| |
Main
Date: 21 Dec 2005 13:20:36
From:
Subject: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
Has anyone on this list ever had this material balance (imbalance)
arise and continue for any length of time in an actual game?
I found a number of games in Chessbase with this imbalance, but it has
never occurred in my own personal experience, nor have I ever witnessed
a game personally where it happened. I can't recall any books
discussing under what circumstances the rooks tended to be better, or
the minors. The outcome of the games seemed to be split about evenly.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 00:38:33
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
> Has anyone on this list ever had this material balance (imbalance)
> arise and continue for any length of time in an actual game?
Many times.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 11:17:19
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Has anyone on this list ever had this material balance (imbalance)
>> arise and continue for any length of time in an actual game?
>
> Many times.
For more than a minute?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Devil Vomit (TM): it's like a pile of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ puke that's possessed by Satan!
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 14:04:22
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
>>> Has anyone on this list ever had this material balance (imbalance)
>>> arise and continue for any length of time in an actual game?
>>
>> Many times.
>
> For more than a minute?
Chess beyond the one-minute time control is for retards.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 18:22:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>> Has anyone on this list ever had this material balance (imbalance)
>>>> arise and continue for any length of time in an actual game?
>>>
>>> Many times.
>>
>> For more than a minute?
>
> Chess beyond the one-minute time control is for retards.
So you haven't had that material balance for ``any length of time in an
actual game'. Thanks for the clarification.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Electronic Expensive Clock (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a clock but it'll break the bank
and it uses electricity!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 18:24:53
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
>>>> Many times.
>>>
>>> For more than a minute?
>>
>> Chess beyond the one-minute time control is for retards.
>
> So you haven't had that material balance for ``any length of time in an
> actual game'. Thanks for the clarification.
Time in chess is measured in moves.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 23:45:20
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>>>Many times.
>>>>
>>>>For more than a minute?
>>>
>>>Chess beyond the one-minute time control is for retards.
>>
>>So you haven't had that material balance for ``any length of time in an
>>actual game'. Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Time in chess is measured in moves.
Ray/Roy Parker Gordon,
Answers about games of some special kind is measured in actual games!!
Ray, ... sure you have any game with that material unbalance?
please, ... post those "many times" here?
(I did not find any own game with that imbalance in my personal database)
AT
Ps: As allways He will stop this thread or will explain how secret are
his "openings weapons" to not to show here.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 12:50:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ps: As allways He will stop this thread or will explain how secret are
> his "openings weapons" to not to show here.
He could always just post the moves from the point that RR vs BBN/BNN
started.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Natural Cheese (TM): it's like a brick
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cheese but it's completely natural!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 21:47:57
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ps: As allways He will stop this thread or will explain how secret are
>>his "openings weapons" to not to show here.
>
> He could always just post the moves from the point that RR vs BBN/BNN
> started.
>
> Dave.
As allways that person (Ray Gordon) give nonsense advice only to stop
discussing when concrete stuff like practical examples are demanded.
He will not sent here any of the many own games with that imbalance. In
that case the difference is that He forgot to insult us.
I was sure those examples (games with 2 Rooks vs. 3 Minor pieces) did
not exist in his own database because He only plays games where does not
matter who is the first who lost his queen (1 minute games)
AT
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 17:41:16
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
>> Ps: As allways He will stop this thread or will explain how secret are
>> his "openings weapons" to not to show here.
>
> He could always just post the moves from the point that RR vs BBN/BNN
> started.
In the time it would take to do all that I could play 10 games of one-minute
chess.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 01:06:01
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>Ps: As allways He will stop this thread or will explain how secret are
>>>his "openings weapons" to not to show here.
>>
>>He could always just post the moves from the point that RR vs BBN/BNN
>>started.
>
> In the time it would take to do all that I could play 10 games of one-minute
> chess.
Hello,
In the time you write here in RGCA nonsense comments, you could play
10000 games of 1 minute randomchess.
