|
|
|
Topic: My First Win Against Class A Player Ever!
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Raeth wrote:
| So you have experience playing Class A rated USCF players and can tell he's not right? |
I've played against the equivalent of expert and class A players in the UK and they don't make blunders like those, twice in a game. Ratings on most chess websites tend to be quite a bit higher than USCF ratings.
| I gave up the bishop pair because I wanted a draw and opposite color bishops will end as such with equal play |
Bishop-and-pawn endgames with opposite coloured bishops tend to be drawn but who says you'll get as far as an endgame? I still don't understand why you gave up an advantageous position (bishop pair versus bishop and knight) to get to a hopefully-equal position (opposite-coloured bishops). In an advantageous position, you can make small mistakes and end up in an equal position, or trade down to the drawn endgame at the moment of your choosing. In a hopefully-equal position, making small mistakes moves you into a disadvantageous position and you find you've lost the game. You keep saying that you were aiming for a draw but you had something better than a draw.
| 62. c4 was strongly considered by me but it allows him to advance the a-pawn and so I rejected that move. |
62... c4 63.a7 Bxa7+ 64.Kxa7 c3 and, in two more moves, you have more queens than your opponent. Game over. Who cares about the bishop?
| I was using multiple draw requests along with various text entries as a psychological ploy (which I am allowed) |
No you're not. FIDE Laws of Chess, article 12.6:
'It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.'
Badgering your opponent makes you look like an ass.
|
|
|
The problem with 12.6 is that it is open to interpretation. As a concrete example if I have a winning position yet offer a draw, then surely this is not 'unreasonable', even if I do it multiple times.
|
|
|
| LOL ... Raeth, tell me you don't practice these methods regularly! If so, that deserves its own post to see what others think about psychological attacks. Somehow I don't think that goes along with 'friendly'. There is no prize money here, ya know. |
Well it was a tournament and I was forcd to play him and and was at a terrible disadvantage; I just used every means at my disposal without going over the edge morally.
| Bishop-and-pawn endgames with opposite coloured bishops tend to be drawn but who says you'll get as far as an endgame? I still don't understand why you gave up an advantageous position (bishop pair versus bishop and knight) to get to a hopefully-equal position (opposite-coloured bishops). In an advantageous position, you can make small mistakes and end up in an equal position, or trade down to the drawn endgame at the moment of your choosing. In a hopefully-equal position, making small mistakes moves you into a disadvantageous position and you find you've lost the game. You keep saying that you were aiming for a draw but you had something better than a draw. |
I agree with you about my position but I was playing against a player 200 points above my rating and at that moment I saw a last minute chance to get those opposite bishops. I felt that my position after the trade was quite solid and a draw would be attainable. From that perspective my advantage paid off by allowing me to draw.
| 62. ... c4 63. Kb7 locks out my king and White gets his queen before I get mine. 62. ... c4 is very tempting though and I believe he did so intentionally. |
|
|
|
Raeth wrote:
| 62. ... c4 63. Kb7 locks out my king and White gets his queen before I get mine. |
62... c4 63.Kb7 c3 64.Kxb8 c2 65.a7 c1=Q 66.Kb7 (66.q8=Q Qb7#) 66... Qb1+ 67.Ka6 (67.Ka8 Kc7 68.f6/h4 Qb7#) 67... Qc8+ (67... Qb1+ 68.Ka6 Kc7 is still an easy win but 69.a1=N+ is annoying) 68.Kb6 f6 69.Ka5/b5 Qb7(+) 0-1
|
|
|
whyBish wrote:
| The problem with 12.6 is that it is open to interpretation. As a concrete example if I have a winning position yet offer a draw, then surely this is not 'unreasonable', even if I do it multiple times. |
FIDE's interpretation is that repeatedly offering a draw is unreasonable. Indeed, a previous phrasing of article 12.6 explicitly forbade 'the persistent offer of a draw'.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
