[Malkovich Chess] Kirby vs Krill

[daal]

\
Sorry if I sound harsh.

On second thought, not so sorry.
I think you display a disgrace to the founders, owners, operators/admins and users of this forum, a slap to their face, a total misuse of their hospitality and efforts.
Nobody deserves that. I would understand completely if an admin would delete your post altogether..

LOL

Don't get so worked up about it! Remember, these aren't chess players: they are go players playing chess. Think of it like a cat picture thread - just one of those silly things go players do when they aren't playing go.

[EdLee]

please don't bother me with it.

Bother you ?! How are they bothering you with it ?
This is Off Topic, with a very clear title Malkovich Chess, and

You choose to view it.

Sense of anger and pain -- some introspection couldn't hurt.

[Bill Spight]

\
Sorry if I sound harsh.

On second thought, not so sorry.
I think you display a disgrace to the founders, owners, operators/admins and users of this forum, a slap to their face, a total misuse of their hospitality and efforts.
Nobody deserves that. I would understand completely if an admin would delete your post altogether.

viewforum.php?f=8

[Monadology]

Sorry this thread is bothering you Sybob. Thanks for letting us know. I'm consulting with Kirby. I certainly don't mind moving it to the Malkovich forum if that seems more appropriate. Personally, based on the fact that other members are participating in the thread (and so, presumably, getting something positive out of it), I'm disinclined to take it entirely off the message board unless there's at least a few people who find it irksome (or an admin/mod thinks it's inappropriate).

[Kirby]

We can do over PM if you want, or we can go to another server, too. My main motivation in asking someone to play was that I feel like I'm friends with people on this forum, even if I haven't met a lot of you in person. I'd rather play a game (even if it's not go) with one of my friends than with a random person.

I totally get if you don't like the thread, so given that it's bothering you, I'm in support of an option where we don't cause an annoyance (i.e. one of the options proposed above).

I'll follow up with Monadology through PM.

[Uberdude]

please don't bother me with it.

Bother you ?! How are they bothering you with it ?
This is Off Topic, with a very clear title Malkovich Chess, and

You choose to view it.

He may not be choosing to view it, he may be annoyed by notifications / new items in the "unread posts" or similar feed. I believe the spam of this with the original Go malkovich games annoyed some users (e.g. JF) which is why the malkovich games were moved to their own subforum and a 'Mark Malkovich read" command was added to the page header so users who weren't interested in them could more easily ignore them.

[Monadology]

please don't bother me with it.

Bother you ?! How are they bothering you with it ?
This is Off Topic, with a very clear title Malkovich Chess, and

You choose to view it.

He may not be choosing to view it, he may be annoyed by notifications / new items in the "unread posts" or similar feed. I believe the spam of this with the original Go malkovich games annoyed some users (e.g. JF) which is why the malkovich games were moved to their own subforum and a 'Mark Malkovich read" command was added to the page header so users who weren't interested in them could more easily ignore them.

This seems like a good argument for moving this to the Malkovich forums (perhaps "Other versions of turn-based games"?), so I think that should be done. Am I able to move the thread myself or does a mod need to do it?

[sybob]

Sorry this thread is bothering you Sybob. Thanks for letting us know. I'm consulting with Kirby. I certainly don't mind moving it to the Malkovich forum if that seems more appropriate. Personally, based on the fact that other members are participating in the thread (and so, presumably, getting something positive out of it), I'm disinclined to take it entirely off the message board unless there's at least a few people who find it irksome (or an admin/mod thinks it's inappropriate).

Thanks for your reply, Monadology.
I said it bothers me, yes. I did not say I take offense. Not at all. It is not my forum, it is not my thread. And I know you do not mean to come across as behaving inappropriate.
You were so kind as to ask if it bothers people. I answered. That's all.

It is not that I dislike chess players, chess discussions, the game of chess, or go players who happen to also like and play chess, au contraire. Your thread just seemed out of place to me.

I do not feel inclined to try to further discuss, explain or comment on other replies, other than saying: let it be people, don't be uptight, nor suggest someone other is 'worked up' or 'needs introspection', if he/she just answers a question and expresses his view on that question. I always thought the go community and this forum is far too friendly for such remarks.

[daal]

I do not feel inclined to try to further discuss, explain or comment on other replies, other than saying: let it be people, don't be uptight, nor suggest someone other is 'worked up' or 'needs introspection', if he/she just answers a question and expresses his view on that question. I always thought the go community and this forum is far too friendly for such remarks.

That's funny. I thought the forum was far too friendly for remarks such as:

I think you display a disgrace to the founders, owners, operators/admins and users of this forum, a slap to their face, a total misuse of their hospitality and efforts.

Just answering a question. I see. And other people are uptight. Got it.

[Uberdude]

<admin>
I moved this thread into the Malkovich subforum.
</admin>

[bayu]

As long as not every other thread is about chess matters, I don't mind some Malkovich Chess. It being played and kibitzed by go players might actually be rather interesting.

About the game (and not for the players)

I think that black can't hold on to the pawn:
Bishop to b5 check

If black takes the bishop with its pawn, then the white Queen takes the bishop with attack on black's rook and then gets the pawn back with its knight.

Tesuji? But I don't think a beginner at chess like Kirby is able to spot this.


Edit: won't work. Black can play e7-e5 to defend the rook. But I still like my B b5 check. chess-10kyu comment

[Monadology]

<admin>
I moved this thread into the Malkovich subforum.
</admin>

Thanks! Much appreciated.

[Kirby]

I don't really know what to do here. People talk about "developing your pieces", but I don't know what that means, really. I'll threaten his bishop for a trade?

[Monadology]

So, I have a few options here.

One is to take his dark square bishop with mine, allow him to recapture with the F2 pawn, exchanging bishops. Since I am up a pawn, making even trades can be a valuable thing, as the currently small one-pawn advantage will become relatively stronger the less material is on the board. This also has the benefit of depriving him of the bishop pair, which is a valuable thing to have (and I've already given up mine), especially in an open game, which it looks like this will be. On the other hand, it is giving up my remaining bishop, leaving me with a pair of knights, which would be better in a more closed game.

Another option is just to retreat my bishop to its sniper nest on G7, but this is a bit passive, and I don't think there's a reason to do that given my options to defend (see below) or trade. White is down a pawn, but has a much more developed position, and retreating will make the development of the dark squared bishop he just made 'free' in terms of tempo.

More likely, if I don't trade, is that I defend my bishop. There are two options here. One is to advance my C pawn to C5. This makes a nice pawn chain and, if he takes my bishop, lets me place a pawn on his half of the board on the recapture. This pawn can then be defended by moving my B knight to C6 or my E pawn to E5. The downside of this move is that I delay developing my B knight.

The other option for defense is to move my B knight directly to C6, defending the bishop. This is good because my position isn't very developed, and my knights have been dormant the whole game. On the other hand, it stops me from advancing my C pawn, which is a bummer, and means that my bishop is less well guarded. I'd much rather guard it with a cheap pawn, than a fancy knight.

After typing all of that out, I think I'm leaning strongly towards defending by advancing the C pawn, as that allows me to move my knight out on the next turn (or after the bishop exchange if that happens).

[Monadology]

See the reasoning in my prior post. As an added bonus, the pawn chain I form occupies the dark squares, which (if it remains intact), stifles his dark square bishop. Mine, on hte other hand, is not behind my pawn chain being blocked by it, so it is impacted less by this.