Roll up, roll up for the OTF chess tournaments

[Wouter D]

Are you feeling alright Wouter? What's all this hypermodern ism from you? I'd expect to have one of your pawns on row 6 by now normally.

I'm trying out this new thing called "not racing to the other side like a lunatic". Don't know if I like it, but variation is good.

Doing quite alright, thank you. Back to work (at home) today, after a two-week honeymoon (at home).

[Levin]

My game with Wouter has reminded me of 17th and 18th century fortifications for some reason.

[The_Purple_Cow]

I've just lost to a guy who is (or was) rated about 100 points below me but played at a level several hundred points higher than his, or my, rating. It seems to be happening more and more often this last year or so.

[The_Purple_Cow]

I'd like to formally apologise for my appalling level of performance in this tournament. All I can say is that I am in the worst form of my adult life this last few weeks, so much so that I've been beaten by both my sons on several occasions in the lockdown period - something that's never happened before. I'm starting to worry that its the harbinger of some serious mental decay otherwise yet to manifest itself.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

ha, I have that but more so. I'd fallen over 200 rating points over the course of this OTF tournament and the previous one, from 1483 down to 1269, before clawing a bit of that decline back with a win against Wouter yesterday which was my first OTF chess win, apart from matches v Bored and a VT timeout, for what must be around 30 matches. Hell, I *won* OTF4 and OTF16 (see the complete tables for OTF 1 to OTF 16 inclusive at p.92 of this thread), and now I'm struggling to avoid another second last place. Most of it is no doubt that others have learnt and improved whilst I haven't. Some of it may be mental decline, I hope not. Part of it is probably that I have less patience for thinking things through thoroughly like I used to, due to work pressures, my emotional state of mind in recent months etc. Part of it is that for a long time now I have played almost entirely 960 outside of OTF, as the standard opening position bores me, hence I have become particularly weak at openings in the standard game, and usually find that I'm positionally well down after 10 moves or so, which I can't then compensate for.

[Levin]

Oh Vicarious Thrillseeker I'd have been more than capable of losing in that position.

[Vicarious Thrillseeker]

Oh Vicarious Thrillseeker I'd have been more than capable of losing in that position.

It was a very silly error and I didn't feel capable of chasing it back.

[ad hoc]

Since he didn't get the chance to mention it yesterday, as the game ended more or less exactly the time that the board crashed, Sam completely skewered me yesterday with, effectively, a queen sacrifice leaving me, ultimately, lucky to get a draw.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Saw that. Great result by Sam, which will almost certainly condemn me to penultimate place in the table. I tried to work through the implications of the final position - I thought you had a choice between settling for perpetual check (a draw of course) or, alternatively, withdrawing your king towards the vacant back rank square which would then allow Sam to capture your queen with a bishop check. I thought that if you opted for the latter you would then be more or less level (certainly on material, initially) and wondered why you hadn't opted to fight on, but I guess I'm missing some way in which your position would have been significantly worse than level (e.g. could Sam have forced mate somehow after capturing your queen?). Anyway, I ran the computer analysis which confirmed that your position was evaluated at exactly 0.00 (and had been for a few moves already), so clearly your position if you'd taken the non-perpetual check option was in negative territory to some extent.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Hang on, just thinking this through as I go along with the non-perpetual check option. What I'd missed until just now was that if you go Kf7 then Sam can use the 6th row rook instead of the 8th row one for his next check, which then enables him to capture a rook at move 37 below and so go a rook up.

33 -------- Kf7
34 Rh6h7+ Ke8
35 Bb5 + Qd7
36 Bxd7+ Kd8
37 Rxf8+

Is that it?

[ad hoc]

Yes, I think I end up a rook and a bishop down, at least (in the moves you outline above, most of which are forced for black)

[ad hoc]

It's the
35 Bb5 +
move that takes away the option of trying to sneak away

[Sam]

Hello chaps. Yes, as I said to ad hoc in the game chat right after it ended, I'd been hoping like mad he'd go to e8 (while realising he'd probably seen what would happen if he did). All the same, considering how far down I was on material (a queen and a pawn, I think, albeit having chucked the queen away after realising I could secure at least a draw) I was pretty chuffed.

And then I came here to brag about it and was met with the hacker message, and was instead forced to mention it on the Facebook group. Gah.

Good game, ad hoc!

