From Strawberry Fest 2011

Discussion and analysis about certain positions.

From Strawberry Fest 2011

Postby Alex_Moiseyev on Sat May 21, 2011 2:10 am

Here are several interesting moments happened in Humboldt.

Rd1, G1. A. Moiseyev vs C. Nash
Image
White to move.

Here 1. ... 16-12 was a draw but Clay played 1. ... 19-15? Now Kingsrow with 10 pieces ending database shows here a technical win for red after 2. 31-27 and eventually red holds two white mans on 29 and 21 and wins. Instead, after 1. ... 19-15 I played 2. 14-18? allow Clay to drew the game by 2. ... 15-11 3. 18-23 11-7 etc.

But finally Clay made a fatal mistake and after 1. ... 19-15 2. 14-18 played 2. ... 16-11?? After 3. 9-14* he find out that he can't play 3. ... 11-7 because of 4. 14-17 21x14 5. 6-10. Clay played 3. ... 11-8 and I captured a man by 4. 31-26 and eventually won the game.

Rd2. G2. F. Davis vs A. Moiseyev
Image
White to move

I saw this position in my calculations 5-6 moves ago before we get there. Preliminary I planned to play here very powerful (as I thought!) 1. ... 22-17. However when we came here and I looked at it again, it was a great lemon for me to see that after 1. ... 22-17? 2. 19-23*** red wins.

In actual game I played 1. ... 29-25 with eventual draw. After the game was over I asked Frank if he saw this shot. He was very impressed and said "No". However I spent reasonable time before making 29-25 and finally decided that if i play 1. ...22-17 and he find 2. 19-23* - it will be a historical moment and I don't want to be a part of this history !

Rd3, G1. A. Moiseyev vs J. Webster
Image
Red to move

I didn't play it very accurately before but draw with care of was still available there after 2-7, 27-23, 7-10, 23x16, 10x19, 31-27, 6-10, 16-12, 8-11, 27-23, 19-24, 28x19, 11-15, 19-16, 15-18, 23-19, 4-8, 26-22, 18-23, 21-17, 14x21, 22-18, 10-14, 18x9, 5x14, 25-22, 21-25 (or 23-27, 19-15 Draw), 30x21, 14-17, 21x14, 8-11, 16x7 Draw ... Pretty play

Instead 2-7*, I played losing 3-7? and game continued: 27-23, 7-10, 23x16, 10x19, 16-12, 8-11, 12-8, 6-10, 8-3, 11-15, 20-16, 14-18, 16-11, 19-24, 28x19, 15x24, 11-7, 2x11, 3-7, 18-22, 25x18, 10-15, 7x16, 15x22, 26x17, 13x22, 16-19, 24-28, 21-17, 5-9, 19-23, 28-32, 17-13, 9-14, 13-9 White Wins

Rd3, G2. J. Webster vs A. Moiseyev
Image
Red to move

In second game I had a chance to drew the round but ... no cigars ! In this position John played losing 1. 9-14?. Instead, not looking natural 1. 2-7 leaded to draw only. After 1. 9-14 I played 1. ... 22-17? and John drewed the game by 2. 14-18* without much troubles. After the game was over, Clayton Nash demonstrated a pretty win for white. Continue from diagram: 1. 9-14 22-18* 2. 5-9 18-15 3. 2-7 30-25 4. 14-18 21-17 5. 9-14 25-21 and eventualy white develop man on 28 to 16, play 15-11 and and catch a man. Lucky John !

Rd6, G2. D. West vs A. Moiseyev
Image
Red to move

I had a win in this game several moves before but decided to go there thinking win is still secured. In position on diagram Don played 1. 8-12? as I expected, and after 1. ... 16x7 2. 6-10, 14-9 red resigned. However ... instead losing 1. 8-12?, Don can play a pretty 1. 6-10*** with draw. WOW
Last edited by Alex_Moiseyev on Sun May 22, 2011 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am playing checkers, not chess.
User avatar
Alex_Moiseyev
 
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: From Strawberry Fest 2011

Postby Alex_Moiseyev on Sun May 22, 2011 12:15 am

Any comments / corrections?
I am playing checkers, not chess.
User avatar
Alex_Moiseyev
 
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: From Strawberry Fest 2011

Postby Ingo_Zachos on Sun May 22, 2011 6:38 am

Alex_Moiseyev wrote:Any comments / corrections?


