|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
GameKnot related: Reporting possible cheater.
« Back to forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Reporting possible cheater.Do I have grounds to accuse him of cheating? Has he consulted an endgame database? As I understand it, Nalimov Tables are against GK rules. |
||
|
perdurabo 17-Jun-11, 16:42 |
However endgame books are, and the way I interpret the rule that also includes for instance the chessbase dvds. If you have a R&B vs. R endgame, the principles and the "how to play this kind of endgame" should be explained in a number of books. Karsten Müller has it on one of the chessbase dvds in his endgame series. So there are plenty of legal resources available to know if an endgame is a theoretical draw or if a win can be forced and how. I have not looked at your games and so can't say anything about the game in question. If it is still an active game we can't comment on it anyway. Of course you have the right to play on as long as you like or at least until the 50-move rule or a threefold repetition occurs and your opponent declares the game a draw. Personally I find it impolite to repeat draw offers when one has been declined already, unless the position has changed in some remarkable way since the last draw offer. However from what you say, I can not see any evidence of your opponent cheating, and even if he did, I wouldn't know how to prove it. The way I see it, there is not much you can do, but play on and ignore any annoying draw offers or chat as good as you can. |
||
|
jkedzie 19-Jun-11, 16:44 |
What a dork!! I think perdurabo is right, just put him on your ignor list & play on calmly forcing him to prove that it is a draw. An example... I was playing a game on the playchess server & I ended up in a Q vs.N endgame. I had the queen, this is a win!! 100% win, I knew it was a win, my opponent knew it was a win but... I could not remember the right way to separate the knight from the King so, it was drawn!! Now, imagine if I sat here & told my opponent he needs to resign because it was theoretically lost? On a separate note: I suspect one of my opponents for using a Chess engine. Are there any high level Chess players that are also experts on Computer programs that are willing to look at the game & give me their opinion? Jenn |
||
|
Again, thanks to you both for you comments. |
||
|
No evidence... You yourself see the thing as a 'theoretical draw', and although were the roles were reversed you might make an offer on the strength of that belief, you would not comment any further upon it. Not until after the game at any rate. But a lot of people would. But theoretical draw or not, the stronger side has good reason to continue playing, as he has all the winning chances going. Note that I'm not speaking specifically of your game. It is always possible that in ducking and diving to get clear of the mating threats your opponent will fall into a losing position. The point is that not all R + B vs R positions are draws. If you choose not to ignore your opponent in the circumstances, you might point out to him that the onus of proof is on him that he can survive 50 moves defending such an endgame. If he fails, you win; if he succeeds, then he has earned his half-point. |
||
|
jkedzie 25-Jun-11, 19:13 |
ionadowman |
||
|
|
||
|
tactical_abyss 25-Jun-11, 21:21 |
I usually continue on for a while in drawish positions..not forever but for a while.I go by other factors as well.If I see my opponent has a history of time-outs and that he is making a move close to his time limit on many moves,then from my experience that tells me that there is an increased probability that he will lose to a time-out...so I play on! This has actually happened a few times with my opponents...and no,I won't reinstate the game! In addition,I could pop up some examples right now,where my opponent was close to a senior master level and blundered early in the game.So draw or not,this can happen at any time,especially with lower rated players,even in the open endgame! Here:  game The game above was = and was heading for a draw(somewhat),but anything can happen,as you see! On the flip side of the coin,many players do not have the "patience"to want to continue on to a very long endgame with games like a R/B vs a R endgame or two Bishops vs a King. With R/B vs a R it is a theoretical draw but its not cut and dry.Examine the Philidor position,for example.Yes,you have to be a pretty bad player...but how do you know your opponent isn't consuming a few drinks at the time? In the 2/B vs a K endgame,this can be a very long endgame for sure and its bound to get draw offers.But you can win with patience and forcing your opponents King into one of the a or h files and then into a corner...with extreme care.This again requires patience that many opponents do not have,so they may again request a draw. If anyone annoys me with continued draw offers and messages,I simply place them on the royal ignore list.Perhaps when I feel they will behave,I will take them off the list in a few months!This is especially where I see a small edge,but the game may go on to move 80+for example! TA |
||
|
2 B vs lone K ... Much more difficult is the B+N vs lone King. I have won 3 out of 3 with that ending, but still don't fully understand how to win from a 'general' position. All three of the games I have played with that ending, I began with the enemy King already severely limited in scope, and with a straightforward winning plan fairly easy to arrive at. The third such occasion - a pick-up game at the Christchurch Square giant chess board (a zillion years ago - the earthquakes here have put paid to that) my opponent kept insisting it was a draw. Not so, said I (of course), but this dude's whingeing was enough to distract me from noticing I was driving his King towards the wrong corner! "Oops - wrong corner," says I eventually, and went on to win without further trouble. If you want to find out the general method of winning B+N vs lone K, you might try Wikipedia. I'm sure a few years ago I read some such material on the ending from that source. Don't wait until you are already in such an ending to consult it, though... |
||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Jun-11, 06:04 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 26-Jun-11, 06:40.
