I thought move 31 that I’ve just played was interesting as I suspect ‘pass’ may have been my best option, had it been available. But I suppose bolstering control of the e4 square could come in useful later.
It’s been a fascinating last few moves.
Each player has had choices to attack or defend…
Black has a dominant King, but his Knight needs several moves to threaten any white pawns.
White’s Knight is very active (partly because Black’s King is so far down the board!)
I’m confident Black is better, but I can’t see a winning line yet.
However it’s getting complicated and I’ve seen players go wrong under similar pressure. 
My problem is that your kingside pawns have scope to advance, whereas my queenside ones don’t. I feel my only way out of this is to replace the king with the knight in protecting my c2 pawn. But whichever square I try to do that from, my knight can be harassed too easily. Still, I’ll see what I can do.
I’ve played a tactic! 
- … Nxa4 is an overload of White’s b3 pawn.
(The pawn can’t both defend the White Knight and capture the Black Knight.)
It’s a good tactic because 33. bxa4? Kxc4 wins easily for Black.
Instead 33. Nxe5 keeps the game going.
Damn, I hadn’t seen that! I analysed several lines and concluded you would need to play Nd7, defending both pawns forked by my last knight move.
I can’t say I’m too disappointed to have equalised the pawn numbers on both sides, though - my main worry was your kingside pawn majority creating a passed pawn while my king is still tied down to the defence of c2. I reckon it should be harder for you to make a winning breakthrough on the queenside.
Heh, heh. 
You make a good point about the pawn majorities having disappeared.
However although the King-side is balanced, I do have a chance to make a passed pawn on the Queen-side (with b5, a5 + a4.) (This gives you a passed pawn too, but yours is solidly blocked.)
I’d still like to get my knight to e3, to defend c2, but there’s no point while your pawn is on f5, as it can kick the knight away with f4. But if I play f4 myself to prevent this, your knight can take up a powerful position on e4.
I’ve investigated quite a few lines and I think g4 is my best hope, so that’s what I’ve played.
- g4 was definitely the best.
It allows you to exchange pawns (always a good idea to help draw a difficult ending.)
The pawns may be able to combine with the Knight to create targets (pawns that can be attacked) or even a passed pawn.
It complicates the position - otherwise I could keep building up my position and benefit from my advanced King.
I will begin by telling you of a personal experience I had when I was 10 years old and then I will offer some opinions that you may take or you may ignore. I’m telling you the story because I think that may help you decide whether my opinions are worth anything or whether you should just ignore them.
When I first learned how to play the game, I was walking to school and I was playing with a hand-held chess game I had received as a gift. Another child who was perhaps one year older than I, saw what I was doing and asked if I’d like to play a game. I accepted.
Within about 25 movies this fellow had me completely defeated. It seemed to me that he was perhaps one thousand times better than I was or maybe smarter than I was. But when I told him, “I resign”, he became quite indignant and said, “Oh no! You must never resign. You must always complete the game.”
I asked him why he said that. He told me the reason was not because you learn something by completing all games or that you improve your game by completing all games. He never explained exactly why he felt so strongly about that. But I should make it clear that he became extremely agitated at the thought of my quitting the game - even though I was clearlly defeated. He had captured about half of my pieces while I had only captured one or two of his pieces.
I insisted that I wanted to quit and I would not play again and again. He just kept getting more and more agitated and angry - steadfastly refusing to allow me to quit. Finally, I told him,
“Well, if you think it’s so important to finish every game, then you go ahead and play my position and I will play your position and I’ll demonstrate just how easily I will defeat you with this position.”
Care to guess what happened?
This guy just beat the snot out of me. I figured he had to be one of the greatest players ever. Maybe Bobby Fisher once visited Montreal? Is it possible it was Bobby Fisher? I never found out his name. But I was absolutely certain he had to be one of the world’s greatest chess players.
My game is weak. I could defeat some of the slower kids (mentally slower). But for the most part, I played about at the same level as most other kids - which I guess meant I was around the 40 percentile level. I mean out of every 100 kids who played chess, I would win about 40 percent of the time. So my game is not absolutely terrible. But it’s not very good either.
OK. What is my point?
It is to question how much can study and practice ever improve your game? My guess is that skill at this game is a gift. Some people just naturally possess the kind of mental makeup that makes them excel at the game while others do not.
I’m just guessing. But my guess is that skill as a chess player is about 90 percent the result of things you possess at birth - not things that you can learn or improve through study or practice.
I’d really like to know what other players think. Does my opinion make sense to you? Or do you think I’m all wet. I base my opinion on the fact that at age 10, this whiz kid who defeated me could not likely have spent much time studying or practicing the game. IMO, his mental makeup was just organized in such a way that he was naturally gifted at the mental processes required to play this game.
I’m also interested to know how people think about the dfference between chess and other games - especially bridge.
I played bridge for about 20 years and my skill level never really changed much beyond average. Then one day I met an older lady who agreed to take me on in a mentor - protegee relation and she taught me a handful of techniques that improved my game hugely. She taught me how to think about the game of bridge in such a way that we entered tournaments and won against some of the best players in the country. I couldn’t believe it. But I fully understood why. She taught me how to think about the game in such a way that I could “visualize” almost exactly which cards the opponents were holding and together, we wer able to beat the heck out of players with far greater experience than we had.
