Billy Mays wrote:Bobby Fischer ... is well loved and respected.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:"Copying Bobby Fischer" in this context means initially showing great promise, but soon making it so that everyone hates your guts.

I don't believe that would be copying Bobby Fischer since the actual man had achieved great things in his life, and is well loved and respected.

"Copying Bobby Fischer" in this context means initially showing great promise, but soon making it so that everyone hates your guts.

AArdvark wrote:The thing about online chess is that it's too easy to just copy Bobby Fischer...

This actually isn't the case in chess because there is a lot more going on than just a series of moves. Even if your opponent memorized every single Fischer and Kasparaov game, any slight variation in your play will throw the tempo off and create an entirely different game. By turn 5, there are almost 300 billion variations of possible games, and much of the game is based around timing, you can't just pick up where you left off because a genius move on turn 40 for example could be a huge blunder if done on 39 or 41.

One of the biggest problems with the game is the first-move advantage in chess which gives white about a 5% advantage in tournament play.

Erebor wrote:Consider how you play, and your own tactics, though. Your play style may be heavily dependent on Bishops. Your Bishop is basically trapped in the corner, once this is done, and you can write it off if your opponent has any skill at all.

In my case, personally, I'd rather sacrifice a Knight, given a choice.

This "tactic" you previously described isn't very useful as it can be easily defended against by even the most novice players (probably not Paul, though). The main value of a fianchettoed bishop is in the pressure over time that it places on your opponent as long as you can keep the game open.

You shouldn't have these knight vs bishop preconceptions or preferences going into a game. While they are both roughly equal to a "3", their actual value is determined whether the game is open or closed. Bishops are more valuable in open games, and knights are more valuable in closed games.

How you value your pieces should be determined based off of development.

Did Paul have one of his cats play this game?

He played for almost 2 weeks, and at no point did he demonstrate that he was even thinking ahead to the very next move.

OK, great.

That sounds Italian. Incidentally, I didn't even really know there was a term for that for quite awhile.

Also, good to see I'm starting fights wherever I go, as per usual. Not being one of the principal participants makes me feel a little cheated, though.

Best of luck with your game.

--Erebor

pinback wrote:I think he knew that, he was just being facetious, you bloated autistic.

Looks like I'm not the one who needs to learn about empathy, you insolent alcoholic. Get off the sauce for a while and maybe your basic humanity will come back.

That is called fianchetto, not "bezique".

Yes, I was being facetious, so thanks for smacking that guy on the wrist so I don't have to do it.

However, in my youth I might have been deluded enough to believe such a thing.

[I'm also unsure about the spelling of "bezique". I've seen it in print, without the "u", but that didn't seem right. My computer's onboard dictionary references a Persian word (with the "u") which implies a trick, but is completely out of context.]

It's pretty simple. If you move the pawn that is directly beside (but not in front of) either Rook, up one space (two if you prefer, but not necessary), you'll notice that you can move the corresponding bishop directly into that space, diagonally in front of your Rook, on the next turn. Now, look at the board. Look in a direct diagonal line between your Rook, and your opponent's Rook on the other side of the board. You'll notice that the only obstacle between your Bishop, and the opponent's Rook is a single pawn (provided the game hasn't progressed very far). If they move that pawn at all, without anything else being interposed first, you can immediately take the Rook without fear of instant reprisal. This is a "bezique."

Advanced players will guard against this immediately, and generally you won't get away with it, unless you're playing a novice, or someone who isn't paying attention. In chess parlance, if the Rook had been a King, instead, the pawn would be considered "pinned" to it, since it could not be moved without placing the King in check. Since the Rook is a non-essential piece, moving the pawn is perfectly legal. Similar tactics can sometimes be used against important pieces, such as the queen, which while not necessary to win is nonetheless very important, and the absence of which is devastating to some players.

In this case, the Rook has a value of 5, and the Bishop has a value of 3 (approx.), so you are considered to be up by 2 mathematically, if you pull this off, even if you lose the Bishop.

Consider how you play, and your own tactics, though. Your play style may be heavily dependent on Bishops. Your Bishop is basically trapped in the corner, once this is done, and you can write it off if your opponent has any skill at all.

In my case, personally, I'd rather sacrifice a Knight, given a choice.

--Erebor

I googled "chess bezique" and got no results that would indicate the trick you are talking about. Please walk us through it!

I think he knew that, he was just being facetious, you bloated autistic.

Erebor wrote:I was reading some book or manual about chess, when I realized there was actually a *word* for that, and consequently, I didn't invent the tactic.

Considering people have played chess for about 150 years in the current form and hundreds to thousands of years in the ancestor games it evolved from, and as the last 30 years or so have given us computers fast enough and with very good algorithms to make very long forward analyses of positions that they can even beat top Grandmasters, I'd say it's extremely unlikely anyone who wasn't one could invent any new tactic in Chess.

That word really isn't in common usage. It's French, I think.

It refers to a trick move, whereby you can set up your opponent to lose a Rook, early on, and you may or may not lose a Bishop, depending on how good they are. It's actually fairly simple. I could show it to you.

[Although, you can probably figure it out, by looking at the board. ]

It's something I used to do, quite frequently, once I realized I could get away with it with players who weren't quite paying attention. I was reading some book or manual about chess, when I realized there was actually a *word* for that, and consequently, I didn't invent the tactic.

what

I seriously thought this was like a tournament or something, and you guys were throwing down the gauntlet.

I got really excited for a moment.

Back to the question at hand:
I'd 1. Mirror the queen pawn opening.
or 2. Use the king pawn opening to free up both the queen and king's bishop for diagonal attacks.

However, I typically open with the queen's gambit, and try to set up my opponent for a bezique, early on.

Best of luck.
--Erebor

AArdvark wrote:The thing about online chess is that it's too easy to just copy Bobby Fischer or Boris Slobenivov's moves.

Well, you can cheat, sure, but then your rating will go up, and you'll be matched against harder opponents. You can then continue to cheat until you are the best player on the entire site. If that's fun for you, you know, great, but I doubt most are interested in that.

RealNC wrote:tdarcos has been thinking for three days how to counter the first move of the queen's pawn opening?

That is the number of days he has left to move. I doubt he knows it's even his turn yet.

The thing about online chess is that it's too easy to just copy Bobby Fischer or Boris Slobenivov's moves.

tdarcos has been thinking for three days how to counter the first move of the queen's pawn opening?