I force it. I guess I was being polite. But you're right. By not playing it out, I didn't learn. It was a very tight decision, but it seemed to me he could apply too much pressure on my weaker pawn in the centre, while all the time being able to spite check me into a draw should he have problems with the pawns. I offered the draw because I felt if I started pushing pawns, I'd find myself fighting for a draw I should've forced when I had the chance. There's no shame in drawing. I just wonder if I could've won (without my opponent suddenly playing terribly). Would you continue here, wolstoncroft? |
||||||
|
... I tried 40. .. h6 instead of 40. .. Rb6+. White has many ideas, one is to harass the black king while converging on the weak center pawns, may the scenario you feared. 41. Qd5+ Kh7 42. Qe4+ Qg6 43. Re1 Qxe4+ 44. Rxe4 g5 45. Rxe5 g4 46. Nb3 g3 47. Re2 h5 48. Nxd4 Rf2. White has annihilated the center pawns but has some problems stopping the king's side pawns. May be white should not go for the exchange of the queen's so he would be able to harass the black king when the king's side pawns move forward. I did not analyze that variation... |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 28-Dec-09, 20:18 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 29-Dec-09, 14:00.
|
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 28-Dec-09, 20:30 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 29-Dec-09, 14:00.
|
||||||
|
wolstoncroft 28-Dec-09, 20:43 |
|
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 29-Dec-09, 01:58 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 29-Dec-09, 14:00.
|
||||||
|
baronderkilt 29-Dec-09, 15:18 |
Very interesting tugger ... Also stops advance ....h5. ...h6 is not good enough to win. Slow advance is not possible of K's pawns as his Q cuts your K from the action, and to advance the other p is to invite his R to ignore the center pawns and play to mate from behind. IF your pawn were Now on h5 and Kh7, Suggest the following as the win attempt ... *** Qxb3+ Kc1 Qc3+ Kb1 Qe3 and it is more interesting. But Qf7 is very commanding (not saying absolutely best. Perhaps e6 or e8. Did not look at everything) Kh6 BOX. can he involve his R vs the g6/g7 weaknesses before you Q?! And he has perpetual chances to bail into if not, as you still do too. I suspect even after adjusting you to Future Position, it still at least draws for him, at least. Which is to say, for both of you if you want it. Believe I agree with you and TA on this one. Perhaps Ka1 so his own K does not block him from R to c-file access. But begs your Purpetual in either case. *** Thx for a very interesting position to look at Matt |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 29-Dec-09, 15:30 |
and ... |
||||||
|
yusuf_prasojo 29-Dec-09, 21:10 |
Playing in GM level or club level, I like playing endgames. I like to get to the ending as soon as possible even if I will have a slightly inferior one, as long as I can see the chance to win the game. But this one, I think BL had no chance. I'm sure you would have been sorry had you not taken the drawing chance. |
||||||
|
I think yusuf sums up my thoughts pretty well... "But this one, I think BL had no chance. I'm sure you would have been sorry had you not taken the drawing chance." I think it looks like BL should be able to win, but after analysing, it seems that WT has the better chance. I'd like to reply to this comment from wolstoncroft... "the point is that you can not assume perfect play from your opponent," No, you're very right. But it's not unreasonable to be expecting my 1700-rated opponent to analyse after every move. There's no way I'd walk into mate in this position as WT, and since I consider my opponent my equal, I am certain he's not going to either. It's not about perfect play, it's about how much respect you have for your opponent. I didn't want to make my opponent wait two weeks for me to force a draw on the off chance he makes a stupid move that I doubt a 1300 player would make OTB. You didn't answer my question, though... would you play on for the win or force the draw? Assume you're playing someone your equal. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Although not quite as good as Rxb3+, you still could have played Rb8 (which still offered the potential of Rxb3+ for the draw on the next move after). With his knight pinned he could have easily made a mistake, especially since your opponent's rating was only about 1700. But that is about your rating too. I think the position was equally difficult for White as it was for Black - just in different ways. Connected passed pawns can be extremely dangerous when advanced and with Heavy pieces off the board. It was a judgment call that depended upon how comfortable you were with playing the position further. Yet, by pointing out the moves White could easily see the forced draw and just accepted instead of assuming weakness your part (some opponents see draw offers as a sign of weakness and reject). You did avoid the worse case scenario, and that's significant. |