AT
Ps: Dave, I was sure that games did not exist!!
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2005 11:49:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Has anyone on this list ever had this material balance (imbalance)
> arise and continue for any length of time in an actual game?
Yes, from moves 24-36 of the following game. The `Elo' headers are
actually BCF grades and, in this case, both are provisional. Since the
BCF only updates the grading list once a year, in the summer, these grades
are almost a year out of date and the current values of 67 and 107,
respectively, are, I think, more accurate.
I'm sure there are plenty of improvements for both sides.
[Event "Newket U130"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2005.06.04"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Foley, Phil"]
[Black "Richerby, David"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B25"]
[WhiteElo "80"]
[BlackElo "90"]
[PlyCount "90"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. f4 Nf6 7. Nge2 Qb6 8.
O-O e6 9. Rb1 Ng4 10. Bd2 c4+ 11. d4 Bxd4+ 12. Nxd4 Qxd4+ 13. Kh1 Nf2+ 14.
Rxf2 Qxf2 15. Be1 Qd4 16. Nb5 Qxd1 17. Rxd1 O-O 18. Nxd6 Rd8 19. e5 Ne7
20. Be4 Rb8 21. Rd4 b5 22. Ba5 Rd7 23. Nxc8 Rxd4 24. Nxe7+ Kg7 25. Nc6
Rd1+ 26. Kg2 Rb7 27. Bf3 Rc1 28. Nd4 Rd7 29. c3 Rb1 30. b3 Rb2+ 31. Kg1
Rxa2 32. Bc6 cxb3 33. Bb4 b2 34. Be4 Ra1+ 35. Kg2 b1=Q 36. Bxb1 Rxb1
37. Nxb5 Rd2+ 38. Kf3 Rxh2 39. Nxa7 Rf1+ 40. Ke3 Rh3 41. c4 Rxg3+ 42. Kd4
Rxf4+ 43. Kc5 h5 44. Kb5 Rxc4 45. Kxc4 Rg4+ 0-1
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poetic Poisonous Shack (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a house in the woods but it'll kill
you in seconds and it's in verse!
|
| | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 14:13:46
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
> I'm sure there are plenty of improvements for both sides.
Given the way Adams and the other humans have done against Hydra, I think
that applies to all of us.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Dec 2005 23:07:17
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> [Event "Newket U130"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "2005.06.04"]
> [Round "3"]
> [White "Foley, Phil"]
> [Black "Richerby, David"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "B25"]
> [WhiteElo "80"]
> [BlackElo "90"]
> [PlyCount "90"]
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. f4 Nf6 7. Nge2 Qb6 8.
> O-O e6 9. Rb1 Ng4 10. Bd2 c4+ 11. d4 Bxd4+ 12. Nxd4 Qxd4+ 13. Kh1 Nf2+ 14.
> Rxf2 Qxf2 15. Be1 Qd4 16. Nb5 Qxd1 17. Rxd1 O-O 18. Nxd6 Rd8 19. e5 Ne7
> 20. Be4 Rb8 21. Rd4 b5 22. Ba5 Rd7 23. Nxc8 Rxd4 24. Nxe7+ Kg7 25. Nc6
> Rd1+ 26. Kg2 Rb7 27. Bf3 Rc1 28. Nd4 Rd7 29. c3 Rb1 30. b3 Rb2+ 31. Kg1
> Rxa2 32. Bc6 cxb3 33. Bb4 b2 34. Be4 Ra1+ 35. Kg2 b1=Q 36. Bxb1 Rxb1
> 37. Nxb5 Rd2+ 38. Kf3 Rxh2 39. Nxa7 Rf1+ 40. Ke3 Rh3 41. c4 Rxg3+ 42. Kd4
> Rxf4+ 43. Kc5 h5 44. Kb5 Rxc4 45. Kxc4 Rg4+ 0-1
This game is very very interesting.
