1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. c4 Nf6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 e6 10. b3 c5 11. d5 exd5 12. cxd5 Bd6 13. Nc4 Bb8 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Nxb6 Qxb6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Re1+ Kd8 18. Bc4 Re8 19. Rf1 a6 20. a4 Qd6 21. g3 Ba7 22. Bb2 Ng4 23. Re1 Ne3 24. Qd3 Bf5 25. Qd2 Nxc4 26. bxc4 Kd7 27. Rxe8

**** plays 27.-Rxe8

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. c4 Nf6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 e6 10. b3 c5 11. d5 exd5 12. cxd5 Bd6 13. Nc4 Bb8 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Nxb6 Qxb6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Re1+ Kd8 18. Bc4 Re8 19. Rf1 a6 20. a4 Qd6 21. g3 Ba7 22. Bb2 Ng4 23. Re1 Ne3 24. Qd3 Bf5 25. Qd2 Nxc4 26. bxc4 Kd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8 28. Nd1

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. c4 Nf6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 e6 10. b3 c5 11. d5 exd5 12. cxd5 Bd6 13. Nc4 Bb8 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Nxb6 Qxb6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Re1+ Kd8 18. Bc4 Re8 19. Rf1 a6 20. a4 Qd6 21. g3 Ba7 22. Bb2 Ng4 23. Re1 Ne3 24. Qd3 Bf5 25. Qd2 Nxc4 26. bxc4 Kd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8 28. Nd1 f6



Conditional moves:

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. c4 Nf6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 e6 10. b3 c5 11. d5 exd5 12. cxd5 Bd6 13. Nc4 Bb8 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Nxb6 Qxb6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Re1+ Kd8 18. Bc4 Re8 19. Rf1 a6 20. a4 Qd6 21. g3 Ba7 22. Bb2 Ng4 23. Re1 Ne3 24. Qd3 Bf5 25. Qd2 Nxc4 26. bxc4 Kd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8 28. Nd1 f6 29. Ne3

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. c4 Nf6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 e6 10. b3 c5 11. d5 exd5 12. cxd5 Bd6 13. Nc4 Bb8 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Nxb6 Qxb6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Re1+ Kd8 18. Bc4 Re8 19. Rf1 a6 20. a4 Qd6 21. g3 Ba7 22. Bb2 Ng4 23. Re1 Ne3 24. Qd3 Bf5 25. Qd2 Nxc4 26. bxc4 Kd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8 28. Nd1 f6 29. Ne3 Bg6



Conditional moves:

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. c4 Nf6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 e6 10. b3 c5 11. d5 exd5 12. cxd5 Bd6 13. Nc4 Bb8 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Nxb6 Qxb6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Re1+ Kd8 18. Bc4 Re8 19. Rf1 a6 20. a4 Qd6 21. g3 Ba7 22. Bb2 Ng4 23. Re1 Ne3 24. Qd3 Bf5 25. Qd2 Nxc4 26. bxc4 Kd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8 28. Nd1 f6 29. Ne3 Bg6 30. f5

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. c4 Nf6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 e6 10. b3 c5 11. d5 exd5 12. cxd5 Bd6 13. Nc4 Bb8 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Nxb6 Qxb6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Re1+ Kd8 18. Bc4 Re8 19. Rf1 a6 20. a4 Qd6 21. g3 Ba7 22. Bb2 Ng4 23. Re1 Ne3 24. Qd3 Bf5 25. Qd2 Nxc4 26. bxc4 Kd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8 28. Nd1 f6 29. Ne3 Bg6 30. f5 Bf7

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. c4 Nf6 7. Be2 Bf5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 e6 10. b3 c5 11. d5 exd5 12. cxd5 Bd6 13. Nc4 Bb8 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Nxb6 Qxb6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Re1+ Kd8 18. Bc4 Re8 19. Rf1 a6 20. a4 Qd6 21. g3 Ba7 22. Bb2 Ng4 23. Re1 Ne3 24. Qd3 Bf5 25. Qd2 Nxc4 26. bxc4 Kd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8 28. Nd1 f6 29. Ne3 Bg6 30. f5 Bf7 31. Ng2

I resign.

It probably sounds weird given the equal material, but positionally and practically, I think Black is toast.

White's knight is coming to e6 (31... g6 doesn't work because the h-pawn drops then: 32. Qh6 Rh8 33. fxg6, and 33... Bxg6 can't be played because of 34. Qg7+), can't be exchanged there because fxe6 would create connected passers.

On e6, the knight will be way too dominant. While I can deal with the threats to c5 by just reinforcing that pawn with b7-b6, the threats to the g7 pawn, or the f and h pawns if I move the g-pawn and exchange on g6, intuitively seem to be decisive.

