'Modeling' recent debates using chess

Hello DNAunion,RE: Stalemate game.I understand that you were playing a time restricted game whereas I am taking time for analysis. However, it is not your moves that I question. I don't know what level of computer program you were playing against (you said it was your son's), but I would not have made that Nf6 move allowing you the double attack and a sure stalemate.You suggested that the knight could not be protected by presenting this line:1. ... h5
2. Rg5 Nf6
3. Rg6 Nd5 (if 3. ... Ng4 then 4. Rg5 again)
4. Rg5 Nf4+
5. Kh1
followed by
6. Rxh5 =Yet, the "Rxh5=" part doesn't follow from the position. Black's knight is still on f4 protecting the pawn on h5. Rxh5 would win the pawn but hang the rook. Black (still with 2 minor pieces) would soon win the White pawn from the lone White king and ++ would then be by the numbers.The line I would play would be:1. ..............h5
2. Rg5........Nf6
3. Rg6........Nd5
4. Rg5........Nf4+
5. Kh1........Be5From this position it would be (as you mentioned) a matter of not letting White trade the rook for the knight. The general strategy would be to keep the bishop next to the king while the knight roams free (being sure to avoid a skewer). Because of the difficulties involved, there would be a huge amount of jockeying for position. Again, the overall strategy would be to work the king/bishop pair as close as possible to the White pawn for a capture.Using this line and strategy, I managed to capture White's pawn, though (after a very long line) I have not yet found a way to get Black's pawn to the queening square. However, I have been playing this line against a computer program called "Chessmaster 7000" that is rated @ 2711. Disclaimer: Do understand that for this analysis, I am allowing myself to explore various move possiblities & not obligating myself to straight-forward move for move play.The point of fact is, most human opponents would not be able to play with the perfection of this program. Thus, rather than giving away the game to a stalemate with the Nf6 move (allowing the double attack), I would be more inclined to play the line I suggested above and give my opponent the opportunity to make a mistake.Namaste'Amlodhi

Very good!Just one "key" line missed at the very end (same number of move to mate).

quote:

---

[12] Qxf7+...........Ke5
[13] Qd5+........... Kf4
[14] Qd2+............Ke5
[15] Qd6+............Kxe4
[16] Bc2++

---

14. ... Kxe4 (instead of Ke5)
15. Bc2+ Ke5
16. Qd6#

quote:

---

DNAunion:

​

14. ... Kxe4 (instead of Ke5)

---

{chuckle}. . six of one and half a dozen of the other.My opponent played:14. ... Ke5Thus, my sequence was required.Namaste'Amlodhi

quote:

---

You suggested that the knight could not be protected by presenting this line:

​

1. ... h5
2. Rg5 Nf6
3. Rg6 Nd5 (if 3. ... Ng4 then 4. Rg5 again)
4. Rg5 Nf4+
5. Kh1
followed by
6. Rxh5 =

​

Yet, the "Rxh5=" part doesn't follow from the position.

---

My bad. Rxh5 would lose. Obviously that's not I would play if the position actually arose. Let's look.

quote:

---

The line I would play would be:

​

1. ..............h5
2. Rg5........Nf6
3. Rg6........Nd5
4. Rg5........Nf4+
5. Kh1........Be5

​

From this position it would be (as you mentioned) a matter of not letting White trade the rook for the knight.

---

Okay,...

6. Kg1

That's much better than 6. Rxh5??? :-)The obvious 6. ... Nh3+ 7. Kg2 Nxg5 8. hxg5 failsback to a draw.If Black attempts to bring his king closer to White: 6. ... Kf3 7. Rf5 followed by 8. Rxf4 =.Black has to approach White’s pawn while (1) still protecting his own h-pawn and (2) not allowing White to give up the exchange.With White’s rook where it is Black’s king cannot approach White’s pawn nor defend his own pawn, and Black’s knight is stuck protecting the pawn (which is on a white square, so cannot be protected by Black’s bishop). The bishop is probably the piece to move.6. ... Bd4+ 7. Kh1 and Black is back where he was a minute ago.The most direct is:

6. ... Bf6
7. Ra5

Now 7. ... Bxh4 draws because of 8. Ra4+ followed by 9. Rxf4.If the knight moves without giving check, White just captures Black’s pawn on h5. And even if it does give check, Black still makes no headway. For example, 7. ... Ne2+ 8. Kf2 9. Nf4 Kg1If Black attempts to move his king in with 7. ... Kf3 then 8. Rf5 Bd4+ 9. Kg1 followed by 10. Rxf4 =. If instead he tries 7. ... Ke3 then 8. Rf5 draws.So it still looks hard for Black to make progress.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]

quote:

---

My opponent played:

​

14. ... Ke5

---

Is your opponent the 2700+ computer you mentioned you had? Now we have to wonder did YOU or did YOUR COMPUTER solve that masterpiece?

quote:

---

DNAunion

​

Now we have to wonder did YOU or did YOUR COMPUTER solve that masterpiece?