||||||
|
Learning to draw is important LEARNING within itself!Learning how and when to draw in a position is many times MORE important than learning how to mate on all rating levels of play from 1000 to GM levels.Many GM's for example will,in certain circumstances, push for a draw to gain that extra half a point for a tourney win.On the lesser rated scene,it is important to "learn"how to draw against much stronger opposition,especially if that player has a strong material advantage over you.So when I read things like..."I will not learn anything from a draw",I just smile to myself!Creating a drawish position can be many times more complex an undertaking than trying to mate and the skill many times necessary to create a draw is an art within itself.While tuggers game above is not the best example of what I am speaking about,there are a million games that one can boot up from various databases that illustrate the MORE important value of a draw rather than going in for a more risky mate attempt,perhaps like tuggers game. Learning how to draw in blitz for example has EXTREME learning value.I can't count how many times I forced a draw or stalemate with my opponent when I was down a queen.The trick is knowing exactly how to do it and quickly....easier said than done!And in a circumstance like that...it is BETTER and MORE rewarding than a mate! I love draws just as much as mates!Perhaps if more players "loved" draws,they would become STRONGER players by taking more time to find ways to draw against those almost impossible players to win against that are say,500 or more rating points above you. I just had a player a short time ago that was over 600 points below me in rating play me in the v1.05 blitz room. While the GK blitz computer did not recognize the draw,it was a draw nonetheless under the "50 move rule".As far as i'm concerned that player should be given a metal for succeeding to "draw" against overwhelming rating odds.It is an "art" to even "attempt" a 50 move draw rule without a capture or pawn move. Tuggers game can be considered a close call relative to answering his question about should he have or not have gone for the draw,but I tend to agree with tugger himself and yusuf on this matter.Going for a draw sometimes outweighs the importance of going in for a slightly higher risk of attempting a win in many scenarios and tuggers game is no exception,atleast in my viewpoint. |
||||||
|
wolstoncroft 01-Jan-10, 06:31 |
Got gut's? Chess is a battle, and you need to fight, that's whats fun about chess, the above discussed position is exactly when you should want to play. I could understand if it were one game of many in a match against a single opponent. I could understand if it were a tournament where there might be strategy to your scoring. I could even understand if it were bobby fischer reincarnate and you wanted the bragging rights. However when it is just a game, you should fight it out EVERYTIME. Not just because its the right mental attitude for a winning player, but because you can learn something from it. And after all, isn't that the point? To learn and become better. If you are afraid of losing then you have already lost. In response to your question: I would play it out every time, against anyone. And to the person who made the point that he plays chess for fun and when a game is no longer fun for him then it is time to draw. I think he makes the strongest point in this whole thread. I can not disagree with that. Hey, if we are here why not enjoy it. But to many of the other hoity toity, highbrow elitists, you forget your fundamentals. Three pawns is better than a knight in the endgame. Blacks focus should be to trade off the major pieces and and leave white with only a Knight against his 3 pawns. Resulting in white having no winning chances and THEN it would be right for white to draw. ironic, isn't it? Again this position is not clear at all. The pawns against the knight should be all the motivation you need. black should drop the rook back to the home rank and play from there. Which side of that game do you think the best players in the world would want to be on? I'm pretty sure they would want black. /////Happy New Year!/////// |
||||||
|