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

The later stages of that match are a bit over my head. Two questions:

1. When ad hoc went 24......Nc4, would it have been a terrible move for Sam to capture the knight with his b-pawn? I can that the passed pawn cluster ad hoc would win there looks dangerous, but I can't see the specifics of how it would lead to a gain for ad hoc that gives a positive return on the knight sacrifice.

2. When Sam immediately replied 25 Rxh6, why isn't that just throwing away a rook if ad hoc had replied 25..... Kxh6 instead of going for the knight fork? I assume play would have gone

25 -------- Kxh6
26 Rh1+ Kg7
27 Rh7+ Kg8

but then what can Sam do to get a good return on his rook sacrifice?

No doubt I am missing something fairly obvious to you guys.

[ad hoc]

I think after Rxh6 Kxh6 the moves go as you suggest and then
28 Qc1 (threatening Qxg5 mate)
or if I block (with the knight say), then Qh1 and the same problem I ended up having with the two rooks on that h file

[ad hoc]

Taking the knight after move 24 I don't think would have been terrible, but those pawns would have been a real problem.

I think now I look back, where I really erred is playing
26 ... Nxc2
and not
26 ... Nxg4

But you know the queen was too tempting.

[Sam]

A large part of my not wanting to allow the passed pawn (linked passed pawns on the sixth rank, no less) had to do with ad hoc being a much better player than me, to be honest. I'd agree with ad hoc's last post, in that it might have been a bit of a gamble leaving that Rook dangling, but I perhaps na?vely – but fortunately correctly –assumed that he was unlikely to play a King–Queen fork and then not subsequently take the Queen.

My working out went: if he takes the Queen and then doesn't spot the danger of the two rooks on the h file (unlikely) I've won. If he takes the Queen and does spot the danger, and moves the f pawn forwards to give himself an escape route, I can either force a draw (as happened, and as would have and did delight me given the gap in ability between us) or win a big amount of material (had he gone to e8 with the King). I'm happy to admit I'd have been totally shagged had he gone Nxg4 instead of taking the Queen on move 26, but that thought just didn't occur to me.

Re: your second-last post, though, ad hoc, I'm not sure Qc1 on move 28 would have threatened mate, given your Queen was defending the g pawn. Am I missing something?

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Thanks for those posts ad hoc, which I've only just had time to look at properly now. The main further question they prompted in my head was precisely the one in Sam's last paragraph immediately above.

[ad hoc]

Yes, sorry, trying to deal with multiple options
I think it goes
25 -------- Kxh6
26 Rh1+ Kg7
27 Rh7+ Kg8
28 Kxe3 f5
29 Qh2

and by then it's all horrible. And probably worse than where it ended up - I imagine there's a way of getting mate there, because having the queen and rook rather than just a rook will make that h file attack even deadlier

[ad hoc]

Is that right, I'm not sure because once we get IF x THEN y, all the differing starting positions get confusing

[Sam]

I think you've got a bit confused in that in the move sequence you've described in your second from last post just above, there's nothing on e3 for the King to take at move 28 (and indeed the King is still on g2 at move 28, so wouldn't be able to take a piece on e3 even if there were). But yes, the general point is right. If the moves go as you describe and then I go either 28 Kg1 or 28 Kh1, then you can't check on your move 28, and can't do anything to stop my Queen moving to h2, from where it's mate in 2.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

I hope VT is OK, he's only a few hours short of timing out against me now.

Edit: VT has now timed out his last three matches in this tourney, including mine. I'll comment on the chess if and when we hear VT is OK.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

VT seems to be just fine as he's posted in other threads, so I feel free to comment on the match he timed out. Just in case Sam is feeling that my time-out win was a random extra point which robbed him of 7th place, I'm boasting that I was 3.23 points ahead by the site's computer analysis when it timed out. I'm more than capable of losing from there of course, but I still make a fair claim for a real win.

[Sam]

I don't believe it for a moment.

[Vicarious Thrillseeker]

VT seems to be just fine as he's posted in other threads, so I feel free to comment on the match he timed out. Just in case Sam is feeling that my time-out win was a random extra point which robbed him of 7th place, I'm boasting that I was 3.23 points ahead by the site's computer analysis when it timed out. I'm more than capable of losing from there of course, but I still make a fair claim for a real win.

I was away from the internet for three days and didn't have time to play. Sorry - and EEG was all over me at that time.