I guess that’s where the time issue comes in. If I were playing the game with no time, I probably wouldn’t have even gone for the new Q, but it was a move I could see and play quickly, taking advantage of the delay.
As an aside, this was a five minute timed game and by the end, my opponent (again, ranked 790) had over 7 minutes on their clock!
That was NOT the English Opening. If you had looked at your link you would see that the first move of the English Opening is c4. This is a basic e4 opening and Black responds with the Pirc Defence.
Making a Queen was possibly the most expedient way to win - my only issue was how you used it; just checking didn’t really help you any. Ironically you have a mate in one at the finish (…Qg3#). But after Queening you could mate in four by …Qf1, …Re6, …Rg6+ and …Qh1#. Or as actually played, after …Qg1+; Kh3, Ne2; Kh4, you have …Qg3+; Kh5, Nf4#.
I don’t think **etv78 **was asking about the opening in your game.
I was responding to this:
Unless I’m missing something, he’s asking for what a 1. c4 opening is called. That is called an “English Opening,” as stated in the Wikipedia article, which you apparently did read. So far as I can tell, it’s not related to your game, hence “hijack.”
Didn’t we play a training game on this board?
You coped perfectly well with chess notation then!
Listen, a bad game is just as good for training purposes. Unless we know what you don’t know, how can we help?
Oh, and the Pirc Defence is not ‘passive’ - it’s a counter-attacking opening!
Would you like to hear a tale of woe and frustration? No? Me neither. Suffice it to say I posted what I had and went to bed.
And, as I recall, you handed me my ass in that game!
Thank you for that, you are truely an asset to this board. And that beard suits you nicely.
I see you went for single quotes while I opted for double. However, it is neither ‘passive’ nor “passive” but I didn’t want to go into the concept of hypermodernism especially considering that that term orginated shortly after WW1.
It is a defence which is “”“passive”“” only in that it does not immediately address the center.
No, it was I who missed the hijack. Sorry.
Spot on! That has been my point throughout. The computer never misses a beat, even with players ranked below 800. I was playing against the clock and monkey-mama was executing perfect endgame strategy.
I went for the obvious, fast move so I could gain a few seconds.
Yes, the lesson here is to study my end games. Maybe the more subtle lesson is to play people rather than computers, but it is difficult to find people who like to play who are anywhere near my skill level.
glee offers training games, but understands chess better than I understand putting on my underpants (which sometimes go on backwards).
Reviewing the game, I had mates starting well before I advanced the pawn. I just couldn’t see them with the clock in the way.
I did misunderstand that and I hope I have appropriately apologized.
I’m not an expert, but just looking back at the game you posted and working the moves backwards, I’m wondering why you took White’s last rook with the bishop? Taking it with the rook would have cleared out the whole d file for you, and you’re so far up in material, that you needn’t worry about the black king capturing your most forward pawn.
If he does, you have this sequence:
Rxd4 Kxe3
Rxg4+ Kd2
Rd8+
And it really doesn’t matter what happens afterwards, as you just bring your rooks into action and pair them up to finish checkmating
Let’s suppose he takes your knight:
… Kxc3
Rd3+ Kc2
Rb2+ Kc1
Be3+ Kb1
Rg1++
But your rooks don’t help when they’re trapped behind a bishop that is hemmed in by his own pawns. I understand the urge to protect your potential queen, but you’re so far ahead materially, that you really should just concentrate on getting your pieces into the action.
Have you tried chess.com? Basic membership is free and you get rated after a few games so you can gravitate towards people of your own skill level or a little better. You can play five-minute chess if you must, or you can mull things over to a slower timescale, though still faster than correspondence chess.
PS - glee, get your ass back into that game with Chessic. 
I agree with, and appreciate your insight… BUT. The whole point has been the time issue. This is not the new way I will play chess, it just sort of came up.
How long does it take to even consider your evaluation? Much less come up with it?
I think you are right. In looking at the game I can see blunders left and right and they’re all mine!
I also appreciate Malacandra’s suggestion (you Earthling you) and I will try chess.com and maybe give up blitz chess for awhile (tomorrow).
I’m not a strong player, so take what I say with a grain of salt until glee or somebody more experienced comes in, but that part was instinctual for me, and I would have played it without too much thought (maybe a second or two), because I right away see needing to get the file clear and the rooks into the game. I didn’t think the line all the way out to what I wrote, but I could see that once that file becomes clear, there’s really nothing to worry about, with the material advantage as heavy as it is. I could immediately see that if he takes the pawn with his king, I have a discovered check that can take out one more of his pawns, and at that point, I just bring the rooks down to checkmate him. If he doesn’t take the pawn with his king, then I can march it down and Queen it and checkmate soon after. As long as you got those two rooks freed up, you have a quick & easy checkmate, especially since you also have a knight and bishop to work with.
That said, I’m sure there’s points earlier in the game that have opportunities in them, but you’d need one of the experts to chime in on that.