|
||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Jun-11, 07:01 |
The 2 B/K endgame is actually very easy and I also would not have any problem with the B+N/K endgame...its all very automatic to me.And if any of those scenarios arise with my opponents,99% of the time they will resign if they are on the short end. But most of my opponents are on the 2200-2300 range and higher and know and assume on a higher etiquette chess level to resign. But its not nearly as easy sometimes for 1500 rating or below players to understand what you and I know on the 2000+ levels.So I was primarily writing in reference to expecting zeroqueens opponents to many times not resign and play on and on,even with draw offers! So it is very conceivable that he might expect a long endgame or draw offers,especially if the 1500 or below player dosen't mix up the exact receipe to play the 2/B or N/B spices! Actually over the years I have purposely gone in for double Bishops or double Knights instead of Queening a pawn...just to practice....and this is a good idea for the 1200-1500 players to do.I love 2 and sometimes 3 Knights on the board vs a lone King and perhaps a few pawns....lots of torturous fun and on purpose DELAY in mating if my opponent does not resign!But a hidden subpractice in NOT getting a stalemate,which would be easy with all that horsepower! TA |
||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Jun-11, 07:30 |
Note the link with 2 Knights: en.wikipedia.org This is basic info,but not always understood by class C and below players. |
||
|
Thanks for all the comments. I find your input very helpful. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Jun-11, 09:33 |
|
||
|
|
||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Jun-11, 09:44 |
|
||
|
jkedzie 26-Jun-11, 09:48 |
Fruits & Tools! |
||
|
Vegetation... I was interested in the Wikipedia article on the two knights endings. My only experience with such endings it was to try out, one idle afternoon about 10 years back, to see how 2 Knights would win with an enemy pawn on the board. This resulted in the rather unsatisfactory puzzle I posted on GK two or three years back. w White to play and win. In fact White forces mate in fewer than 10 moves from this position. In general, though, what appears in that article is new to me. I had never heard or read of the Troitzky Line before... Strangely enough, I don't think I've ever played a two-bishop vs lone king endgame. Any that might have reached such a pass were resigned long before, and at that probably had better ways of continuing for the attacker anyhow. Since the procedure is easy enough to learn I would certainly resign such an ending against one of my own rating, and possibly a good deal below it. Mind you, a player of, say, a 1500-1600 rating might well prefer to play the thing out, especially against a higher rated opponent. As for the B+N ending: maybe not. The reason is that it was suggested several decades ago that so arcane was the B+N ending that there were even quite a lot of IMs who weren't fully 'up' with the winning method. I did once see a B+N ending between two strong players (this was at Auckland University Arts Festival, 1972) peter out to a draw. White was overall the stronger player, but had bollixed the early play so badly he was hanging by his teeth until finally baling out to the lone King side of the B+N ending. He then hung on for the next 50 moves to hold the game. I don't think Black had the slightest idea how to go about it. So I would probably not resign until it became clear to me that my opponent knew what he was doing. In any case it would be quite nice to have the thing 'down on paper' in at least one game. It would really be a case of 'show me', but as it were a student learning at the feet of a teacher. BACK to my comment that a developing player might want to play out one of these difficult wins as accept an opponent's resignation: I'm pretty sure that was my attitude in my younger days. In my final high school year, I moved to a larger school where I met a younger but good deal stronger opponent (now domiciled in Australia, I believe). He won the first three of our games pretty handily, but the fourth was a drawn out 70-odd move affair the