chess game

Chess Game

Tag and you will find!
Wild name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
aixrad 89 ( +1 | -1 )
Checkmate or not Hello,

I recently played with black this game game with pianofred.

In this Position



I generated the conditional move 20 Rf2 Re1+ ... with threefold repetition to save the draw because I had less material.
pianofred mean I maybe could checkmate him forces but we both don't know how.

Is this a forced checkmate position?

Was it right to save the draw with threefold repetition?

Greetings

Ralf
beefturnmail 4 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, it is forced checkmate as follows: 20. Rf2 Re1+ 21 Rf1 Qxf1#
aixrad 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Oh, now I see it.
Then I wa very stupd and blind at that moment
chessnovice 5 ( +1 | -1 )
put a positive spin on it You're just more generous than you thought. :]
ionadowman 32 ( +1 | -1 )
Incidentally... ...there is a second, closely related, checkmate: 21.Re1+ Rf1 22.Rxf1#. I think we all get afflicted by chess hallucinations and mirages from time to time. Clearly the material deficit was preying on your mind when White stopped your threatened mate on h2. Suddenly the BQ was shorn of its power to move diagonally!
Bad luck,
Ion
wuzzie 18 ( +1 | -1 )
not checkmate after 20.Rf2 it is mate, but if white plays 20.Qg4+ it forces trade of Queens and black is a piece behind but still has a free pawn but I think white could defend thatone
lighttotheright 89 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree that it is not checkmate.

Aixrad, you did well to accept a draw in this position.

After wuzzie's 20. Qg4+ Qxg4 21. fxg4...Rxb2 22. Nd2 would have left White with a possible decisive advantage. Although Black would have 2 passed pawns, the vertical isolation would have been difficult to defend. White would have opportunities to open his own passed pawns along the King-side once the black h pawn fell. And don't forget that White would still have an extra piece to fight in this position. Black cannot defend everything under best play.
More: Chess
heinzkat 44 ( +1 | -1 )
We are talking about this position after White's 23rd move:



Should Black play 23. ... Re2, taking the draw because of threefold repetition, or should Black play 23. ... Qxf1#/Rxf1#, taking the win because of checkmate. You cannot say that Black did well to take the draw in this position !?!?!???
lighttotheright 43 ( +1 | -1 )
I agreed with wuzzie that after 20. Re2 it was mate; but not in the position shown with white to move in the first post.

It depends upon what position you are talking about.

That is the danger of talking about this game or any like it. If you analyse a different position, you can get entirely different conclusions.
tugger 94 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree with heinzkat. I don't intend to critisise anybody's game, but Black has a forced win in 1 at one stage, to then suggest he did well to draw is, quite frankly, ludicrous. There may well have been a stage of the game earlier, perhaps even just a couple of moves previous, where a draw for Black could be considered a good result, but after 20. Rf2?? it's a different matter entirely, as Black has a forced mate in two from that position, and even makes the correct first move to give him the win in one more.

For reference, White should have played 20. Qg4+ and he probably wins, forcing the Queens off the board with a pawn advantage (just the one pawn, as b2 is vulnerable to capture from the Rook). Better still would be to develop the Knight as opposed greedily snatching the pawn on move 19.
tugger 44 ( +1 | -1 )
Having re-read the thread, I can see where lighttotheright is coming from...

The position in the first post is not a win for Black, as it is White to move, and he can save with Qg4+. It is only after White plays Rf2 that it becomes a win for Black.

But I would still say that a draw for Black after missing a mate in one can not be considered a good result.
lighttotheright 138 ( +1 | -1 )
Wait a minute. He made a decision to draw on move 20.

Then White made a mistake and Black did not take advantage of it. That's compounding mistakes. Both sides clearly intended the draw by repeating the position shown by aixrad on move 20. It did not matter that the repeating sequence was flawed. Neither player could see that flaw. Aixrad asked about the exact position he displayed in the first post. I merely confirmed wuzzie's analysis of that exact position.

This game was a draw by repetition not by an accepted draw on move 20. It lasted longer than that (I knew that all along). The presumptive acceptance of a draw on move 20 was what I commented on...not the mistakes made later. The line of play I gave as example proves what I was talking about.

To later criticize me for stating something I didn't is ludicrous. No where did I refute any of the previous analysis given by others that show the forced mates. But those forced mates do not materialize until after White's Rf2.
tugger 181 ( +1 | -1 )
i'm not intending to antagonise anyone, but this comment...

"Aixrad, you did well to accept a draw in this position."

is what i consider ludicrous. it's my opinion that aixrad should be disappointed, not pleased. i don't mean to pan him down, it's intended as constructive critisism. one should never be pleased about missing an easy win. aixrad should be looking to improve his game to the point where he can spot mate in one positions, and that means he should be disappointed when he misses them. this will hopefully drive him forward, trying to ensure he does not feel this disappointment again.

i do know what lighttotheright is saying, though. in the position at the very top of this thread, aixrad is worse off positionally and materially. so i understand why he is saying a draw was not bad.

perhaps a better way of approaching this problem is to directly answer the questions aixrad asks...

"Is this a forced checkmate position?" - Not in this position.

"Was it right to save the draw with threefold repetition?" - No, you should've waited to see what White's reply to Re2 was, then analysed the position, instead of putting up conditional moves. Perhaps then you might have found the win.
lighttotheright 38 ( +1 | -1 )
I've explained the comment extensively. I'm not going to argue about it. It is not worth it.

But I would like to point out that aizrad is only a 1300 level player. We shouldn't expect a 1600 to 1700 level or greater performance out of him.

Is a draw the best result? Of course not. But don't forget that a draw is still a good result regardless. Certainly, it is a lot better than a loss.

tugger 106 ( +1 | -1 )
i kind of want to stop arguing about this too! but i have to put my opinion up about this comment...

"But I would like to point out that aizrad is only a 1300 level player. We shouldn't expect a 1600 to 1700 level or greater performance out of him. "

before i go on, i stress again it's just my opinion, but i really don't think that spotting that mate is 1600+ standard, in fact i would expect a 1300 player to have no trouble winning after Rf2. this is precisely the reason aixrad should be disappointed. if he's not disappointed, then how can he drive himself on to improve? if instead he shrugs his shoulders and says "well, a draw is a good result here", then i don't see him breaking into the 1600+ class. but maybe that's just the way i approach things. i guess he may see things differently. he may be boosted by the fact he didn't lose, and as such have more confidence. but i know i would be disappointed if i missed that.

it's ironic really, as during the threefold repetition, both players took it in turns to blunder away a win!