Chess: shadyforce(Black) beats bigbenwd(white)

[shadyforce]

As I said, it's the en passant capture.

[bigbenwd]

... I didnt know that rule existed, can it not count? please?

[shadyforce]

Lol, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that ben.

Sure you are inconvenienced because you'd have played differently knowing about the rule, but equally, I'd have played differently knowing we weren't going to be using the rule. So you can't expect me to be disadvantaged when it's your mistake really. However, I'm sure we can find a way to deal with it, that is unfair to no one.

What we could do is if you identify the earliest move where you would have done something different had you known about en passant, then we can continue from there with your new move.

This then brings up the problem that you could choose a different earlier move, not because you would have chosen differently because of en passant, but because you know what I was planning and can now counter it in hind-sight. However, that's something I'll trust you with.

So trusting your honesty, where would you have moved differently knowing about en passant? We can continue from there, or restart if that's too early in the game.

[bigbenwd]

nevermind, we'll continue with my defense ruined let me think of what im gonna do now.

[shadyforce]

You're not that bad. I can see a few moves that should keep me at bay for a while at least.

[bigbenwd]

a2

[shadyforce]

I'll move

Nb4

.

[bigbenwd]

a3

[shadyforce]

Now, that could be the Rook or bishop. That's why, when moving a piece other than a pawn, you should use the letter of the piece before it. eg: Rc3, Bc3.

[bigbenwd]

oops, i forgot it could be the bishop, its the rook to a3

[shadyforce]

c2

[bigbenwd]

Qd2

[shadyforce]

0-0-0

(Castling Queen's side. I assume you know THAT rule )

[bigbenwd]

I'm not THAT thick
Qe3

[shadyforce]

Bc5

[bigbenwd]

Qxe5

[shadyforce]

Nf6

[bigbenwd]

Qxd5

[shadyforce]

N(f)xd5

[bigbenwd]

Bh3+(that means check, right?)

[shadyforce]

It does indeed.

Kb8

[mathcam]

First, sorry for keep butting in. I just can't keep away from a chess discussion.

*Knights are far superior to bishops in closed, tight positions, and bishops are far superior in wide open positions.

It's also worth mentioning that a relatively new study found that bishops should probably be weighted slightly higher than knights in the point ranking system.

Really? I never found that much of a difference in my games. The actual difference probably isn't as significant as the above considerations though, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to it, but worth keeping in mind I suppose. Thanks Cam.

Which of my claims was the target of the "really?" The bishops for open and knights for closed is definitely a big distinction, and one that's very often the deciding factor for whether or not you should trade. It's not too hard to believe....if there's pawns all over the place protecting each other, that's a serious cramp on the area that your bishop is in control over. Knights do a much better job of maneouvering in and out of the pawns. On a wide-open board, however, it will probably be the case that important stuff is happening on both the left- and right- hand-sides of the board. A knight can only cover one at a time, while the bishop does a much better job of covering both at once, and being able to move from one side to the other.

If you were talking about the second claim about the study, then yeah, I doubt that's worth paying much attention to. The nuances of the individual game probably overpower any subtle generic difference between the two pieces. But still, if you have absolutely no idea which you'd prefer, you should probably lean toward the bishop.

Cam

[shadyforce]

I was talking about the second claim. And your comments are welcome, as long as you don't help ben. You can help me though.

[bigbenwd]

Ne5

[shadyforce]

R(h)e8