Nxd6: 3 votes (LucyLovesCrypto, Morecoin, boolberry)
Topic: CryptoNote technical discussion and Chess Challenge - page 9. (Read 96052 times)
Nxd6: 2 votes (LucyLovesCrypto, Morecoin)
We cannot defend d5 (31.Nc3 Rc8) so we may as well capture d6 now.
Nxd6: 1 votes (LucyLovesCrypto)
Nxd6: 1 votes (LucyLovesCrypto)
Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Monero has chosen to play Ra5. Now it is time for Team Boolberry to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
white to move
Team Boolberry (white pieces) vs. Team Monero (black pieces)
Game 2 PGN:
Based on the votes in this thread Team Monero has chosen to play Ra5. Now it is time for Team Boolberry to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
white to move
Team Boolberry (white pieces) vs. Team Monero (black pieces)
Game 2 PGN:
Code:
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 O-O 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 e5 7.d5 a5 8.Bg5 h6 9.Be3 Na6 10.h3 Nh5 11.Qd2 Nf4 12.O-O-O Nxg2 13.Bxh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Qf6 15.Kb1 Nf4 16.Nd2 Nc5 17.h4 a4 18.h5 Qg7 19.Qg5 a3 20.b3 f6 21.Qg3 g5 22.Rdg1 Qh7 23.Bg4 Bxg4 24.Qxg4 c6 25.Qf5 Qxf5 26.exf5 Kh7 27.Nde4 Nxe4 28.Nxe4 cxd5 29.cxd5 Kh6 30.Rd1 Ra5
Ra5: 3 votes (letsplayagame, mathgal23, newb4now)
Was there any specific Monero news that led to the rally today? Or was it a delayed revaluation as a result of all of this?
You forgot some things :-P
- Exodus integrating XMR (exodus.io)
- Multi-sig
- 2 minute block times which will improve security of the network
I am probably forgetting some myself too.
Can Riccardo Spagni discuss the level of interest Monero received in Florida? Could the increased volume today be from some of the Satoshi Roundtable participants deciding to build a position in Monero?
Ra5: 1 vote (letsplayagame)
Trezor support https://forum.getmonero.org/4/academic-and-technical/2495/experimental-trezor-firmware-testing
GUI Wallet under active development https://github.com/mbg033/monero-core
Hard fork coming up to fix mixin 0 problem
Kovri under active development to fix IP address problem https://github.com/monero-project/kovri
RingCT will be implemented sometime in 2016
Community funding of community / core projects totaling 62,788 XMR
Oh yeah, and of course, Monero a secure and fungible digital currency that can be used here and now
GUI Wallet under active development https://github.com/mbg033/monero-core
Hard fork coming up to fix mixin 0 problem
Kovri under active development to fix IP address problem https://github.com/monero-project/kovri
RingCT will be implemented sometime in 2016
Community funding of community / core projects totaling 62,788 XMR
Oh yeah, and of course, Monero a secure and fungible digital currency that can be used here and now
You forgot some things :-P
- Exodus integrating XMR (exodus.io)
- Multi-sig
- 2 minute block times which will improve security of the network
I am probably forgetting some myself too.
Can Riccardo Spagni discuss the level of interest Monero received in Florida? Could the increased volume today be from some of the Satoshi Roundtable participants deciding to build a position in Monero?
Ra5: 1 vote (letsplayagame)
I don't know the reason for what happened but I sure am happy about it!
Ra5: 2 votes (letsplayagame, mathgal23)
Was there any specific Monero news that led to the rally today? Or was it a delayed revaluation as a result of all of this?
You forgot some things :-P
- Exodus integrating XMR (exodus.io)
- Multi-sig
- 2 minute block times which will improve security of the network
I am probably forgetting some myself too.
Can Riccardo Spagni discuss the level of interest Monero received in Florida? Could the increased volume today be from some of the Satoshi Roundtable participants deciding to build a position in Monero?
Ra5: 1 vote (letsplayagame)
Trezor support https://forum.getmonero.org/4/academic-and-technical/2495/experimental-trezor-firmware-testing
GUI Wallet under active development https://github.com/mbg033/monero-core
Hard fork coming up to fix mixin 0 problem
Kovri under active development to fix IP address problem https://github.com/monero-project/kovri
RingCT will be implemented sometime in 2016
Community funding of community / core projects totaling 62,788 XMR
Oh yeah, and of course, Monero a secure and fungible digital currency that can be used here and now
GUI Wallet under active development https://github.com/mbg033/monero-core
Hard fork coming up to fix mixin 0 problem
Kovri under active development to fix IP address problem https://github.com/monero-project/kovri
RingCT will be implemented sometime in 2016
Community funding of community / core projects totaling 62,788 XMR
Oh yeah, and of course, Monero a secure and fungible digital currency that can be used here and now
You forgot some things :-P
- Exodus integrating XMR (exodus.io)
- Multi-sig
- 2 minute block times which will improve security of the network
I am probably forgetting some myself too.