In the latter case, the only square from which my queen will be able to defend f6 is e7, but White can put the rook on e1 and the king on f1/f2 and threaten discovered attacks.

If I decide to keep the pawn on g7, I can try to play Rg8 and sustain it, but then White can slowly but surely place the queen on b3 (to prevent the b5 break), and the rook on g4 and threaten Bxf6 exploiting the pin (assuming my Rg8, Be8, Kc8, Qd7 setup). If I can play g6 at some point, White can reinforce the f5 pawn by g4.

Sorry for not providing concrete lines, but I have a hunch that there's no fortress available and, practically, I can't defend this position against a stronger player who has such a big space advantage. Besides, I'm just too indifferent to the game now.

Congrats to ganstaman on winning! Happy Valentine's / Singles Awareness / Ferris Wheel Day to those who're celebrating!

I'll read and comment on others' spoilers in a little while.

The second post does provide evidence for the first one

Oh, I see. The point is that, after 7. Be3 Bf5, White has to give up the bishop pair - 8. Bd3 Nxd3+, in a position that's not as closed as usual. 7. Na3 just places the knight poorly.

But how to tell if a position is concrete?

Upon looking at a few more spoilers, I've realised that I'm not going to read any more of them 'tonight'. That would be too much for my general confidence that's already almost non-existent.

Oh dear, I failed to see a counterplay resource for Black in the final position. For convenience of those who'd like to analyse with no engine, I'll post the lines in a spoiler.

Rei, please don't bash me, I couldn't care less about this half of a point

Well thanks, this was a fun game. It was nice playing with you.

I'll read through the thread and add some comments eventually as well.

wow that was unexpected, I figured there was another twist or two in this game yet. If you play it out 10 times no way White wins 10/10.

Not trying to be unkind but I feel neither side played to their full potential, cooon and ganstaman are clearly both good players but there were a lot of weird moves and head-shaking analysis. Maybe neither player is best suited for this kind of position.

Thanks both for playing and commenting.

lol derp. SF says 28.-Qxe5 is losing -- 29.-Qe4 doesn't work at all.

(I didn't mention 27.-f6 28. Rxf5 g6 because it clearly failed, though.)

It shouldn't really matter a lot.

My correspondence thought process ended up settling as:

1) Start with an algorithmic search for tactical possibilities for both sides using heuristics that look at forcing moves, tactical seeds, etc. Usually focus on the ones opened up (or that existed previously but weren't addressed) by the opponent's last move(s).

2) If #1 doesn't turn up anything promising, think about the position in a more typical way.

3) Blunder-check. Repeat #1 from opponent's perspective for the move I decided on.

I think looking for logical moves/ideas first is a huge mistake.

What ends up happening in non-concrete positions is that time spent on #1 (and sometimes but less often #3) shrinks to zero. For example:



lol this position is idiotic. But anyway, Black just played e7-e6 (lol), and it's pretty damn obvious that #1 is going to turn up nothing, because the board didn't change, at all. So we can just jump ahead to #2 and play Rd1 without a lot of thought (or calculation).

It's better to let the position tell you if it's concrete or not, because you won't always be able to tell just by looking. (Pretty sure that in the Graveyard of Lost Points, you can find a lot of cases of people letting their guards down in "quiet positions".) So in the last example you wouldn't say "the position looks quiet therefore I don't need to look for tactical ideas", but rather "there were no tactical ideas before and my opponent's move didn't introduce any, blah blah blah". We wouldn't actually "say" either of those things as much as we'd quickly recognize them to be true.

As an aside, the distinction between tactical moves and positional moves can be pretty blurry. Most "tactics" don't win material. The usual result of a tactical search is a nifty move that improves your position somewhat. Like 27. Re5, in this position:



Yeah that's how I classify things. I prefer it that way. In case it isn't obvious, I'm serious about the attention to give pawn sacs*.

Eh, I'm running out of time to complete this post, but I was going to talk about testing out all of your purely abstract positional/strategic ideas with exploratory variations (where both sides play logical moves which don't always have to be the strongest available). Ime it works as a solid BS detector and gives you a better intuitive feel for whether your ideas are accurate or not.


*Heisman preaches the importance of looking at checks, captures, and threats. In many positions, this set of moves changes. In lots of endgames, for example, any move involving an advanced pawn tends to be worth considering. This position, where Black's king is centralized, is in pawn-sac land.

I think one of the underrated qualities you need to be a good chess player is resiliency. Sure, maybe you made a few suboptimal missed the idea of ng2-f4, but you simply can't give up in a position like this.

