Actually, you were closer to lose: a lonely Rook vs two connected pawns protected by their King is sometimes a win for the pawns player, sometimes a draw, rarely a win for the Rook (I would say "never" if their King doesn't help).
@OctoPinky said in #21:
> Look up for study given to aVague
Secound page
Here was winning move for white
> Look up for study given to aVague
Secound page
Here was winning move for white
@xDoubledragon said in #22:
> Secound page
> Here was winning move for white
Yes, with the right White Bishop protecting the promoting square it is a different thing.
I meant the game after move 45 or so.
> Secound page
> Here was winning move for white
Yes, with the right White Bishop protecting the promoting square it is a different thing.
I meant the game after move 45 or so.
@OctoPinky said in #23:
>
I think this endgame is pretty advanced
I would never think that trading a bishop pair would make such a massive change
Or I just suck at endgames
But other than defending (white bishop) for endless checks with black rook what it serves other than thar
>
I think this endgame is pretty advanced
I would never think that trading a bishop pair would make such a massive change
Or I just suck at endgames
But other than defending (white bishop) for endless checks with black rook what it serves other than thar
@xDoubledragon said in #24:
> I think this endgame is pretty advanced
> Or I just suck at endgames
No way. You are a far stronger player than me, but in many endgames, I would beat you if I studied it beforehand and you didn't, just trusting your better playing. Like a Rook is powerless against two connected 6th rank pawns. When you know it, things can be much easier.
You can even find GMs blundering endgames for not knowing certain quite easy facts (I think it was Wesley So ruining a draw against Carlsen just because he drove a Bishop far from his King).
> But other than defending (white bishop) for endless checks with black rook what it serves other than thar
At first sight, I think that Bishop is useful to build a fortress and secure the promotion (or winning the Rook). Notice a Rook pawn is especially hard to protect by the King (again, a simple idea but not easy to spot in the actual game) so a little help can make a big difference.
> I think this endgame is pretty advanced
> Or I just suck at endgames
No way. You are a far stronger player than me, but in many endgames, I would beat you if I studied it beforehand and you didn't, just trusting your better playing. Like a Rook is powerless against two connected 6th rank pawns. When you know it, things can be much easier.
You can even find GMs blundering endgames for not knowing certain quite easy facts (I think it was Wesley So ruining a draw against Carlsen just because he drove a Bishop far from his King).
> But other than defending (white bishop) for endless checks with black rook what it serves other than thar
At first sight, I think that Bishop is useful to build a fortress and secure the promotion (or winning the Rook). Notice a Rook pawn is especially hard to protect by the King (again, a simple idea but not easy to spot in the actual game) so a little help can make a big difference.
@OctoPinky said in #25:
>funny thing, I don't know why but my brain thought you were 2200 for some reason. lol
>funny thing, I don't know why but my brain thought you were 2200 for some reason. lol
Ha ha, no way, unless you add some of my ratings together!
On Move 60., you should've moved the king behind the pawn, that way there is no way he could check you.
Second post was talking about the electronic oracle. If any smiling, it would be about it being not a human point of view.
Or just style freedom.
Or it was prudent in not saying more than what the machine tells us on lichess. No explanation, one needed the thread of human points of view, as the op, manifestly was asking.
I doubt one could miss, Mr. Transistor concise opinion, nowadays.
I might have missed something there, from the op. own verbal conciseness.
Explanation:
I don't do the texto thing, where there might be pressure to never say the real thing, because it is too much torture (I started doing it too). I think there, I could let people guess what I could have meant, and since I might be having too much imagination, well, random game of communication for all that I am not saying, has been a tendency. So, what to do?
So, I think best is pre-digital size, letter size. Assume that expert swiping technique compensates for the lack of visual FOV real estate, unless the adaptation happened the other way; expert small sentences chunking ... I might be already too old. But I have seen some people able to do it, in contexts where I was aware of the background information.
But in my world, the second post, was well intended, and just being as minimal as the op. I did not see much text in the post of the game annotation. Sorry if there was.
Or just style freedom.
Or it was prudent in not saying more than what the machine tells us on lichess. No explanation, one needed the thread of human points of view, as the op, manifestly was asking.
I doubt one could miss, Mr. Transistor concise opinion, nowadays.
I might have missed something there, from the op. own verbal conciseness.
Explanation:
I don't do the texto thing, where there might be pressure to never say the real thing, because it is too much torture (I started doing it too). I think there, I could let people guess what I could have meant, and since I might be having too much imagination, well, random game of communication for all that I am not saying, has been a tendency. So, what to do?
So, I think best is pre-digital size, letter size. Assume that expert swiping technique compensates for the lack of visual FOV real estate, unless the adaptation happened the other way; expert small sentences chunking ... I might be already too old. But I have seen some people able to do it, in contexts where I was aware of the background information.
But in my world, the second post, was well intended, and just being as minimal as the op. I did not see much text in the post of the game annotation. Sorry if there was.