Mini 686 - Chess Mafia (Done)

SensFan · Post Post #500 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:44 am

Pesco47 wrote:They have a mobile knight. Knights are good at forking things. Work out the rest yourself.

You are the one claiming there is some sort of unstopppable (or at least, I assume so) fork lying around, so the onus is on YOU to explain yourself.

Pesco47 · Post Post #501 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:48 am

I have never said it was unstoppable and would rather not give black the option of this play by telling them exactly where to move. If you can see it too, take it into consideration with regards to castling.

SensFan · Post Post #502 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:54 am

If it is not unstoppable (or at least can be refuted without loss in any way), then don't bother with it until they threaten it.
If it is unstoppable (or causes loss of some sort in refuting it), explain it now.

Pesco47 · Post Post #503 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:07 am

*chess tag removed*
1. e4 c5
2. Nc3 Nc6
3. f4 e6
4. Nf3 f5
5. exf5 exf5
6. Qe2 Be7
7. Nd5 Nb4
8. Nxb4 cxb4
9. d4 Nf6
10. Qc4 a6
11. Bd2 a5
12. o-o-o Ne4
13. Be3 Nf2
*/chess tag removed*

Final state, the in-between moves are, of course, variable.

SensFan · Post Post #504 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:09 am

You mean 13...Nf2?? 14. Nxf2.

Pesco47 · Post Post #505 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:12 am

The in between moves are variable. Meaning a5 might not be played, the bishop may not be there to cover f2 and so on.

SensFan · Post Post #506 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:14 am

I just find it ridiculous that you counter a move by saying there is a threat of a fork, then try to avoid from having to show what you mean, then when finally forced to give some sort of evidence, you show a line that ends with us up a Knight with Black getting no compensation for the lost piece.

Pesco47 · Post Post #507 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:22 am

How many other plausible moves can you come up with as fillers to get to that final position on the board?

SensFan · Post Post #508 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:15 pm

That is moot. Quite clearly, 12...Ne4 is nicely countered by 13. Be3.

Besides, 11...a5 would be ridiculously good for us.

Indigo Heron · Post Post #509 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:39 pm

Assuming of course, that Black is stupid enough to play it.

The Central Scrutinizer · Post Post #510 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:51 pm

I would love to be scum right now, to know if this town is imploding due to their influence or all on its own.

Gorrad · Post Post #511 (ISO) » Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:12 pm

I should be prodded.

sirdanilot · Post Post #512 (ISO) » Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:32 am

People should reply to my post.

Merry Christmas.

veerus · Post Post #513 (ISO) » Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:47 am

sirdanilot wrote:What does Bd2 do for us? Nothing, does it? Let me dig up a post of mine.

sirdanilot wrote:
goatrevolt wrote:2. A better option is Bd2. It doesn't restrict our queen, (1)develops the other bishop, (2)threatens the b4 pawn, (3)and still allows us to castle, just via queenside. (4)Castling is also going to be more effective, since castling to the kingside would involve also having a bishop at e2, effectively keeping the rooks from getting into the game for a while.
1. How?
2. That's pretty nice indeed, but ...a5 would stop that
3. So does Be2?
4. Not following about the rooks part.
Could we continue this discussion?

1. By not taking up e2 which could be occupied by the queen (don't know why though)
2. That's ok though.. it's still a development move for us.
3. Be2 allows castling king-side which is a much better option
4. When we do castle king-side, there won't be a bishop on c1 instantly conecting the rooks as soon as we castle.

That being said, I'll repeat my earlier sentiment. I am ok with Bd2 if we do NOT castle queenside.

Indigo Heron · Post Post #514 (ISO) » Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:17 pm

I second that. Anything that gives White a chance to win on my sheet of paper does not see a queenside castle.

sirdanilot · Post Post #515 (ISO) » Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:07 pm

Then what is the follow-up after Bd2 if we don't castle queen side?

Indigo Heron · Post Post #516 (ISO) » Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:44 am

Trying to get me to reveal my chain of thought?

IGMEOY: sirdanilot

Pesco47 · Post Post #517 (ISO) » Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:12 am

A better question, what do you expect Bd2 to be responded with and how likely is that move going to be played?

sirdanilot · Post Post #518 (ISO) » Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:37 am

Indigo Heron wrote:Trying to get me to reveal my chain of thought?

IGMEOY: sirdanilot

what? I can understand the sentiment of not wanting to reveal your plan, but unless someone explains Bd2 to me I'm not going to vote for it because I don't see any merit to it at all.

Indigo Heron · Post Post #519 (ISO) » Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:49 pm

@pesco47 and to some extent, sirdanilot: There are 6 possible moves for Black that I can see. They are...

b5, d5, a5, Qb6, Ne4, Rb8. See them as you will, guys.

Pesco47 · Post Post #520 (ISO) » Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:00 pm

Move Bd2

sirdanilot · Post Post #521 (ISO) » Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:41 pm

No. I'm not going to vote this move unless there's absolutely no other option.

Pesco47 · Post Post #522 (ISO) » Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Any suggestions if you don't support this move?

veerus · Post Post #523 (ISO) » Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:00 am

sirdanilot wrote:No. I'm not going to vote this move unless there's absolutely no other option.

This isn't a forced sequence.. there are always options.

sirdanilot · Post Post #524 (ISO) » Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:02 am

Pesco47 wrote:Any suggestions if you don't support this move?

Well that's indeed a problem, I don't see a very good solution to our position myself.