Rather than voting for a draw, wouldn't we just change it into a mafia game and start lynching? veerus, just shot to #1 on my suspect list.veerus wrote:This was an interesting experiment. It failed. gg all.
move: draw
Qf5 doesn't actually accomplish anything. Or at least it's unclear what the point of Qf5 would be. I've told people roughly what the point of Kd3 is; given various people's reactions I'm willing to make it more explicit if necessary.SaintKerrigan wrote:Anyway, I'm pondering Qf5 as a possible strategy. Anyone got thoughts about that?
Feel free to post your thoughts. My general feeling is that Qf5+ just leads to a cycle of checks and queen moves without making any real progress, but if you find a line that works, then go for it.SaintKerrigan wrote:Guys, I'm currently doing a full analysis of Qf5+. It seems very strong so far, so I'd like people to hold off on votes until I complete my analysis of it. From what I've seen so far, Qf5+ would win White the game.
Really? Why? Because I voiced what everyone is thinking? And don't tell me they're not -- the silence is meaningful as is lack of player retention and contribution. This game is supposed to have 9 players. Last few weeks, we've barely gotten 4 votes out of everyone by the deadline. Are you telling me that if white loses this game, it'll be because of black's superior play?Abstract Actuary wrote: veerus, just shot to #1 on my suspect list.
Hypocrite much? Obviously you're the only one who lost a little bit of motivation, right? /sarcasmAbstract Actuary wrote:I've lost a little bit of motivation because I just don't see what our plan is anymore. I had a couple of plans, but now they both seem compromised and weaker.
I didn't realize that I'd end up a bit weary from looking at the same game over and over -- my one previous attempt at correspondence chess was abandoned after only a week.Abstract Actuary wrote:I've lost a little bit of motivation because I just don't see what our plan is anymore. I had a couple of plans, but now they both seem compromised and weaker.
Sadly, those moves are a sunk cost. We shouldn't let them force us into a specific plan. The time to have worried about them was when we played Ke5 (and possibly earlier.)Herodotus wrote:I don't like Kd3 here. We just spent several moves getting our king up the board.
Well, if we can't use the king or queen or c pawn to get rid of the b pawn, what else could we use? You've got three choices left and two aren't really an option.SaintKerrigan wrote:The b-pawn can't be removed by the king unless the a-pawn is removed first. As long as the rook stays on the 6th row, the king can't capture the a-pawn. And sacrificing our queen for either of those pawns instantly loses the game for us.
That part was arguing against Kd3, not c4. Pushing c4 is pretty much geared at forcing Black to trade the b-pawn, since doing anything else wins White the game.Thok wrote:Well, if we can't use the king or queen or c pawn to get rid of the b pawn, what else could we use? You've got three choices left and two aren't really an option.SaintKerrigan wrote:The b-pawn can't be removed by the king unless the a-pawn is removed first. As long as the rook stays on the 6th row, the king can't capture the a-pawn. And sacrificing our queen for either of those pawns instantly loses the game for us.
Yes. I'm pointing out what you are missing in the argument for Kd3; there's a way we can get rid of the b pawn without using the c pawn, but we can't do it with the king on d4 (and there's a clear best square for the king to be on once you follow that line of logic.)SaintKerrigan wrote:That part was arguing against Kd3, not c4. Pushing c4 is pretty much geared at forcing Black to trade the b-pawn, since doing anything else wins White the game.