The blunders weren’t all yours or you’d never have ended up about three queen-equivalents to the good, but as you can see, given a little time to look back on your play you can easily see where there was room for improvement. For most of us mere mortals speed chess is just an exercise in hasty wood-pushing and hoping the other guy blunders before you do, and even if you’re successful enough at this on average for your rating to improve, at best you’re only improving at tardfighting. 
A more relaxed tempo will at least allow you to think about what you’re doing, and if you get to the point where you think “Hang on, I’m two rooks ahead and I can nail his King to the edge of the board in the next two moves, and after that his ass is mine as soon as I feel like” you’ve already stepped up from the point where all you can see to do is accumulate material, check like crazy and hope one of them will end up being mate.
I’m registered on chess.com as Gil-Gandel so if you want to play a game or two over there and give me a heads-up I can comment on your play after the event. I’m some way short of glee’s class but on the whole not too bad.
Sorry if I came off like I know what I’m talkin’ about! I do appreciate your comments and you are right. I guess everyone has their own instincts, and my only point was that when I’m trying to play fast, my instincts seem to go out the window.
Ok, sorry, I’m sure this is horrid of me, but, LMFAO.
I will take you up on that! glee teaches chess (or used to), so obvioulsy I aspire to even be at a student level!
I like the game and recognize that I will likely never be that good. I regret resigning against glee. But I “learned” that “good” players resigned wh they were beat.
Hey! It’s been 11 days since I suggested you post a game. :eek:
If you wouldn’t mind just recording one and typing it out here, then I’d be happy to comment. (That’s much easier than looking at a game board from apronus.com …)
SiXSwordS computer
Also you seem to have been given some poor ‘advice’.
Yes, experienced players do resign when they are lost - except:
Also (please excuse me), you’re not an experienced player.
Seriously, don’t try to short-cut the learning process.
Learn the basic checkmates and practise tactical positions. Play regularly at a slow (or non-existent) time limit and try to understand why the ‘book’ opening moves are played.
If the OP will permit a minor hijack, can you expand on the point above? I used to play in a chess team (albeit at a fairly low level - at my best I played at around 1400 ELO), is the above reason due to the fact that until the game actually concludes, both teams will usually be looking over at your board in addition to their own game, thus providing a slight distraction to their own play? In other words, you may be hopelessly lost, but as long as the game continues, your opponent’s team-mates will still be looking to see how he is getting on.
It seems like a pretty thin reason for not resigning to me as once players get reasonably competent, one look at the board will confirm the eventual result and that game ceases to be of any interest. But perhaps there is another more subtle point I am missing.
Here’s the game that was posted on Apronus that we’ve been commenting on:
(Spoilered for length.) Computer is white. SiXSwordS is black.
Sure.
First of all, ‘it ain’t over until it’s over.’ If your game could affect the result, then it’s useful to play on. For example, another player on your team may have a strong position where he could simply take a draw if you drew…
Secondly people do strange things under pressure (especially if time shortage is also involved.)
Knowing that the result matters so much can make some opponents panic.
Thirdly it can be harder to assess a position than you think.
For example I reached an ending of K ,B + N v K against a 2000 player. (He looked really happy about exchanging the last pawn.) After I checkmated him, he confessed he thought the ending was drawn!
Then there was the K, R + P v K + R ending v a 2200. He was clearly relaxed - and most surprised when I used the Lucena manoeuvre to win!
Finally try this position out (it comes from a semi-final of a team KO competition):
my position as Black (two pawns down)
it looks lost e.g. if …Rxd4 Rxd4+ Kxd4 Kg2 Ke5 Kh3 wins - and the opposition assumed I’d lose … but I drew it!
…Kc4! (only move) and if g4 then Rxd4 does draw.
In the case of our game here on the Dope, why resign a training game so early? Especially if SiXSwordS has difficulty winning won positions.
I guess I see your point, but I played a game against an experienced player and blundered a Bishop fairly early on (after the dust died down, I did get a pawn, so I wasn’t really down the full piece). He told me outright that players at a higher level (I was even less experienced then) would have just resigned.
As I recall from our game (I learned a lot from that game!) you were about to take a Rook for free (no exchange for me and no compensating piece). I will search out that game to see if I remember correctly.
I don’t see any sense whatsoever in asking advice from people who know more than you do and then not following that advice. I did not mean to say that I memorized book openings as a general rule, and I have tried to understand why moves are played rather than learning what moves are played.
I will also spend time with the basic mates and tactical positions.
I started playing timed games, and thought that making the first few moves almost without paying attention to my opponent made a certain amount of sense.
But, again, I don’t want to be one to ask for advice and then not take it. The timer goes off!
I think pulykamell posted the notation for my game against the computer. (Thank you BTW.) I think it is incredibly unrealistic that a player ranked below 800 would have MORE time on the clock than the game began with! So, maybe the takeaway message here is, play people, not computers. But I hear you when you say I am not experienced (I assume you don’t mean in the Hendrix sense;))
Off to see how those moves are playing out against Zombywoof and Cessic Sense.