I do like .... I recall a story told, usually against GM Najdorf, who, examining a position being played by a certain Soviet GM, incautiously asked if said Soviet GM was 'playing for the win.' "I am playing to answer the needs of the position," came the lofty reply. As I say, GM Najdorf is supposedly the butt of the story, but I rather think there's more to both sides than meets the eye. The story suggests that for any given chess position there is an underlying objectively 'true' move (at least one - there could be more) that, with best play to follow, will yield a best possible result. A few more 'objectives' ought really to be sprinkled about in that sentence. From one perspective, that might well be correct, but then it comes down, perhaps, to a matter of style whether one seeks out this hidden truth, or just plays the move that in your judgement is likeliest to yield a good result. 'Playing to win' and 'responding to the needs of the position' might well mean exactly the same thing. But the one might better express this player's approach to the game as opposed to that player's. Of course, if things go pear shaped, and you drop into a bad game (you have responded rather poorly to the needs of the position), then you might well change your approach. No longer playing for the win, you might be 'playing for the draw', 'trying to save to half-point', or even 'setting you opponent difficult problems to solve' if he wants to realise the win. The choice tugger made certainly cuts to the chase: White can not avoid the draw. There's a lot to be said for that (as I think tactical_abyss is arguing). Black has found and walked away a clear-cut and safe half-point. The alternative was to realise highly nebulous winning chances in a technically difficult ending. White's pieces look very active, and tugger was right to take this feature into consideration. How vulnerable might that hanging pawn-couple become? Speaking of 'saving the game', one or two readers might have seen this before - from a club game in Wellington in 1980: w White (myself) was lost. Lately I had been trying to throw obstacles in Black's path, but not making much of it. Sooner or later, that Black pawn roller will thunder forward, and that will be that. 28.Re4!? - What else? I had some vague notion of playing the rook over to c4, if given the chance. That Black was to be given the opportunity to fork rooks did make me hesitate, but then I found something interesting... 28...Ng3? Immediately compromising almost the whole of his advantage! 29.Qg5!! Not only ignoring the double attack on the rooks, but leaving the knight 'en prise' as well! Which piece is Black to take? As it happens, taking on f1 leads to a White win; whilst after 29...Qxd5 Black skates very close to defeat before holding on to draw. I'll leave those analyses to you. My opponent, however, found the quick and safe road to the draw (though fairly scenic!), and took it: 29...Nxe4 30.Rxf7+! Kxf7 31.Qe7+ Kg8 32.Qxd8+ Kf7 33.Qe7+ ... Draw - Black can not escape the checks. As it transpired, neither I nor my opponent so much as glanced at the possibility of Black ignoring all three captures after White's 29th. What then might have been the outcome? Cheers, Ion |
||||||
|
"you still could have played Rb8 (which still offered the potential of Rxb3+ for the draw on the next move after)." I did analyse this line, and was concerned by 42. Qc7, depriving my queen of c3, taking away the draw by brute force. If I were to continue attacking, I would likely have opted for 41... Qg6+ and 42... Re6, with ideas to launch the flank panws as soon as possible. I think I assumed this line was likely... 41. Nb3 Qg6+ 42. Ka1 Re6 43. Nc5 Re8 44. Qd5+ Kh8 45. Re1... My central pawns are starting to look very weak, and he has his queen and knight in very good positions. It looks to me like I'm losing both these pawns in not much time. The flank pawns, well, these are more of a problem for him, but he can now afford to sac his knight for them, and have one passed pawn advantage, probably winning (it's a flank passer, it might not make it!). It's now becoming clear that this is not the easy win I had thought when I cleared the blocker pawn on g3. I agree much with what tactical_abyss has to say. Once I had considered the position to be drawn, I didn't care much to hang around and wait to see if he makes a schoolboy error. I'm more than happy to draw a game, but only if I cannot win it without my opponent playing terribly. To reject a brute force draw when there is a real danger you could lose in my view is reckless. I'm not sure I agree with wolstoncroft, however. For a start, I'm black. One should never be unhappy about drawing when black, after all, it's the best you can hope for until