Chess Bracket

[sk8ndestroy14]

This thread is only for the purpose of the bracket of the Daniweb chess tournament. If you don't already know about it then you can find out all you want from the Chess Tournament thread. If you post here make sure it is only relevant to the bracket, otherwise post in the other thread. This thread is only so people don't have to go searching for it in the middle of the other thread and to keep the tournament organized. Here it is.

Daniweb Chess

[Dave Sinkula]

Who are we going to wager on?

[joshSCH]

Narue v. Rashakil in the finals?

[Dave Sinkula]

I don't see that path in the parings.

[joshSCH]

You can go to "Predict It!" If you want.

[Narue]

>I don't see that path in the parings.
I beat rash and go to the final, and rash beats everyone in the loser's bracket. Or the opposite: rash beats me and goes to the final, and I beat everyone in the loser's bracket. Either way we meet in the last game.

>Narue v. Rashakil in the finals?
I don't know, Jocamps and quintoncoert are unknowns right now. One of them could blow me or rash away.

[Dave Sinkula]

Oh! There's "Loser of 24". I missed it.

[sk8ndestroy14]

I predict that I will make it to game 27, then lose.

[quintoncoert]

i am betting that narue will be in the final. after everything that i have seen on daniweb so far i have to say that she appears to be the best of us playing.

but i honestly dont know how either jocamps or myself compares with her. or even how jocamps and i compare with each other. narue once gave a good piece of opening advice but that is advice which i also know.

i would say that unless jocamps or myself stop narue she has a sixty percent chance of winning the tournament.

[~s.o.s~]

> unless jocamps or myself stop narue she has a sixty percent chance of winning the tournament.
Unless you stop someone, they have an 100% chance of winning. ;-)

[joshSCH]

I predict that I will make it to game 27, then lose.

Yea, I bet I can get to game 26, and then lose to Rashakil :(.

i am betting that narue will be in the final. after everything that i have seen on daniweb so far i have to say that she appears to be the best of us playing.

but i honestly dont know how either jocamps or myself compares with her. or even how jocamps and i compare with each other. narue once gave a good piece of opening advice but that is advice which i also know.

i would say that unless jocamps or myself stop narue she has a sixty percent chance of winning the tournament.

haha.. what's up with you guys and psyching yourselves out for Narue? Just b/c she beat a few people.. and we claim she is good means nothing to you. You have not played her, and thus you truly know nothing about her.

[quintoncoert]

> unless jocamps or myself stop narue she has a sixty percent chance of winning the tournament.
Unless you stop someone, they have an 100% chance of winning. ;-)

@ s.o.s
well i was actually refering to the fact that if she beats myself or jocamps then there are others to stopher as well.

no offense but after all that i have read it would seems that narue has had very little competition.

@ josh.
its not only her victories. she has been replying to a couple of my questions in the c++ thread. her writting is always logical and she presents her thoughts in a precise manner. A famous writer in my country once said that if someone tells a story he reveals as much about himself as the story he tells. Correct logic and ordered thought is a deadlycombination in chess even in a beginner. And when narue pointed out that one must develop pieces in the opening she proved that she is much more than a beginner. for example. when i played nichito he started an attack with his queen on his second move. not a good thing to do in chess.

[joshSCH]

Haha.. Me and sk8 said something to Nichito about that :p

Perhaps she is logical; however, one must be quick witted in the game of chess.. Smarts, logic, luck.. all play a good part.

I've gotten better since I played you btw :p What do you think my weakness was? Narue said it was unorganization and randomness.. I tweaked my opening a bit.. and studied up on some strategy.. Hopefully I will offer Jbennet/Serunson a good match :)

[quintoncoert]

Haha.. Me and sk8 said something to Nichito about that :p

Perhaps she is logical; however, one must be quick witted in the game of chess.. Smarts, logic, luck.. all play a good part.

I've gotten better since I played you btw :p What do you think my weakness was? Narue said it was unorganization and randomness.. I tweaked my opening a bit.. and studied up on some strategy.. Hopefully I will offer Jbennet/Serunson a good match :)

i would say opening principles. move two or three pawns only and aim them at the centre. try to control the centre. develop all of your pieces. in fact the two most important things in the opening is develop your pieces as quickly as possible and do not give away any free material. castle and move the rook onto the centre file so that it can support pieces in the centre.

and i dont know if you have merely overlooked the attacks on your pawns but stop giving them away freely. at the highest level just one of them is the difference between victory and defeat.

another important thing is to always protect your pieces. even if they are not under attack you must protect them.

and if your enemy does attack i have been thought that to begin a defense after the attack had been started is often too late.

[Narue]

I think I'm going to enjoy our game quintoncoert. :)

[sk8ndestroy14]

for example. when i played nichito he started an attack with his queen on his second move. not a good thing to do in chess.

Yeah, he did that with me too. I always thought that was a bad thing to do too and I usually rip him apart (not nichito) but in this case all I did was fork his king and rook, I still lost.

[Narue]

>move two or three pawns only and aim them at the centre. try to control the centre.
But always keep in mind that you can control the center without actually occupying it. There are opening sequences that focus on one side and can really throw you off if you're expecting opening moves up the center.

Ideally, you should be in control of the center and your side, with fingers into the other side as well. That gives you the most options and is disheartening to your opponent.

