Chess Match: Shady Bill vs. Skybird

[Shady Bill]

oh and the useless clergy..hunkered down behind a barricade at a1.
I should have traded him when I killed your bishop. Whatever the outcome of this war, my black square bishop will be put on trial for treason against the king.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Shady Bill

Maybe Markus would also like to try a match?


“The beauty of chess is it can be whatever you want it to be. It transcends language, age, race, religion, politics, gender and socioeconomic background. Whatever your circumstances, anyone can enjoy a good fight to the death over the chess board.” – GM Simon Williams

It could be fun, even though I would most likely lose

I've been thinking on starting a I-wanna-join-our-chess-tournament-thread

I hope that many will sign up for this tournament-Which will be played all against all.

Meaning(Example) 16 sign up.
Which mean 8 matches a.s.o until we have kick-out games up to the final.
Or we divide them into two groups and they play against each other in these groups and the first two after they have finished playing-meet the first two in the other group in a semifinal.

My idea is that the winner gets a beautiful logo with the word Subsim chess master 2022.

Only ideas.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Shady Bill

23.Nxb7


I love the look of this position. A mere dozen moves ago I was bragging about my fortress and its opening drawbridge.
Now that fortress lies in complete ruin and the battlefield is covered in white's blood. Your two large cannons are stacked together aimed at the very heart of my crumbled empire.

23. Na5xb7 my move 23. ... / Rd8-d3





I hope you are uncomfortable now, having expected Rd2...!?

[Shady Bill]

Originally Posted by mapuc

It could be fun, even though I would most likely lose


My idea is that the winner gets a beautiful logo with the word Subsim chess master 2022.


Only ideas.
Markus

Really good idea actually.


Looks like I have my next opponent


We can adjust how much we share about each others moves and people could have input in our match to a degree where both you and I can learn.
Who wins or loses isn't that important. It really is important only to the winner; because he/she won. So it works out great.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

It could be fun, even though I would most likely lose

I've been thinking on starting a I-wanna-join-our-chess-tournament-thread

I hope that many will sign up for this tournament-Which will be played all against all.

Meaning(Example) 16 sign up.
Which mean 8 matches a.s.o until we have kick-out games up to the final.
Or we divide them into two groups and they play against each other in these groups and the first two after they have finished playing-meet the first two in the other group in a semifinal.

My idea is that the winner gets a beautiful logo with the word Subsim chess master 2022.

Only ideas.

Markus

My impression was that you just had read the rules of chess. Do you play since longer, or have you just learned it?
If the latter, it might be the better idea to have a match where you make a move and explain why you make it, your reasoning behind it. Then the opponent, of whom to think as a trainer, will tell you what makes sense in that reasoning and what not, makes his move, and tells you why he made that move. That way, you learn and improve. If you have just read the rules and want to play against a strong opponent, that makes no sense: you would get plowed under and not even know what hit you, when, and why.
If you have just learned chess, read the rules a couple of days ago, Bill would be too strong for a regular match for you.

[Shady Bill]

Originally Posted by Skybird

23. Na5xb7 my move 23. ... / Rd8-d3
I hope you are uncomfortable now, having expected Rd2...!?

I became uncomfortable quite a few moves ago let me think on this a bit

[Shady Bill]

Originally Posted by Skybird

My impression was that you just had read the rules of chess. Do you play since longer, or have you just learned it?
If the latter, it might be the better idea to have a match where you make a move and explain why you make it, your reasoning behind it. Then the opponent, of whom to think as a trainer, will tell you what makes sense in that reasoning and what not, makes his move, and tells you why he made that move.

yea that would be an excellent way to learn. Also, when I make a bad move, it would be nice if people could comment on why and what would have been better.
I often have ideas, but struggle to translate them to the board. I think a good way for an older person to learn chess, is to learn "ideas" rather than memorize move orders.


For example; if in the opening, you always make every move about controlling the center, you will do okay in the opening. That is a much easier concept than to learn dozens of openings.


