15xx player here, I saw the "10 second" move as my first move I considered. Nothing fancy, "simple chess" as you say. But it does give the opponent a big case of untied shoelaces...
The g3 is really the single biggest blunder here in this game, he's effectively playing half this game with a piece down, it's really just a matter of time to exploit here
The doubled pawns in this case werent an actual weakness because they couldnt be exploited. Is it correct to call something that cant be exploited a weakness? I dont think you changed the weakness in your oponent´s game, you just actually created one: the square for the knight.
thechnically they where a weakness in the sense that trapped the light bishop it was pretty much out of play, it just wasnt a very relevan weakness, he exploited that weakness to creat one more exploitable
Well doubled pawns are often exploitable via Nimzoviche's restrain-blockade-destroy strategy, or creating for example a knight outpost in front of them, to have just effective restraint. Here you could consider them exploitable because they could be dissolved at a point most favourable to me after due preparation with Qf5, etc. So I am not sure you can argue that they were not "weaknesses".
The point of creating weaknesses in the opponent´s game is to improve the quality of your own pieces. The point of doing most anything in chess is to do that, right? In this case, the weakness (the doubled pawns) isnt a weakness after all (cant be exploited) and undoubling the pawns would create an actual weakness (the square for the knight). Because the double pawns couldnt be exploited is it correct to call it weakness?
My latest thoughts are really that the hypothesis might be interesting to consider because when advantages are "transformed" or increased, you are in effect swapping advantages for other advantages. So the same can be said for weakness "transformation" of the opponents. One way of transforming advantages is often to use a positional sacrifice. I might try and do another video about this soon.
Yes, I think I agree with you. The doubled pawns were a weakness because they were blockaded and could be exploited "indirectly" by transforming them into something more exploitable. It is a very interesting theme. Maybe you´ll get lucky and have another chance of exploring this idea :P
Surely any move whatsoever that brings about piece trades would win owing to his Bishop on h2. After all all endgames are winning for you. I don't think the word "sacrifice" comes into it.
I know the example is a little flawed because of the trapped bishop, but I hoped that the concept could be entertained in any case, and might be useful to consider in OTB chess games.
I mentioned another interesting game analogy - Lasker vs Capablanca where Lasker dissolved Capa's doubled pawns to get different advantages. So in this case it is more of a "sacrifice" of an apparent structural advantage to get something else.
Is what you're saying basically that it can be seen as a positional sacrafice of undoubling his pawns which maybe seem to solve his problems, but actually helps your position more?
Yes, I think it is like sacrificing an apparent advantage, to get something else, which depending on your piece placement might be more of an exploitable weakness.
i still dont really see how nd5 is crushing, it is amazing u can see that, i kno it is cuz the computer says so but its hard to see very complicated, 2 me it just looks like initiative but its a lost position amazing...
this guy is really good other than g3 he didnt make any mistakes till the end, u better watch out for him kc :D
15xx player here, I saw the "10 second" move as my first move I considered. Nothing fancy, "simple chess" as you say. But it does give the opponent a big case of untied shoelaces...
QuakePhil 2 years ago
I like your reasoning in this part. We're all armchair critics KC, but thanks again for all the videos. Much appreciated :)
realpolitik77 2 years ago
The g3 is really the single biggest blunder here in this game, he's effectively playing half this game with a piece down, it's really just a matter of time to exploit here
hmsrenown 2 years ago 3
Good game. Thanks for the post. What clunker g3 was!
thechessstick 2 years ago
what a genius kingscrusher!
dukeisaac 2 years ago 2
The doubled pawns in this case werent an actual weakness because they couldnt be exploited. Is it correct to call something that cant be exploited a weakness? I dont think you changed the weakness in your oponent´s game, you just actually created one: the square for the knight.
