What is this nonsense baby
@consul2412 said in #9:
> '' This is not wrong, but also not entirely right.''
>
> Conclusion, this is WRONG.
0 or 1 . no uncertainty? or uncertainty = draw = consented end of game in opening range.
Can best play bring cycles early in the game (fold repeats)?
This relates to the notion of "refutation". what is that? how about clue instead.
> '' This is not wrong, but also not entirely right.''
>
> Conclusion, this is WRONG.
0 or 1 . no uncertainty? or uncertainty = draw = consented end of game in opening range.
Can best play bring cycles early in the game (fold repeats)?
This relates to the notion of "refutation". what is that? how about clue instead.
Black:
First I thought "what is Black doing"? I have never seen this passive approach against the Catalan before, and ...- a6 seems out of place. If you want to play for a win ( - presumably he does, with 200 points rating difference - ), doesn't the Open Catalan seem like a much more reasonable choice? Okay, it is not his main repertoire, and it is a theoretical monstrosity, that makes sense. So I can only guess he cooked something up with a super obscure sideline. Then why did he repeat? He must have known that it was objectively the best option. Probably Black wants to play something like dxc4 and e5, which Bf4 prevents entirely. Without that it becomes hard to find a (reasonable) active plan at all.
White:
Okay, I get that you love fighting chess, but I am going out on a limb here, please don't feel insulted. Both Bg5(xf6) and to a degree Be3 seem like perfectly playable alternatives. I believe that you were actually not that unhappy with the draw. Your opponent was 200 points higher rated?! The other explanation I can think of is you psyched yourself out about your opponent's chances. Considering that spending 9min total contemplating the draw is not a lot though.
TL;DR: Black cooked up some surprise that (unfortunately for him) happened to lead to an early draw in one line, and White being lower rated was ultimately happy to take the draw.
First I thought "what is Black doing"? I have never seen this passive approach against the Catalan before, and ...- a6 seems out of place. If you want to play for a win ( - presumably he does, with 200 points rating difference - ), doesn't the Open Catalan seem like a much more reasonable choice? Okay, it is not his main repertoire, and it is a theoretical monstrosity, that makes sense. So I can only guess he cooked something up with a super obscure sideline. Then why did he repeat? He must have known that it was objectively the best option. Probably Black wants to play something like dxc4 and e5, which Bf4 prevents entirely. Without that it becomes hard to find a (reasonable) active plan at all.
White:
Okay, I get that you love fighting chess, but I am going out on a limb here, please don't feel insulted. Both Bg5(xf6) and to a degree Be3 seem like perfectly playable alternatives. I believe that you were actually not that unhappy with the draw. Your opponent was 200 points higher rated?! The other explanation I can think of is you psyched yourself out about your opponent's chances. Considering that spending 9min total contemplating the draw is not a lot though.
TL;DR: Black cooked up some surprise that (unfortunately for him) happened to lead to an early draw in one line, and White being lower rated was ultimately happy to take the draw.
@Schachsuchti64 said in #13:
>
Interesting 2 players thinking story. I am trying to digest it.. and learn what I don't get from just reading it.
I might figure out the remaining board story too, passing. one story being scaffold for the other (in my approach to chess, at my uneducated level -- still so). I like the direct style of narration.
It fits my debating ways. (and might be an old scheme of teaching.. the dialogs attributed to socrates, without a clear unidirectional flow of information among the pair, as the real flow is from the pair of dialoguers to the audience)...
So i might not be alone in appreciating this form. (and content, but i need to work on that). Figuring out what the references of the 2 player reasoning might have been, even if not central to the post (which focuses on the 2 players intent projection or inference game), having that novel refreshing post in mind can serve to learn some "real" chess for me (as a tourist of the meta game of chess).
TL;DR:
> TL;DR:
cherry on top!
>
Interesting 2 players thinking story. I am trying to digest it.. and learn what I don't get from just reading it.
I might figure out the remaining board story too, passing. one story being scaffold for the other (in my approach to chess, at my uneducated level -- still so). I like the direct style of narration.