white makes a mistake. I'm yet to play this player as white, I hope to beat him and have a net gain on our two matches. And you are wrong to assume one cannot learn from a draw... I'm still learning from this one, and it's thanks to you, and the "hoity toity, highbrow elitists", as you put it. I must admit I'm a little surprised by your lack of respect for the opinions of players clearly much better than you and I. It's their opinion that I seek most, it's their analysis and approach to the game I wish to emulate. You too could learn much, if you can wind your neck in. And I'm also very surprised to see you teaching such players about the fundamentals. Have you analysed this position? If three pawns are always better than a knight in endgame, then this is a win by force for black, yes? Your rating suggests your roughly my equal, so you should know, as I do, that every position is different. Three linked pawns are very different to three isolated pawns. Two pairs of two linked pawns are different to one isloani and three linked. This position I have posted is not a fundamental position, it requires analysis and judgement. On this occasion, I do not think the pawns are better than the knight. Very good players here seem to agree with me, and I'm obviously happy about that, as it seems I made the right decision to force the draw. Perhaps you should forget your flawed fundamentals, and learn from better players. "Which side of that game do you think the best players in the world would want to be on? I'm pretty sure they would want black." Why don't you ask some of the best players at GK? |
||||||
|
It has nothing to do with "guts" wolstoncroft,but smarter,safer ways to play SOME games as opposed to running around a blind corner shooting your guns,hoping for the best and then getting shot down by someone hiding behind a box. You are not "lost already" simply because of a fear of loss.If this was true,then check your history of real life battles fought over the centuries.Retreating and coming back stronger on another day and learning from your draw for the next battle is the superior way to play. By playing games to the end in an "uncertain" next move arena ALL THE TIME like you mentioned above wolstoncroft...."play it out everytime"(unquote) even with the uncertainty of how to proceed and a much stronger possibility of a loss,well is simply not smart at all!I suggest your way of thinking may very well keep you at your 1700-1800 rating for life.But if that is ok with you,then by all means play every game till the end with all the gusto and guts you prefer!More power to you!In the meantime,i'll be the guy waiting for you behind the box! Happy New Year! |
||||||
|
I'll accept the first move posted for white by any player rated 2000+. Thank you to anyone who contributes. 41... Rb8 I've decided to go with this one simply because it's been suggested by others. Qg6+ seems to lose the pawns fairly quickly. |
||||||
|
Tugger... I'm drinking the rest of my Dom Perignon left over from last night in Times Square,NYC! |
||||||
|
Ok tugger.... Please play your best,I will continue with... 42.Qc7 You do all the diagram work,however,if you desire. Make any moves,checks,pawn moves,anything you like or think best.Allow any other player to also suggest a move if you like no matter how high or low rated,even higher than me in rating. This way,no one can say to me...."talk is cheap".Now I base my first move# 42 solely on your diagram directly above. Good luck and have a Happy New Year!! |
||||||
|
42... Re8 42. Qc7 is the move I would expect, it pins my pawn, attacks the rook, denies me the brute force draw for now and begins loading up on my weakest pawn. I have little option. 42... Re8 Although I accept my centre will collapse, I'm not going to let it happen quickly, I would like to be able to advance the flank pawns as far as possible while white deals with the centre. Qg6+ doesn't help, in fact I lose influence on the weak pawn square, and blocks another pawn, so I can't see this is a good move. Therefore, the rook must move. Where else other than e8? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
... Clearly, there are many roads along which to roam... Cheers, Ion. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
42.....Re8 43.Nxd4 Re8 is fine,but starts to dissolve one of your center pawns perhaps quicker than you anticipated.A delaying move of 42.... Qg6+ may have indeed been slightly better for you,for a drawing tool.However at this point is is not critical. |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 01-Jan-10, 15:29 |
T/A ... |
||||||
|
Later.... |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