Obviously, it's not a serious game and in a tournament game you wouldn't just resign. But there's a good chance that you would mentally capitulate and lose focus. The really strong players would just keep going like nothing happened and continue to find the strongest moves. I think this is one of the factors that holds a lot of people back once they've got a decent grasp of strategy and tactics.

No, that's only a small part of the point. The move I was fearing most was 7. a3; of course I failed to see 7... Qxd4! 8. Qxd4 Nc2+.

Of course I wouldn't resign but would break down mentally.

The thing is that, on the December 5-6 night, i.e. at the time of move 9, I suddenly started suffering a lot mentally because of circumstances unrelated to chess; nothing bad happened irl, but my inner demons started popping up; I'm rather mental, you know. As you might have guessed, this night was another peak of my depression.

Obviously, chess is not the most important thing on the earth. I tried to use it as an escape from reality, though; I also loaded too many chess.com correspondence games (yes, 10-15 at a time turns out to be a lot for me), which only compounded the suffering because my thinking processes are fundamentally flawed in general; running into severely underrated players didn't help either.

As I'm a 'recreational chess player', I have the liberty to resign not only when I'm objectively lost, but also in all kinds of positions where I feel that playing on would be no fun to me. The final position of the game is not totally resignable, and I did realise it somewhat, but is definitely difficult to play with Black.

Sorry for not entertaining you enough, I hope you've still got a lot of fruit for analysis.

I'll look at other posts later.

Ok, some of my thoughts:

I am surprised by the resignation, but I understand the feeling.

I believe 25. Ne4 was best (I saw it during the game but didn't give it more than a glance, a habit I need to fix I guess). And on the flip side, 25...Nc2 would have killed my advantage. Never saw that during the game. Seems we were both so focused on c4.

It seems that g2-g4 would have been a great move several times. I just don't get it -- I don't see how it concretely wins, and it looks so weakening. How is it ok to play a move like that??

I find it interesting to see how often we were looking at different things. Often in a chess game, you wonder what your opponent is thinking, and it almost seems like we're playing two separate games. I imagine that much better players tend to think similar things as each other, but maybe I'm wrong?

I agree that 25... Nc2 26. Rxe8+ Kxe8 27. Rd1 Kf8 was a better try. I have an irrational belief in the power of the bishop pair, and I thought I'd be able to open the position up soon (by means of b5 or a kingside pawn storm), not realising that White would pose serious threats sooner that I could be able to activate the DSB.

Generally, artificial castling (Kd8-e7-f8) was in the cards for quite long, but I preferred to keep the king centralised; most likely it was also a positional misjudgment because the king was hindering piece coordination a bit given the lack of space I had.

I need to go back to the 25. Ne4 lines I posted at the time to see where I miscalculated, I thought it would be OK for Black.

10. g4 would have been so strong because I'd then have to give the bishop pair up (Bxb1) and White's space advantage wouldn't have let me attack the weakened king dangerously; instead, White would have advanced queenside pawns before I could create counterplay. What I failed to see is that, after 10... Bg6 11. f5, I couldn't save the bishop, as the f5 pawn would have been protected by the rook as well.

The idea that a weakness is only a weakness if it can be exploited is relevant here. (With the following, I'm referring to the position after 14. g4 Bxb1 15. Rxb1, though much of the same applies to other g-fours.) Black's coordination is awful, and White has all the space in the world; I can't picture a plausible evolution of the game in which White doesn't err but the "weakened" kingside ends up being a problem. The b8-c7 battery becomes a thing for Black, I guess, but with that pawn on f4, and d5-d6 being in the air, I'm not sure how he even takes advantage of it unless White plays a half-dozen pass moves.

OK, so 25. Ne4 was indeed good for White because my lines were flawed.

25... Nxc4!? 26. Nxd6 Rxe1+ 27. Rxe1 Bxd3 28. Nxf7+ Kd7 29. bxc4 Bb8 30. d6!! like Rei said.

25... Qg6?! 26. Rxe3 b5? 27. axb5 axb5? 28. Qd2! dxc4? 29. Qa5+ Ke7 30. Nf6+, winning the rook; if the king goes elsewhere, White even mates shortly.

Thanks to the readers for the spoilered comments, they contained hilarious jokes at times. I haven't looked thoroughly into ganstaman's spoilers yet.

As for my conditional move philosophy, it comes from my obsession by the chess.com time-per-move stat (which is rather useless because I had already got into Fast Thinkers Group and don't plan to play fast tourneys, which both require 3 hours or less per move); I hate to make my opponents wait for too long and sometimes add conditional moves that aren't thought out well if I believe that their EV is not very negative. (Well, at those times when I'm too depressed, I do make them wait because I'm afraid of making any move, like I'd be afraid of playing poker when I'm on tilt.)