---

Oh, please. The "masterpiece" wasn't hard to solve. Once the (reasonaby apparent) Rxg7 move is determined, Black scarcely has any options. IOW, (as is apparent in the line I posted), in every case Black has only one move option that doesn't lead to checkmate in only 4-5 moves (often 1-3 moves).In fact, had the moves not been so apparent, I might have suspected that your computer invented this sequence. A more difficult game would have contained at least some human error.Your ego needs to chill out.Amlodhi

quote:

---

Oh, please. The "masterpiece" wasn't hard to solve. Once the (reasonaby apparent) Rxg7 move is determined, Black scarcely has any options.

---

So the queen sac Qf7+ just jumped right out at you immediately? Wow, you're really good! Surprising then that you made such an ignorant statement about the "draw by repetition" originally...

quote:

---

... [DNAunion was] fortunate enough to squeak out a defensive stalemate by repetition posture."

---

1) Any half-way decent player knows the game was a book draw dozens of moves before any draw by repetition would have even kicked in.2) And where did I or the computer get stalemated anyway? Do you know what stalemate means?Something just doesn't seem to add up here. Or maybe in the last 2 days you've studied so hard that you've gained a thousand rating points!****************************************
PS: And now that I think about it, here's something else that helps us judge your level of play somewhat.

quote:

---

1. f3. . .e5(or e6)
2. g4. . .Qh4++

​

... Wasn't this known as the "Scholar's mate"?

---

That's fool's mate...not scholar's mate.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-02-2004]

quote:

---

Amlodhi

​

Yet, the "Rxh5=" part doesn't follow from the position.

---

quote:

---

DNAunion

​

My bad. Rxh5 would lose. Obviously that's not I would play if the position actually arose.

---

Well, I was trying to be nice, but I don't see it as obvious at all. You were shoveling your guru crap and didn't even realize that you had just hung your own rook.

quote:

---

DNAunion

​

Any half-way decent player knows the game was a book draw dozens of moves before any draw by repetition would have even kicked in.

---

Any half-way decent player wouldn't have been down on material against a computer that didn't have any better circuitry than to give away the game with ... Nf6.

quote:

---

DNAunion

​

And where did I get stalemated anyway? Care to show us?

---

I had, momentarily, thought maybe I had been wrong about you. But now I begin to wonder if you even know what you're talking about. You were handed the stalemate on a silver platter in the game described in your OP. You remember your OP don't you? The one with all these pompous statements:

quote:

---

DNAunion:
White knows so well what’s actually going on . . .

​

Black isn’t smart enough to know . . .This is very analogous to recent debates here such as.

​

Peter kept trying to win the point, even though he never had a chance of winning.

​

If my opponents knew as much about what was going on as I do, they would realize when it is futile for them to continue fighting against me.

---

I am through with you, sir. You are welcome to post yet another self-worshipping post as the last word.Amlodhi

quote:

---

Amlodhi
Yet, the "Rxh5=" part doesn't follow from the position.

---

quote:

---

DNAunion
My bad. Rxh5 would lose. Obviously that's not I would play if the position actually arose.

---

quote:

---

Amlodhi: Well, I was trying to be nice

---

Since when? Go back and look at your first post in this thread. And also look at your last post just before mine.

quote:

---

Amlodhi: but I don't see it as obvious at all. You were shoveling your guru crap and didn't even realize that you had just hung your own rook.

---

That’s what happens when a human does his own analysis: oversights occur.See, at least we know that I am doing my own analysis here, unlike you, who let’s his 2700+ computer do the work for him.

quote:

---

DNAunion Any half-way decent player knows the game was a book draw dozens of moves before any draw by repetition would have even kicked in.

---

quote:

---

Amlodhi: Any half-way decent player wouldn't have been down on material against a computer that didn't have any better circuitry than to give away the game with ... Nf6.

---

LOL! In such "blitzish games, any reasonable person would accept that thousands of half-way decent players or better have been in such predicaments, dozens of times each.We are still left with your ignorant statement about the draw...your deflection didn’t work.

quote:

---

DNAunion And where did I get stalemated anyway? Care to show us?

