You may resign if you wish. Good game, tuco.

_________________
When I was a kid, we had a quicksand box in the backyard. I was an only child . . . eventually.

ok thanks. good game ID

so why did you resign? I do not see you in a nothing i can do situation, but obviously i am missing something.

_________________
:roll: :)

why? why not? the interesting part of the game was already played i feel, ID plays well enough not to make silly mistake, none of us is strong enough to overpower the other one soon enough so it would be cat and mouse waiting for mistake. not too interesting nor fun.

i would have to play that rook on B1 and have only 2 places to move it to really, possibly A1 being the best move. considering the figures still in game, its pretty much predictable for couple of next moves, and too much "labour" to play it out.

why .. i dont know why.. maybe i fear winning ;) why.. you are asking me to self-analyze and you know how hard that is. unless ID has a plan (i spotted unconsciously) and figured, resigning or not would yield the same end result.

It's your game tuco so can do what you wish of course without having to explain to peanut gallery.. but I'm with SE in feeling it was a bit early to give up. I think it was a matter of getting your rooks to his rear line before he change to a better pawn setup, but the same applied to his queen and your kings setup. I looked at it from salvaging tucos side for a good half hour without coming up with a way that didn't rely on ID making poor moves, but didn't find a way... still, it seemed a chance something could have opened up in IDs aggressive moves. I find later game situations like this the best parts of the game though, so maybe I was just hoping for a bloody cliffhanger finish.

Meh. I'm winning. I was poking around there at the end and seeing if I could get a free piece or so from you, but it didn't look like that would work, so I'd probably just trade down from here and hold my piece advantage.

_________________
When I was a kid, we had a quicksand box in the backyard. I was an only child . . . eventually.

I'd probably just trade down from here and hold my piece advantage. - ID

yes that much i figured, tho i had plans of taking one of your Knights, and that is boring to me. i dont get why anyone cares why i gave up, and if you dont care, why do you post about it here?

I did not care why you - the person - gave up, but rather was thinking that you guys could see something glaring obvious that I could not. in an effort to learn and improve, i asked to see if it was something like ' oh, he had me in 4 moves (i suck so i generally only see 3 moves ahead). '

I thought there was more life in it is all. no insult or anything negetive meant by my question. As for playing for a mistake, isn't that what we all do? I think that is a given.

was a good game. thanks for sharing it with us.

_________________
:roll: :)

fair enough SE. possibly, im quite paranoid to look for insults where there are none.

"more life in it".. as i said before i dont consider trading pieces as the pinnacle of fun. i play for fun, where fun does not necessarily equal winning, but often rather the opposite. playing for win usually requires "to be slave" of certain mind set/approach and gives no room for "irregularities". fun for me is elsewhere, but most dont understand it anyways so it would be pointless and boring to babble about. lets look at something else ..

i used, consciously?, what is called irregular opening, which i later found out to be called Van 't Kruijs Opening. by making first move e3, in this database, 34.8% games was won by white, 20.2% draw and 44.9% meant loss for white, while IDs response e5 havnt changed the chances for white much: 39.5% won, 18.4% draw and 42.1% loss. too bad the database doesnt have enough data and/or is incomplete to be able to analyze at least a couple of next moves from our game in terms of win/draw/loss %, possibly due to the .. irregular opening.

"we all wait for the other side to make mistake".. personally, i believe, i like (to wait for the other side) to come up with a "plan". if by waiting for mistake you mean one player has a "plan", is able to predict the game say 5 moves ahead and set her/his pieces in such way the opponet gets trapped because s/he fails to spot it, then yes, its given we all wait for mistake, however, that was not the case in our game i think.

i made my mistake here:



with my pawn to b4 as i had better options and from here the order of events, for next couple of moves, was then expected as ID is no fool making "mistakes".

to anyone paying attention the cause of my mistake is obvious, but yet again its not excuse, its to admit it.


PS 3 moves ahead is not nearly enough, you are right about that.

Computers crack famous board game

[snip]

A Canadian team has created a computer program that can win or draw any game, no matter who the opponent is.

[snip]

Researchers are now hoping to move on to even bigger problems. However, it seems that grand master of the board games - chess - may remain unsolved for some time.

[snip]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6907018.stm

I just had to laugh at that. The gall of Westerners =)

Go is the big kahuna of all board games.

_________________
It's a bird!
No! It's a plane!
No! It's the amazing1weekflare! :mrgreen:

Seriously. Computer researchers have yet to have produced a program that can really play Go on anything but an amateur level.

_________________
When I was a kid, we had a quicksand box in the backyard. I was an only child . . . eventually.