In almost every tournament we played, one of our opponents called the director of the tournament and accused us of cheating. They said things like, “These people could not possibly have played so far above us. They must have been cheating.”
But we never cheated. I just received the most fabulous gift from this lady. She taught me a few things about the game that enabled me to visuallize what the opponents were holding. It was as if they played with almost all of their cards, “on the table”, so to speak. It was one of the most glorious episodes of my life.
So, my question is … what makes a game like chess so different from a game like bridge insofar as one seems to depend entirely on skills you are born with while you are able to hugely improve your skill with the other game with just a few simple skills that can be taught?
I’d really truly love to know the answer to that.
I don’t think it is that different. Chess, as a basic level, is mostly pattern recognition. To that end, yeah, some people are born able to see these patterns better, or more quickly, than others but anyone can learn to start spotting them.
Again, I’m not very good, I am not giving advice just sharing my experience, but maybe you need the chess equivalent of the lady who taught you to think differently about Bridge?
Thank you for your opinion. I wish I could find the equivalent of that lady for so many things. Unfortunately, when I first met her, I was 30 and she was 70. It wasn’t very long before she became too old to continue to play. By the time she was in her late 70s, it became too much trouble for her to travel and so the only way we could play together was on some online sites.
But when we did, the accusations of cheating sharply rose. Personally, I never became unhappy with them. AAMOF, I secretly enjoyed hearing people complain because we both knew fair well that we had never cheated. When they called the director, we were always able to provide lucid explanations as to just why we had played the way we did and the directors often expressed admiration and affirmed the belief that we did not cheat.
It was a real joy to realize that we had elevated our game to the point where we could no longer play without people accusing us of cheating.
This lady - IMHO - was a real saint. She gave me a tremendous gift and all she ever seemed to want in return was the joy of playing the game she loved above all else at a level that made her very happy. I was happy to be a part of her experience. I just wish we had met at a time when I could have asked her to spend the rest of her life with me. She was just an incredibly beautiful lady with an incredibly beautiful soul.
The only sad part of my experience with her was that it lasted for such a short time.
He was talking rubbish. :smack:
If you’re completely lost:
- you won’t learn anything by playing on, since there are no good moves to find
- you won’t enjoy the game
- by resigning you get a fresh game
Nah, he wasn’t! 
There are huge depths to chess. You can rate players as:
- beginners
- improvers
- club standard
- good club standard
- regional
- national
- international
- international master
- grandmaster
- world class
I achieved international status (2390 ELO), but never qualified as international master.
Nevertheless, from regional standard upwards I could easily beat beginners giving them a queen start whilst playing blindfold (not having a board - they tell me their moves in chess notation.)
I only did this if asked (since it’s showing off) - and your fellow sounds very unpleasant.
Well it certainly helps at chess to have certain attributes:
- as NAF1138 said, pattern recognition
- logical thinking (no doubt mathematicians have this)
- ability to concentrate
- self reliance (you can’t ask others for help during a game)
- patience (club games can last for hours)
Having most (or all) of these helps you play better chess - but more importantly it allows you to study a lot.
And there is a huge amount you can learn about chess through study and practice.
World Champion Gary Kasparov used to take one month off a year just to have intensive study with his coach and his computer.
I would reverse that percentage! :eek:
All the grandmasters I know work really hard at studying.
They play through hundreds of other player’s games annually to:
- understand openings (and see new ideas in them)
- spot tactics and strategies
- gain endgame technique.
I remember one journey back from a British Championship with two grandmasters. We were looking at a rook and pawn ending (just 5 pieces on each side) - and we spent over 2 hours analysing possible plans for each side.
I learnt a lot about rook endings that day 
(and I was already a national strength player.)
I’m good club player standard at bridge (my partner and I are the current County Champions.)
I also teach bridge.
And the answer is that you will improve at both games by learning techniques, analysing your play and studying.
For example, the first thing I tell every bridge student is “When you are Declarer, the opening lead has been made and your Dummy goes down … stop! Think about the hand. Count your tricks. Make a plan. Only then play a card from Dummy.”
This is not my idea of course - every bridge book and teacher will tell you the same.
I’ve had bridge students who had played for decades - but they always played the first card immediately. There was a dramatic improvement as soon as they started thinking first.
Similarly many long-time players don’t know how to finesse. This is a technique that can be taught.
You can have really bad habits at bridge (and chess), but unless you analyse your play afterwards, you’ll never spot them.
After 36. … Nd4, the Black Knight is attacking two pawns (c2 + f3), so I expect White to exchange Knights.
This gives us a King and pawn ending. To me, these are, in some ways, the most interesting ending.
The pieces left only move slowly, so you can sometimes analyse a long way ahead.
There is a real chance of a zugswang (a position where the defender is holding the draw … but they have to make a move … and every choice weakens their position to a loss.)
Here’s my analysis (I’ve spoilered it so I’m not playing against myself!)