Henrique676 2 years ago
thechnically they where a weakness in the sense that trapped the light bishop it was pretty much out of play, it just wasnt a very relevan weakness, he exploited that weakness to creat one more exploitable
cuevasdecamuy 2 years ago
Well doubled pawns are often exploitable via Nimzoviche's restrain-blockade-destroy strategy, or creating for example a knight outpost in front of them, to have just effective restraint. Here you could consider them exploitable because they could be dissolved at a point most favourable to me after due preparation with Qf5, etc. So I am not sure you can argue that they were not "weaknesses".
kingscrusher 2 years ago
The point of creating weaknesses in the opponent´s game is to improve the quality of your own pieces. The point of doing most anything in chess is to do that, right? In this case, the weakness (the doubled pawns) isnt a weakness after all (cant be exploited) and undoubling the pawns would create an actual weakness (the square for the knight). Because the double pawns couldnt be exploited is it correct to call it weakness?
Henrique676 2 years ago
My latest thoughts are really that the hypothesis might be interesting to consider because when advantages are "transformed" or increased, you are in effect swapping advantages for other advantages. So the same can be said for weakness "transformation" of the opponents. One way of transforming advantages is often to use a positional sacrifice. I might try and do another video about this soon.
kingscrusher 2 years ago
Yes, I think I agree with you. The doubled pawns were a weakness because they were blockaded and could be exploited "indirectly" by transforming them into something more exploitable. It is a very interesting theme. Maybe you´ll get lucky and have another chance of exploring this idea :P
Henrique676 2 years ago
@kingscrusher @kingscrusher
you are doing chess philosophy.
In addiction to being one of pioneers of online live chess commentary,you can rightfully become father-founder of chess philosophy and psychology.
I like that for not only do I enjoy chess online but also study English watching your channel.
What do you mean under "fawn pawn"?I don't find the interpretation in a vocabulary.
Is it one that may queen just or an isolated one that is under threat of taking?
gologram 2 years ago
Excellent topic, and very well discussed.......one that I shall certainly commit to memory for future use. Many thanks.
Bigpaul1250 2 years ago
Sweet! I saw d5! :)
wretcherwretch 2 years ago
Surely any move whatsoever that brings about piece trades would win owing to his Bishop on h2. After all all endgames are winning for you. I don't think the word "sacrifice" comes into it.
kaioxygen 2 years ago
I know the example is a little flawed because of the trapped bishop, but I hoped that the concept could be entertained in any case, and might be useful to consider in OTB chess games.
I mentioned another interesting game analogy - Lasker vs Capablanca where Lasker dissolved Capa's doubled pawns to get different advantages. So in this case it is more of a "sacrifice" of an apparent structural advantage to get something else.
kingscrusher 2 years ago
Yes, understand, that is what I was getting at.
It's an interesting and practical-sounding idea
jewbinson 2 years ago
why did he even consider g3?
Vonzi0000 2 years ago 3
Great game and ideas being expressed...
Is what you're saying basically that it can be seen as a positional sacrafice of undoubling his pawns which maybe seem to solve his problems, but actually helps your position more?
jewbinson 2 years ago
Yes, I think it is like sacrificing an apparent advantage, to get something else, which depending on your piece placement might be more of an exploitable weakness.
kingscrusher 2 years ago
I've given up a queen for a rook and two pawns to get into a clearly winning ending. it all depends on the position.
MrFedel 2 years ago
Kings, have you ever employed the Halloween Gambit in an over-the-board game with standard time controls?
xXxWilliExXx 2 years ago
g3?????????????????????????
kiitoob 2 years ago 2
Great game!
really enjoyed the kongmoves :P
ending was awesome as well :D
Davisdigi 2 years ago
i still dont really see how nd5 is crushing, it is amazing u can see that, i kno it is cuz the computer says so but its hard to see very complicated, 2 me it just looks like initiative but its a lost position amazing...
this guy is really good other than g3 he didnt make any mistakes till the end, u better watch out for him kc :D
djcripsalot 2 years ago
Great game.
hurikai 2 years ago