---

quote:

---

Amlodhi: I had, momentarily, thought maybe I had been wrong about you.

---

You were...and still are if you think either I or the computer was stalemated in that chess game.Hey, you quoted me asking you to show us where the stalemate in that game was...so, where's your support? Why didn't you post it? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. There was no stalemate in that game, and anyone who knows anything about chess knows that.

quote:

---

Amlodhi: But now I begin to wonder if you even know what you're talking about.

---

LOL!! We all know you are trying to bulls**t your way out of this.

quote:

---

Amlodhi: You were handed the stalemate on a silver platter in the game described in your OP.

---

What stalemate? You don’t know what stalemate means in chess, do you? Nope.

quote:

---

Amlodhi: You remember your OP don't you?

---

You mean the first post...the one with the chess game where absolutely no stalemate occurred? Sure I remember it. Do you?[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-02-2004]

Here ya go Amlodhi, since you don't know what stalemate means in chess, I thought I'd educate you.

quote:

---

Stalemate: A tie game brought about by a position in which there are no legal moves for the player to move, and the player’s king is not in check. (Lev Alburt & Alan Lawrence, Chess Rules of Thumb, WW Norton, 2003, p179)

---

quote:

---

STALEMATE
A game ends in a stalemate when the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but cannot make a legal move. (emphasis in original, Robert M Snyder, Chess for Juniors, David McKay Co., 1991, p41)

---

quote:

---

Stalemate refers to when the player whose turn it is to move has no legal move, and his king is not in check. (emphasis in original, Patrick Wolff, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Chess: Second Edition, Alpha, 2002, p359)

---

quote:

---

A stalemate occurs when it is a player’s move, his or her king is not in check, yet no legal move can be made. (ZsuZsa Polgar, Hoainhan Paul Truong, & Leslie Alan Horvitx, Teach Yourself Chess in 24 Hours, Alpha, 2003, p32)

---

quote:

---

A stalemate occurs when one player has no legal moves on the board but must move because it is his turn. (Yasser Seirawan, Play Winning Chess, Everyman Chess, 2003, p25-26)

---

To put it a bit more formally, stalemate occurs when all of the following three conditions occur at the same time.1) A player has no legal moves
2) That player is not in check
3) It is that player's moveNow that I've taught you what stalemate means in chess - something every beginner knows, as can be seen by the titles of the above books - can you find one occurring in the game from the first post in this thread? Can you? Nope, because there wasn't one. Just as I've been saying, and exactly opposite of what you've been saying.*****************************
I've found my cozy position for this "debate". I need do nothing but hammer this one point home. He has no possibility of winning on this: in fact, I've already won. Checkmate![This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-02-2004]

First, I'm going to apologize for losing my temper. I take your accusations as slanderous. However, regardless of the provocation, controlling my temper is my responsibility to myself.

quote:

---

DNAunion

​

See, at least we know that I am doing my own analysis here, unlike you, who let’s his 2700+ computer do the work for him.

---

The work was my own. The only advantage I had over you (in creating the puzzle) was that I knew going in that mate could be forced in 16 moves. The puzzle was not that difficult to figure out.

quote:

---

DNAunion

​

That’s what happens when a human does his own analysis: oversights occur.

---

A human oversight is what occurred in my analysis of your puzzle when I "overlooked" the fact that the Black king could also take e4 in move 14, thus allowing for two alternate final three move sequences to mate. You hanging your rook is more commonly called a blunder.

quote:

---

DNAunion

​

In such "blitzish games, any reasonable person would accept that thousands of half-way decent players or better have been in such predicaments, dozens of times each.

---

As I stated before, it wasn't your moves I questioned. It was Black that gave away the game by allowing the double attack. According to your OP, Black was being played by your son's computer. Thus, the playing level of this computer (by design or operator preference) remains in question.

quote:

---

DNAunion

​

You mean the first post...the one with the chess game where absolutely no stalemate occurred?

---

Yes, you are correct. No stalemate occurred. But I didn't say it did. My initial statement was that you were able to reach:

quote:

---

a defensive stalemate by repetition posture .