Could be excellent learning for both Markus and I

[Skybird]

I love to critizise people. Torpedo love, so to speak.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Shady Bill

Could be excellent learning for both Markus and I

Not excellent, only a compromise due to this forum setup. Better it is to start with few pieces and learn the basics of endgames, how to checkmating, basic rules for simple pawn transformation endgames; then moving to middle game and basic tactical motives there, and then to openings and their logntemr strategic goals at the end. Like a juggler: he does not try 8 balls in the beginning when he learns it, but just tries two, then three, then four balls .

But that is too time-consuming and unhandy to do in this forum. Better have a real person in a club, for exmaple, or a friend at home for this kind of lessons.

Or a book. I learned chess three times, and the most in depth learning was with the book by Tarrasch, a classic. The first time I learned it at the age of 5, by a colleague of my father, but I was not sufficently engaged back then, with 5 years. Then came a very popular book by a German grandmaster who is ver popular here in Germany and a former business colleague of mine, he was psychologist, too: Helmut Pfleger. His book was for kids learning chess, and I read it during first class (I could already read when I was at first class). German chess player cannot avoid to not know him, he commented many TV events, together with Vlastimir Hort. Soke yera slater then, "der Tarrasch". Classic, old fashioned, but back in its own time revolutionary. Today probably outdated in its approach, at least not revolutionary anymore. But old school, and that must not always be somethign bad.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

My impression was that you just had read the rules of chess. Do you play since longer, or have you just learned it?
If the latter, it might be the better idea to have a match where you make a move and explain why you make it, your reasoning behind it. Then the opponent, of whom to think as a trainer, will tell you what makes sense in that reasoning and what not, makes his move, and tells you why he made that move. That way, you learn and improve. If you have just read the rules and want to play against a strong opponent, that makes no sense: you would get plowed under and not even know what hit you, when, and why.
If you have just learned chess, read the rules a couple of days ago, Bill would be too strong for a regular match for you.

I have known about the rules the most important for years-How your pieces are allowed to move I also somehow know about certain chess rules. Like you changing place with your king with a tower-What I didn't know what you call it O-O or O-O-O King/Queen castle

My Elder sister was School champions for some years and she use to beat me when we played this was many years ago.

As I mentioned before - I would most likely lose against however I would meet in a chess game. I have this handicap that I can only see one-two draws ahead/combinations and I remember what my sister said to me-You have to learn on how to calculate combination more than two draws ahead.

I have recently learned on how to put moves into writing somehow I must admit. Still learning how a "elimination" shall be written.

'cause I can't see in your moves where you got your chess pieces "eliminated"
Only what move you made.

I read more into this O-O and O-O-O rules:
it must be that king’s very first move
it must be that rook’s very first move
there cannot be any pieces between the king and rook to move
the king may not be in check or pass through check

Markus

[Shady Bill]

24.Rc1

Originally Posted by Skybird

23. Na5xb7 my move 23. ... / Rd8-d3
I hope you are uncomfortable now, having expected Rd2...!?

I am not seeing what you are seeing yet. I fear a back rank mate of some kind, I think my Rc1 stops that but I am not seeing it yet. I will go back to board now and stare at it some more.

[Shady Bill]

Originally Posted by Shady Bill

24.Rc1

It over my friend. The war is done. This will put you ahead a piece. You certainly bested me.


I will gladly allow you to finish him off, but this would be the point of resigning I think.

[Skybird]

This is the enfant terrible variation...?

To make it short, with that move you are done.
24. Rc1/Rxc1+ 25. Nxc1/Rd1+ 26 Kf2/Rxc1 your are dead.

[Skybird]

A mishap ends this match, thanks for them match, Bill.
My idea btw were variations that would have brought the other rook forward, too, and one rook on the a-line, recapturing the pawn on a2 and maybe trading a rook and pawn for nights and pawn, something in that direction. The end would have been a simplified position with way more symmetrical material and still sufficient material advantage for me to win - easier to play, I would have been much more comfortable with it.

I also ahd the idea of both rooks on the second line and then checkmating the king after blowing up the castle, but there was one single silent innocent move available to White that would have prevented that.

[mapuc]

I tried to play against an online computer and was Checkmate after 42 draws.

Markus