[spoiler] 1. … Nxd4 2. Nxd4 Kxd4 3. Kd2
a) 3. … b5? 4. b4! Kc4 5. c3 Kb3 6. Kd3 =
(or 5. … f4 6. Kc2 =)
N.B. 4. c3+ and 5. b4 also draws…
b) 3. … a5! 4. c4? f4 0-1
- c3+ Kd5* 5. Kd3 (if 5. c4+ Kd4 0-1) b5 0-1
because Black can create an ‘outside passed pawn’ (i.e. further away from the remaining pawns) on the a-file and White’s passed pawn will be on the c-file. So after both passed pawns are captured, the Black King is first across to capture the f + h pawns.
P.S. *If 4. …Ke5!? 5. Kd3 b5 6. c4 bxc4+ 7. Kxc4 Kf4 8. Kb5 Kxf3 9. Kxa5 Kg4 10. b4 f4 11. b5 f3 12. b6 f2 13. b7 f1=Q
14. b8=Q Qa1+ 15. Kb6 Qb2+ 16. Ka7 Qxb8+ 17. Kxb8 Kh3 0-1 [/spoiler]
You’ll note that in one line I’ve analysed 17 moves ahead - this is possible in King and pawn endings where both sides create a passed pawn and then queen it.
I haven’t looked at the spoiler - I was a bit surprised to be offered the exchange of Knights, since it seems to allow me to activate my king and indeed advance it up the board a bit. I haven’t analysed any further as I don’t think there can be a better move at this stage than taking the knight, so let’s see what happens!
I offered the exchange of Knights because:
-
White’s Knight was very active (in many positions … not just endings … it’s useful to swap off your opponent’s best piece)
-
I thought the King and pawn ending was a clear win (see spoiler box in the game thread)
-
it looked as if White had to exchange (such forcing continuations are easier to analyse)
Fair enough, I just don’t see it yet. Do you mind playing on for a bit until I do, or should I save ourselves the trouble and check the spoiler box? For now I’ve played c3+ and it seems to me I can drive your King back with my pawns, while being careful not to allow you to break through on the queenside.
No - do play on!
Mainly because you can analyse the position for yourself without being influenced by knowing the result.
(As a chess teacher, I know this is valuable.)
Also there are some interesting possibilities built around zugswang.
N.B. The two unmoved h-pawns effectively cancel each other out. So if (say) White is in zugswang (e.g. doesn’t want to move his King) and plays h3, Black replies h6. Then continuing h4 h5 means the pawns are blocked and White still has to move.
To win this after your King takes up a useful central position, I need either zugswang or a pawn breakthrough…
I haven’t calculated it yet, but I can foresee this devolving into a pawn race in which I queen a pawn one move after you. Assuming neither of us does so with check, you will then win easily with superior technique.
I still have hopes of preventing this, so have taken the opposition for now with Kd3. I’d have liked to have played f4 first, but that would have allowed your King to advance. Instead, you’ll probably get to play f4 first, which isn’t good news for me. But after 40…f4 41. b4+ Ke5 42. h4 h5 43. Kc3 it looks to me like Black is the one in zugzwang. Alternatively, 40…b5 41. f4 h6 42. h3 h5 43. h4 Kc5 and then White has a problem - in fact, ‘thinking aloud’ here, I suspect this is similar to the line in the spoiler box, and ultimately results in the queenside pawns being eliminated, but black gets to the kingside pawns first and eventually can force promotion. Is that right?
Yes, that often happens in these King and pawn endings - and you make a good point that queening with check can affect the result.
Note that queening one move ahead, then winning a pawn gives a Queen and pawn ending one pawn ahead. These can be laborious to win (because of the threat of constant checking).
However my plan is to queen two moves ahead.
You’re right to focus on the f4 square, because either of us can move a pawn there.
Your analysis is accurate (N.B. you meant 41. c4+ instead of 41. b4+) - but I have a surprise for you. :eek:
I’m preparing to play a4, creating an ‘outside passed pawn’ (i.e. further away from the remaining pawns) on the a-file, when White’s passed pawn will be on the c-file. So after both passed pawns are captured, the Black King is first across to capture the f + h pawns.
P.S. You’re welcome to look at the Spoiler box above now, since we’re both committed to the analysis within it.
OK, now I see it - the outside passed pawn wasn’t exactly a surprise, I knew how dangerous that could be, just hadn’t foreseen how easily you could create it in this position, nor how easy that makes the subsequent win. Having come to that conclusion myself, I have now looked at the spoiler, and I agree that it is now appropriate for me to resign, as I won’t learn much more from this game given your king will be well placed in front of your passed f-pawn before my king can get near enough to influence things. Well played!
To round things off, would you mind pointing out anything I could have done differently (apart from 3. Bd3, which we’ve already covered)? I’m sure that wasn’t my only mistake, but generally I must admit I’m quite pleased with how I played - it’s not at all uncommon for me to lose games by blundering pieces, or falling for tactics, and I’ve avoided that in this game (obviously helped by being able to use the apronus board to analyse a few moves ahead). Obviously I was never expecting to win the game, even getting a draw was very unlikely, though until recently I did retain some hopes there :).