---

And you did put yourself into this defensive posture. IOW, by allowing the double attack, checkmate was no longer attainable for Black. It was stalemate or nothing. That Black chose to wander around the board for fifty moves rather than stalemate White's king does make the game a "draw" in the proper parlance. I would have just stalemated you and been done with it. Hence, I later referred to it as a "stalemate" game.If anyone takes a look at my profile, they will see that chess was listed as one of my interests when I joined this forum (interestingly, for someone supposedly so deeply into it, yours makes no mention). I have been interested in the game since I was a teenager (and I'm no youngster anymore).I was a long time member of the USCF and received Chess Life magazine for many years. I own and have studied many chess books written by such people as Yasser Seirawan, Reuben Fine, Lev Alburt, Jeremy Silman, etc. And, while I dislike organized tournaments, I belong to two chess clubs and regularly hold my own against players with ratings as high as 1700 - 1800.But if you really have some serious need to think that I still wouldn't know the technical definition of a stalemate, be my guest.As a general note to other readers: The above description of my interest in chess was necessary to dispel what I take to be slanderous remarks against my integrity, and is not intended as a bid to enter the "pissing" contest. It should be noted that before this necessity arose, my sole comment was that I was "fond of chess".And now, again, DNAunion, the work was my own. If this somehow presents a crisis for you, you're welcome to employ whatever rationalization makes you feel better. I have no further interest in your agenda.Amlodhi

quote:

---

You hanging your rook is more commonly called a blunder.

---

No, it's not a blunder, because it never happened. The position that my hanging a rook would have occurred in never arose. It was an oversight in analysis of a possible, future position. And if the game had reached the actual position , I would not have exchanged the rook for the pawn.

quote:

---

As I stated before, it wasn't your moves I questioned. It was Black that gave away the game by allowing the double attack. According to your OP, Black was being played by your son's computer. Thus, the playing level of this computer (by design or operator preference) remains in question.

---

My son’s computer is rated 1750 (from the box: "Estimated strength rating 1750" ... "Niveau ELO USA 1750"). That is about 200 points above the average US chess player (back when I was in USCF, the average OTB rating was about 1550).And in case you missed this when I stated it before, it was a "blitish" game. Neither the computer nor I was playing at our highest level.

quote:

---

If anyone takes a look at my profile, they will see that chess was listed as one of my interests when I joined this forum

---

I don't doubt that you are INTERESTED in chess, I just doubt you are any good.

quote:

---

(interestingly, for someone supposedly so deeply into it, yours makes no mention).

---

I gave up chess about 10 years ago to get my BS in CIS: trading something that I couldn't make money at for something that I could. Chess is no longer a big enough part of my life for me to mention it casually.

quote:

---

I was a long time member of the USCF and received Chess Life magazine for many years.

---

So why don't you provide us with your USCF rating? It's on the mailing label of each issue of Chess Life. Why not post a pic so we can see it for ourselves?

quote:

---

I own and have studied many chess books written by such people as Yasser Seirawan, Reuben Fine, Lev Alburt, Jeremy Silman, etc.

---

And yet still failed to learn what a stalemate is???

quote:

---

And, while I dislike organized tournaments, I belong to two chess clubs and regularly hold my own against players with ratings as high as 1700 - 1800.

---

Irrelevant. Club ratings are not meaningful except within the context of that one club itself.

quote:

---

As a general note to other readers: The above description of my interest in chess was necessary to dispel what I take to be slanderous remarks against my integrity, and is not intended as a bid to enter the "pissing" contest. It should be noted that before this necessity arose, my sole comment was that I was "fond of chess".

---

Nope, not true. You also claimed to have easily solved a chess puzzle that involved a non-apparent queen sac; a claim that simply doesn’t fit your original, ignorance-revealing statement DNAunion ... was fortunate enough to squeak out a defensive stalemate by repetition posture.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]

quote:

---

You mean the first post...the one with the chess game where absolutely no stalemate occurred?

---

quote:

---

Yes, you are correct. No stalemate occurred. But I didn't say it did.

---

Sure you did. You said:

quote:

---

DNAunion ... was fortunate enough to squeak out a defensive stalemate by repetition posture.

---

Where’s the stalemate I squeaked out? Nowherethere was none. Just as I’ve been saying, and exactly opposite what you said.

quote:

---

My initial statement was that you were able to reach:

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------
a defensive stalemate by repetition posture .
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

And you did put yourself into this defensive posture.

---

And yet there was no stalemate. See, I did NOT reach a stalemate. See, you are flat out wrong.

quote:

---

IOW, by allowing the double attack, checkmate was no longer attainable for Black. It was stalemate or nothing.