It fits my debating ways. (and might be an old scheme of teaching.. the dialogs attributed to socrates, without a clear unidirectional flow of information among the pair, as the real flow is from the pair of dialoguers to the audience)...
So i might not be alone in appreciating this form. (and content, but i need to work on that). Figuring out what the references of the 2 player reasoning might have been, even if not central to the post (which focuses on the 2 players intent projection or inference game), having that novel refreshing post in mind can serve to learn some "real" chess for me (as a tourist of the meta game of chess).
TL;DR:
> TL;DR:
cherry on top!
<Comment deleted by user>
@alpinnt said in #6:
> I wonder in those examples of the Italy-Hungary match or the Mamedyarov admission, any strong repercussions like disqualification?
It's a tricky issue, but I think you don't need to go as far as outright disqualification – I think all it would take is a bold enough tournament director to not invite players known for making short draws. Imagine if Mamedyarov and Radjabov didn't get invites to several elite events for a year after making yet another short draw against each other, and the example that would set. I understand these two GMs are close friends, but it's a tournament director's choice (and a totally valid stance) that they don't invite players who don't want to play a full game. In a sense, it's not even playing at all – they may as well shake hands without making a single move. I'd also like to point out that prearranging a draw, in my mind, is no different than prearranging a win or a loss. You're agreeing to the result of the game beforehand.
> I wonder in those examples of the Italy-Hungary match or the Mamedyarov admission, any strong repercussions like disqualification?
It's a tricky issue, but I think you don't need to go as far as outright disqualification – I think all it would take is a bold enough tournament director to not invite players known for making short draws. Imagine if Mamedyarov and Radjabov didn't get invites to several elite events for a year after making yet another short draw against each other, and the example that would set. I understand these two GMs are close friends, but it's a tournament director's choice (and a totally valid stance) that they don't invite players who don't want to play a full game. In a sense, it's not even playing at all – they may as well shake hands without making a single move. I'd also like to point out that prearranging a draw, in my mind, is no different than prearranging a win or a loss. You're agreeing to the result of the game beforehand.
@NNWill said in #5:
> This is why I play 6.f3 instead of 6.Be3 in the Najdorf Sicilian. When my opponent plays 6...e5 I can transpose with 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3. I don't want to have to study 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Bg7. Is there any reason why grandmasters play 6.Be3 instead of 6.f3, since 6.f3 avoids this forced draw line?
If your intent is to play the English Attack setup (f3, Be3, Qd2, O-O-O) regardless of whether black plays an e5 setup or an e6 setup, then it is probably better to start with 6. f3.
However, there are some other good setups for white starting with 6. Be3 that delay or omit f3 entirely, so starting with Be3 allows you to go for one of those. Personally, for a while, I was playing 6. Be3 with the intent to enter the English Attack against 6...e5 but not against 6...e6. At another point, I was playing 6. f3 because I always wanted to go for an English Attack.
There are also some differences in the sidelines (6...b5, Qb6, Nc6 etc.) but the sidelines are pretty rare and probably aren't too serious of a consideration for most people when it comes to deciding between 6. Be3 and 6. f3.
> This is why I play 6.f3 instead of 6.Be3 in the Najdorf Sicilian. When my opponent plays 6...e5 I can transpose with 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3. I don't want to have to study 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Bg7. Is there any reason why grandmasters play 6.Be3 instead of 6.f3, since 6.f3 avoids this forced draw line?
If your intent is to play the English Attack setup (f3, Be3, Qd2, O-O-O) regardless of whether black plays an e5 setup or an e6 setup, then it is probably better to start with 6. f3.
However, there are some other good setups for white starting with 6. Be3 that delay or omit f3 entirely, so starting with Be3 allows you to go for one of those. Personally, for a while, I was playing 6. Be3 with the intent to enter the English Attack against 6...e5 but not against 6...e6. At another point, I was playing 6. f3 because I always wanted to go for an English Attack.
There are also some differences in the sidelines (6...b5, Qb6, Nc6 etc.) but the sidelines are pretty rare and probably aren't too serious of a consideration for most people when it comes to deciding between 6. Be3 and 6. f3.
<Comment deleted by user>