came down to my Queen vs his NP on the seventh rank. It was the first time I had played such an ending, though I knew that this was a win and how to go about it (book). But what made it interesting was the point at which I allowed the promotion, which would have led to an instant mate, my opponent promoted to a knight! That was new. Of course it made no difference to the result - merely prolonged the game by a move or two, but I quite appreciated the defensive ingenuity. That I got to practise this ending in actual play was also appreciated. I feel sure Evan knew he was losing, but wanted to test my technique. In the circumstances was glad to have it tested. |
||
|
One other point... |
||
|
tactical_abyss 26-Jun-11, 17:45 |
Yes Ion,the enemy pawn dosen't have to be on the a or h file,but your opponents King must be forced into one of the end files and then into a corner. |
||
|
jkedzie 26-Jun-11, 19:06 |
Possibly 2 Bishops gameknot.com |
||
|
baronderkilt 26-Jun-11, 21:18 |
Getting in a plug for a couple of Chess friends . . . Indeed Paul made the USCF top ten list of Juniors in the USA ... and proved out his technique & training very convincingly ... making very short & completely accurate work of the Mate that started with my King already quartered, from which forcing play could and did bring about Mate in that corner. So there are some players who really are up on their basic Mates. And I would not be inclined to test Paul again in that ending, with any hope of surviving it; nor ever stear for it with drawing hopes~! Yet, as has been said ... I too have heard of very strong players failing at it in tournament practice. And so I would be inclined to play it out vs anyone untested in it, by me in a past experience. With perhaps only a slight hope to draw, but moreso to see beautifully accurate finish by someone who really has it down. Which would also serve to help bring it to mind for ME, in case i should ever be on the strong side. There seems to be something about playing it out with a tournament seriousness and time controls etc, that reinforces it to my memory much stronger than any time spent trying to review booked examples. To me in otb play, only N&B still seems difficult. B+B is easy and I find it fun for that reason. Also Q vs R ending seems retainable once you play thru the Strong side and grasp the several ideas to pursue. But I have heard of this ending being drawn by strong players also, tho being a forcible win within the 50 move limit. I think the difficulty with the Q vs R and N+B endings, besides coming very infrequently, is the fact that they can take over 30 moves to force, and so one botch at the wrong time can leave a situation that cannot be forced to a win within the remaining moves. The ending of R+N vs R may also prove very difficult in that way. |
||
|
jkedzie 26-Jun-11, 23:21 |
R+N vs. R Love the name BTW! Anyway, I am currently losing a game in a very bad way & I am planning a knight sacrifice in order to try to get it to a R+N vs. R endgame where I hope I can salvage a draw... doubtfull since this is internet Chess However, the theme is there. |
||
|
baronderkilt 27-Jun-11, 00:12 |
jkedzie ... |
||
|
lighttotheright 01-Jul-11, 09:23 |
I mastered it long ago and can even choose exactly how I'm going to do it. Yes, there is more than 1 technique to force mate (although it is still in the same color corner that the bishop moves). Keep in mind that there are unforced opportunities to mate in other parts of the board. I will admit it was very difficult to learn, but once learned it is easy. It just takes quite a few moves to force the win. My chess ability after mastering it skyrocketed because it teaches you much about how to handle the Knight and Bishop together. It also helps teach you how important King movements are. *** N+N vs. P? Now that's interesting. Not all positions are forced wins. Enough winning positions do exist that even if it is not forced, you can often manage a win because of a mistake by your opponent. It can be a very difficult ending, especially if you are unfamiliar with the winning technique. A forced win in some positions is impossible against a player who knows what they are doing. |
||
|
maca 02-Jul-11, 01:56 |
Regards, MaCa. |