---

Another ignorance-revealing statement by you.Your latest statement is also so wrong it's hard for a person who actually knows chess to get a handle on, but...Black’s making a move that meant checkmate was no longer attainable for Black absolutely does NOT mean It was a STALEMATE or nothing. Now, one might try to say "It was A DRAW or nothing". Is that what you meant?You apparently continue to conflate, quite incorrectly, the terms/concepts DRAW and STALEMATE. They are not the same. There are many ways to draw that are not stalemate. Here, let me educate you.1) For example, the principle that was most at play at the end was the computer's attempting to avoid 3-fold repetition. If 3-fold repetition occurs, the game is a draw, BUT NOT A STALEMATE.2) Another way to draw is perpetual check, and it too is NOT A STALEMATE.3) And yet another way to draw is the 50-move rule — and guess what, it too IS NOT A STALEMATE.4) And another way to draw is if both players have insufficient material to checkmate — and guess what, it too IS NOT A STALEMATE.5) Another way to reach a draw is by agreement - where one player offers a draw and the other accepts the offer. And guess what...this too IS NOT A STALEMATE.Let me try to educate you once more on exactly what a stalemate in chess is:

quote:

---

USCF: If a King is not in check, but that player can make no legal move, the position is called a stalemate and the game is scored as a draw, or tie. (The United States Chess Federation)

---

Do you get it yet?There was no stalemate in the game. Your statement that I achieved a stalemate is flat out wrong and exposes your ignorance of chess.You new statement that it was stalemate or nothing just INCREASES our confidence that you don’t know what you are talking about.****************************
Since you refuse to simply accept that you’ve lost this point, I’ll bring up another indicator of your ignorance based on your original statement.--------------------------------------
a defensive stalemate by repetition posture .
--------------------------------------Repetition has NOTHING to do with stalemate. Stalemate occurs on a SINGLE move.Your statement is wrong on so many levels it’s pathetic. No half-way decent player would have uttered such nonsense.

quote:

---

That Black chose to wander around the board for fifty moves rather than stalemate White's king does make the game a "draw" in the proper parlance.

---

Sure it does, and anyone who knows anything about chess knows this. A draw by the 50 move rule is a draw in the proper parlance.

quote:

---

I would have just stalemated you and been done with it.

---

Which shows your ignorance again!!!!Any half-way decent player would have given up trying to win as soon as White played Rxf6. Any half-way decent chess player would realize that the opponent knows that rook pawn and bishop of the wrong color is a book draw if the opposing king can reach the queening square.That you state you would have continued to play on until you actually stalemated White just shows us how little you know about chess.

quote:

---

Hence, I later referred to it as a "stalemate" game.

---

Your attempts at bulls**t spin don’t work.I wasn’t playing you. You didn’t stalemate me. The computer didn’t stalemate me. There was no stalemate in the game, despite your statement that I have achieved one (by a repetitious posture, no less!).

quote:

---

If anyone takes a look at my profile, they will see that chess was listed as one of my interests when I joined this forum .

---

I don’t deny you are interested in chessI just deny that you are good at chess.

quote:

---

But if you really have some serious need to think that I still wouldn't know the technical definition of a stalemate, be my guest.

---

WE ALL DO! Your own statement that exposes your ignorance as to what stalemate is: the statement you are now trying to justify with pathetic logic.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]

No disrespect but really guys, people with ratings in the 1700-1800 range should not be arguing chess as though you were Kasparov, Polgar, Anand, Leko, Kramnik, Adams etc etc.As I have alluded to earlier I don't play anymore but it seems to me that arguing on the internet over chess puzzles seems moot when you realise a strong PC chess game will solve these puzzles. You don't know if the person is doing it or their $50 software.If you are any good you should be able to solve these puzzles in your head without a board in front of you. (Well maybe not 16 move mates - but certainly the 3 move mates.)Relax guys.

quote:

---

No disrespect but really guys, people with ratings in the 1700-1800 range should not be arguing chess as though you were Kasparov, Polgar, Anand, Leko, Kramnik, Adams etc etc.

---

First, I am not in the 1700-1800 range, thank you very much. I am in the ~2000 range OTB (top 10% or better in USCF), and a candidate master in correspondence.Second, I seriously doubt that "my opponent" here is up to the 1700-1800 range, considering his several ridiculous remarks about stalemate (a concept every beginner should know).This "game" about stalemate between us will be over just as soon as my opponent realizes he has absolutely no chance of beating me and accepts that I have achieved my goal...many "moves" ago. Ironically, just like I said in my original post in this thread, my opponent here is dragging this out pointlessly: he's already lost the game...I know it, you know it, and anyone else who knows anything about chess knows it. Yet he continues to "move" his "pieces" about as if he has a chance of winning.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-05-2004]