Yes,Alex.

Plz check the text to the Moiseyev-Nash encounter again.

It seems the diagram is right, as

1. ... 16-12 is indeed a draw, and


1. ... 19-15 ? allows
2. 31-27! winning for Red.

But.....

1. ... 19-15?
2. 14-18(?) 15-11
3. 18-23 leads me puzzled, as 11-17 is not a legal move.

I guess it is

3. ... 11-7
but then the next move is 16-11? , which is a white move, but it is red's turn!!!
A move was omitted. Maybe it is
4. 1-6, but then after 4. ... 16-11, 5. 9-14 11-7 makes no sense again, as there is already a man on 7!

-> Alex, plz, for reasons of accuracy, don't forget to give move numbers.
Else, you won't tell a white from a red move. And if, by chance, you forgot to mention a move, you don't realize it.
By using move numbers, you always have a blunder check for this kind of errors.

Also, it is much easier to read with move numbers and allows a quicker analyses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other analysis where hard to read, without the structure of move numbers, but seem to be accurate.
They are fine specimens for our game.

Especially the Davis-Moiseyev shot after 1. ... 22-17? with 2.19-23 reminded me of Sturges very much!
It shows how important it is to have a sense of dangers lying ahead.
You had it and saw right through it in the critical moment, even if u did not see it in the calculations u did before!

Greetinx from old Europe,

Ingo Zachos
You can rent this space for advertising, if you like!
Ingo_Zachos
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Dortmund, Germany

Re: From Strawberry Fest 2011

Postby Alex_Moiseyev on Sun May 22, 2011 8:28 am

Ingo_Zachos wrote:By using move numbers, you always have a blunder check for this kind of errors.

Also, it is much easier to read with move numbers and allows a quicker analyses.
Ingo, many thanks for your comments and suggestions. This makes perfect sense. I made changes to original text and updated it. Please, review and let me know if this is better and meets your expectations.

I am writing a 2nd Sixth volume now (ALL MY GAMES) and I am going to use your suggestion regarding move numbers.

Ingo_Zachos wrote:They are fine specimens for our game.
Thanks!
I am playing checkers, not chess.
User avatar
Alex_Moiseyev
 
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: From Strawberry Fest 2011

Postby Palomino on Sun May 22, 2011 1:19 pm

Alex,

I've only had time to look at the first two positions. I found your analysis of the "Rd2. G2. F. Davis vs A. Moiseyev" position very interesting.

I appreciate your taking the time to share these positions and will return later to look at the others.

Many thanks..."Pal"
CHECKERS: The Mind Sport of Kings and Ordinary Men.
User avatar
Palomino
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:13 pm
Location: Mooresville, Indiana

Re: From Strawberry Fest 2011

Postby Alex_Moiseyev on Sun May 22, 2011 6:40 pm

Palomino wrote:"Rd2. G2. F. Davis vs A. Moiseyev" position very interesting.
Yeah ... In terms of impression and beauties, tactics and shots always dominated on strategy. People like combinations (I am not exception) more than serious deep strategy plans and boring (ha-ha) maneurs.
I am playing checkers, not chess.
User avatar
Alex_Moiseyev
 
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: From Strawberry Fest 2011

Postby tommyc on Thu May 26, 2011 8:39 pm

I can send Alex a NUMBERED BOARD .........@NO CHARGE ,if that helps the pudding.
Always read "Cannings Compilation 2nd Edition" every day.
tommyc
 
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:09 pm
Location: Ireland


Return to Positions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

class=