I though white was clearly better but the bad position of Kh1 gives
black extra chances.
For example: the most obvious possible improvement is in 25th move:
25.Bf3 because if black rooks can not obtain activity black has big
problems. White avoid black rooks to use d1 or d2 squares to enter in
white position and next moves are Kg2-e2-d2.
But there is a nice move (Fritz suggestion) 25.Bf3 c3! 26.Bc3 Rc4 being
the main idea 27.Cc6 Rb6 28.Na5 Rxc3 29.bxc3 Ra6 and black "a" pawn is
powerful.
Maybe more simple is to improve the game in 27th move: 27.Kf2 or 27.Bc3
And 28.Nd4 is a mistake.
AT
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2005 00:25:33
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
>En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
>> [Foley-Richerby, Newket U130, 2005]
>
> This game is very very interesting.
Thanks. And thanks for your interesting comments. I'm glad my opponent
didn't find your improvements over the board as, then, I'd have only
scored 1/5 and the win was against a little girl. I got enough teasing
from my friends about having to beat up kids for points as it was.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Permanent Dangerous Postman (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a man who delivers the mail
but it could explode at any minute
and it'll be there for ever!
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2005 22:45:21
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> Has anyone on this list ever had this material balance (imbalance)
> arise and continue for any length of time in an actual game?
>
> I found a number of games in Chessbase with this imbalance, but it has
> never occurred in my own personal experience, nor have I ever witnessed
> a game personally where it happened. I can't recall any books
> discussing under what circumstances the rooks tended to be better, or
> the minors. The outcome of the games seemed to be split about evenly.
>
> Any thoughts?
My own opinion (for what it's worth, which may not be much) is that the
stronger a player you are, the more comfortable you are with the same
amount of "firepower" spread out among more pieces. This is most obvious
in the case of a queen vs. three minors - weaker players have a hard
time getting all the minors to work together, so they need the
easier-to-use queen. Whereas the stronger player can use the pieces
together, and therefore gets them to attack something more times than it
can be defended (or to attack more targets than the defender can defend
with fewer pieces.
In a two-rooks vs three-minors, a crucial factor is the presence of open
files. If the rooks can get active, I suspect they're much stronger.
But if the position is closed, and there are good squares for the
knight(s), or the bishops are denying access down the only open file,
then I think the minors are better.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2005 16:16:27
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Two Rooks vs. 3 Minors
|
Hello,
I read in Vlastimil Hort and Jansa book ("The best move") a comment
about a position of this kind, and the authors wrote the three pieces
being stronger.
Of course, as Ron wrote, we can find positios where the two rook can be
stronger. But it seems it's more frequent the opposite (as Ron wrote too).
AT
En/na Ron ha escrit:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Has anyone on this list ever had this material balance (imbalance)
>>arise and continue for any length of time in an actual game?
>>
>>I found a number of games in Chessbase with this imbalance, but it has
>>never occurred in my own personal experience, nor have I ever witnessed
>>a game personally where it happened. I can't recall any books
>>discussing under what circumstances the rooks tended to be better, or
>>the minors. The outcome of the games seemed to be split about evenly.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>
> My own opinion (for what it's worth, which may not be much) is that the
> stronger a player you are, the more comfortable you are with the same
> amount of "firepower" spread out among more pieces. This is most obvious
> in the case of a queen vs. three minors - weaker players have a hard
> time getting all the minors to work together, so they need the
> easier-to-use queen. Whereas the stronger player can use the pieces
> together, and therefore gets them to attack something more times than it
> can be defended (or to attack more targets than the defender can defend
> with fewer pieces.
>
> In a two-rooks vs three-minors, a crucial factor is the presence of open
> files. If the rooks can get active, I suspect they're much stronger.
> But if the position is closed, and there are good squares for the
> knight(s), or the bishops are denying access down the only open file,
> then I think the minors are better.
>
> -Ron
|
|