Can Riccardo Spagni discuss the level of interest Monero received in Florida? Could the increased volume today be from some of the Satoshi Roundtable participants deciding to build a position in Monero?
Ra5: 1 vote (letsplayagame)
You're right, I didn't see our Knight would be trap if we would take on b7. Now it makes total sense. Thanks for taking the time to clarify it 
It was a good question and I definitely miss things, especially when I am in a hurry or distracted. Today watching the crypto markets was fun distraction for me. Great day for Monero!
Guys, why do you think on exchanging when you have a better positional move?
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
Looking at this line made me decide that 30.Nxd6 is not the best
If 30.Nxd6 Rad8 31.Nxb7 Rd5 32.Rc1 Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too.
Nxd6: 1 vote (GoldTiger69)
Rd1: 3 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning, tifozi)
Rc1: 1 vote (boolberry)
My idea is that after 30.Rc1 Ra5 31.f3 Rxd5 32.Nf2 we can play Ng4+ and force the king back allowing us to activate our rook without losing our h pawn. It looks like Rd1 is going to be the winning vote (2 minutes left). Maybe it is okay too but we are definitely on the defensive.
I'm sorry, but this is amazing; following the 30.Nxd6 we end up with one pawn up and Rc1, but you decided it's not the best one because "Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too"; instead, you suggested 30.Rc1 right away, and what happened to "Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too"?
I mean, really? what is going on?
I'm not trying to impose my suggestions, but your idea doesn't make sense to me, because it doesn't seem to be better Well I was in a rush before 12:00 UTC deadline and maybe I missed something. It turns out my vote did not matter anyway since Rd1 still won by tiebreak. Below was the position I was worried about. Black is threatening Rf7 trapping our knight on b7 so Rc7 may be forced but then both Nxf2 and e4 immediately look scary to me.
The reason why I am not worried about Nd3 in the current position is because our knight is still on e4 (protecting f2) so we can simply meet Nd3 with Rc3:
Again sorry for posting analysis at the last possible minute. I don't feel too bad about it in this case since my suggestion did not win the vote anyway.
We need a tie breaking mechanism. For example one can look at the result before the vote that led to the tie and use that instead.
You're right, I didn't see our Knight would be trap if we would take on b7. Now it makes total sense. Thanks for taking the time to clarify it
Guys, why do you think on exchanging when you have a better positional move?
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
Looking at this line made me decide that 30.Nxd6 is not the best
If 30.Nxd6 Rad8 31.Nxb7 Rd5 32.Rc1 Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too.
Nxd6: 1 vote (GoldTiger69)
Rd1: 3 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning, tifozi)
Rc1: 1 vote (boolberry)
My idea is that after 30.Rc1 Ra5 31.f3 Rxd5 32.Nf2 we can play Ng4+ and force the king back allowing us to activate our rook without losing our h pawn. It looks like Rd1 is going to be the winning vote (2 minutes left). Maybe it is okay too but we are definitely on the defensive.
I'm sorry, but this is amazing; following the 30.Nxd6 we end up with one pawn up and Rc1, but you decided it's not the best one because "Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too"; instead, you suggested 30.Rc1 right away, and what happened to "Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too"?
I mean, really? what is going on?
I'm not trying to impose my suggestions, but your idea doesn't make sense to me, because it doesn't seem to be better Well I was in a rush before 0:00 UTC deadline and maybe I missed something. It turns out my vote did not matter anyway since Rd1 still won by tiebreak. Below was the position I was worried about. Black is threatening Rf7 trapping our knight on b7 so Rc7 may be forced but then both Nxf2 and e4 immediately look scary to me.
The reason why I am not worried about Nd3 in the current position is because our knight is still on e4 (protecting f2) so we can simply meet Nd3 with Rc3:
Again sorry for posting analysis at the last possible minute. I don't feel too bad about it in this case since my suggestion did not win the vote anyway.
We need a tie breaking mechanism. For example one can look at the result before the vote that led to the tie and use that instead.
Guys, why do you think on exchanging when you have a better positional move?
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
Looking at this line made me decide that 30.Nxd6 is not the best
If 30.Nxd6 Rad8 31.Nxb7 Rd5 32.Rc1 Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too.
Nxd6: 1 vote (GoldTiger69)
Rd1: 3 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning, tifozi)
Rc1: 1 vote (boolberry)
My idea is that after 30.Rc1 Ra5 31.f3 Rxd5 32.Nf2 we can play Ng4+ and force the king back allowing us to activate our rook without losing our h pawn. It looks like Rd1 is going to be the winning vote (2 minutes left). Maybe it is okay too but we are definitely on the defensive.
I'm sorry, but this is amazing; following the 30.Nxd6 we end up with one pawn up and Rc1, but you decided it's not the best one because "Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too"; instead, you suggested 30.Rc1 right away, and what happened to "Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too"?