>develop all of your pieces.
Yes, even if you prefer to attack and defend with certain pieces, the others should still be in an effective position. Nothing is more frustrating than losing because you locked a pivotal piece and couldn't get it into position in time. I see that a lot with rooks, and timid players do it with their queen.

>and do not give away any free material.
Yes, always get back what you give within a short time (the queen exchange is a good example). In the opening, it's harder to place yourself successfully with a long running strategy by sacrifices. The mid and end game is where you follow that approach.

I'd also recommend not giving away too much material at all unless you get something better for it. But be careful about that one because good players will bait you with something like a knight that you can safely take with a pawn, then move into a devastating position.

>castle and move the rook onto the centre file so that it can support pieces in the centre.
Also, if you have trouble seeing the flow, a good time to castle is when your opponent castles. Usually you would castle if you don't have a better move at the time or in anticipation of an attack (or preparation for your own attack). But if your opponent castles and developed his pieces well, control of the center can quickly swing his way. I'll often use a response castle as the cue to start my main attack.

>at the highest level just one of them is the difference between victory and defeat.
Right. Keep as many pawns in reserve as you can. They're there initially to break down your opponent's front line and block attacks, but when you really get into the end game, it's all about forcing your opponent to keep the pawns from being promoted while you position yourself for a checkmate.

>even if they are not under attack you must protect them.
A good rule of thumb is to see your pieces as always under attack, because even if they're not being actively threatened, they probably are under attack. When you have a piece out in the open and intend to keep it, make sure it has at least two (and preferably three or more) points of defense. It's not uncommon to have two pawns protected by a knight, a bishop, two more pawns, and a queen on both sides at any given time in the mid game.

>i have been thought that to begin a defense after the attack had been started is often too late.
Unless the attack is completely incompetent, that's true. You want to anticipate an attack and position yourself to survive it or eliminate the good ones by attacking first.

In the former case, surviving an attack will regularly put you at the advantage because most players won't chain their attacks that way. They'll chain successful attacks because that's easy to do, but have trouble chaining unsuccessful attacks unless the attack was a feint to begin with.

In the latter case, you can break the strongest points that your opponent can launch an attack by threatening or occupying them. If you always attack your opponent's strength, all he has to fall back on are his weaknesses. :)

>for example. when i played nichito he started an attack with his queen
>on his second move. not a good thing to do in chess.
If you play it right, you can get some easy material. But it's hard to pull off because even though you're initially on the attack, you have to immediately go on the defense or be put in the position of losing a queen without taking one. Good players will put you on the defensive and keep you there until you fall apart. I learned how to play against someone like that, and it taught me one valuable lesson: take the queens out of play as soon as you can manage. ;)

[ndeniche]

yup... that's what i focus in...

most of the time my second move is with my queen... although i also focus on the defense... (or not sk8?)...

my favorite plays are those where you put your opponent in a situation in which he must pick what piece he prefers to lose...
or doing the same with a check... they're so nice... lol

also... i don't care losing a piece or two if i have something planned to do... they're sacrifices that must be done to achieve victory...

and when a mate is imminent i love fooling around with the other players, most of the time until they have nothing more than the king on their side... haha

[sk8ndestroy14]

That will come to bite you one day. Lol.

But always keep in mind that you can control the center without actually occupying it. There are opening sequences that focus on one side and can really throw you off if you're expecting opening moves up the center.

I think that's called hypermodernism right?

[joshSCH]

Hmm.. Where did you learn to play, Narue?

Do you normally have a pre-determined opening?

[Aia]

Perhaps she is logical; however, one must be quick witted in the game of chess.. Smarts, logic, luck.. all play a good part.

Luck doesn't have anything to do with it. If you need luck to win, then you need to keep practicing.
( Talking in generic terms ).

A game of chess can not truly be won if you have not learned how to pin down the opponent's pieces.

[joshSCH]

Luck plays a part in it.. Your opponent does something stupid.. you get lucky, and no one notices that a pawn can kill your queen.. etc.

Pins aren't actually essential to chess..

[Aia]

Luck plays a part in it.. Your opponent does something stupid.. you get lucky, and no one notices that a pawn can kill your queen.. etc.

Pins aren't actually essential to chess..

I am glad I didn't bet for you. ;) ( joking )

[Narue]

>Hmm.. Where did you learn to play, Narue?
A friend taught me the rules in 6th grade. We would play during recess and free time.

>Do you normally have a pre-determined opening?
As white, e4. As black it depends on white's opening, but since it's usually e4, I'll defend with a Sicilian variation.

>Pins aren't actually essential to chess..
Pins are the result of good positioning, so technically they are essential. ;)

[joshSCH]

haha 6th grade? What a loser ;)

[Aia]

haha 6th grade? What a loser ;)

Why?. I think is a great age to learn chess.

[~s.o.s~]

I think its a great age to learn anything constructive.

[sk8ndestroy14]

I learned in third grade. But there's not much competition around here and any of my friends that like to play are too easy to beat. So I don't get to play a lot and Narue is a lot better than me.

[joshSCH]

I actually didn't learn how to play until sophmore year in high school, when I took chess as a friday class. (At our high school, we have real class monday through thursday, and then a fun, half day on friday.. classes like movies, chess, board games, card games,..)

[sk8ndestroy14]

That sounds riculously easy for school. It's only half a day and you get blow off classes? And in high school. I wish my school was like that.