I mean, really? what is going on?
I'm not trying to impose my suggestions, but your idea doesn't make sense to me, because it doesn't seem to be better
Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play Rd1 (on tiebreaks). Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
black to move
Team Boolberry (white pieces) vs. Team Monero (black pieces)
Game 2 PGN:
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play Rd1 (on tiebreaks). Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
black to move
Team Boolberry (white pieces) vs. Team Monero (black pieces)
Game 2 PGN:
Code:
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 O-O 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 e5 7.d5 a5 8.Bg5 h6 9.Be3 Na6 10.h3 Nh5 11.Qd2 Nf4 12.O-O-O Nxg2 13.Bxh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Qf6 15.Kb1 Nf4 16.Nd2 Nc5 17.h4 a4 18.h5 Qg7 19.Qg5 a3 20.b3 f6 21.Qg3 g5 22.Rdg1 Qh7 23.Bg4 Bxg4 24.Qxg4 c6 25.Qf5 Qxf5 26.exf5 Kh7 27.Nde4 Nxe4 28.Nxe4 cxd5 29.cxd5 Kh6 30.Rd1
I will vote for Rc1 too , but is it too late due to tiebreaker rule?
Nxd6: 1 vote (GoldTiger69)
Rd1: 2 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning)
Rc1: 2 votes (boolberry, tifozi)
Not too late but yes Rd1 is still ahead due to tiebreaker rule:(
I meant to spend more time analyzing this earlier. I was distracted by Monero being up over 30% on Poloniex today:)
I will vote for Rc1 too , but is it too late due to tiebreaker rule?
Guys, why do you think on exchanging when you have a better positional move?
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
Looking at this line made me decide that 30.Nxd6 is not the best
If 30.Nxd6 Rad8 31.Nxb7 Rd5 32.Rc1 Nd3 threatening f2 looks bad for us too.
Nxd6: 1 vote (GoldTiger69)
Rd1: 3 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning, tifozi)
Rc1: 1 vote (boolberry)
My idea is that after 30.Rc1 Ra5 31.f3 Rxd5 32.Nf2 we can play Ng4+ and force the king back allowing us to activate our rook without losing our h pawn. It looks like Rd1 is going to be the winning vote (2 minutes left). Maybe it is okay too but we are definitely on the defensive.
Guys, why do you think on exchanging when you have a better positional move?
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
Well initially my idea was Rc1:
Yes, Nd3, indeed. I am not sure that those exchanges favor us for as far as I could calculate.
My idea is that if we open up the c-file we can move our Rook there.
My idea is that if we open up the c-file we can move our Rook there.
But let's say we play Rc1. Now black could respond with Ra5 and then we may have to place that same Rook on d1 anyway, right?
Nxd6: 2 votes (GoldTiger69, boolberry)
Rd1: 3 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning, tifozi)
I agree that things went wrong somewhere because we lost the initiative. This game is not over but we are far from winning.
Nxd6: 2 votes (GoldTiger69, boolberry)
Rd1: 1 vote (Morecoin)
Rd1: 1 vote (Morecoin)
30.Nxd6 Rad8 31.Nxb7 Rd5 32.Rd1 Rxd1 33.Rxd1 Kxh5 will lead to a very difficult endgame for us. Black is threatening Kg4 and Kxf5
We can play 31.Ne4 instead but our rooks look very misplaced on g1 and h1
Nxd6: 2 votes (GoldTiger69, boolberry)
Rd1: 2 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning)
Guys, why do you think on exchanging when you have a better positional move?
In that line of game, after 31.Nxb7 Rd5 (Rxd5), 32.Rd1 is a bad move precisely because it weakens our position and strengthen blacks, so why would we even considered it? Instead, we could play 32.Rc1 to control that open column and give our Knight the chance to go to c5 and then to e6. If you check the position after 32.Rc1, we are 1 pawn up, and our Rooks have more range of maneuvering.
Same thing happened with the Queens exchange, which was another unnecessary exchange that weakened our position very bad.
Like I said, we better start analyzing our position with better moves for us, not just better moves for black
Nxd6: 2 votes (GoldTiger69, boolberry)
Rd1: 3 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning,tifozi)
I think we should have focussed some more on Rc1 as boolberry initially suggested, I see a couple of solid positional advantages out of it.
Rd1: 3 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning,tifozi)
I think we should have focussed some more on Rc1 as boolberry initially suggested, I see a couple of solid positional advantages out of it.
Nxd6: 2 votes (GoldTiger69, boolberry)
Rd1: 1 vote (Morecoin)
Rd1: 1 vote (Morecoin)
30.Nxd6 Rad8 31.Nxb7 Rd5 32.Rd1 Rxd1 33.Rxd1 Kxh5 will lead to a very difficult endgame for us. Black is threatening Kg4 and Kxf5
We can play 31.Ne4 instead but our rooks look very misplaced on g1 and h1
Nxd6: 2 votes (GoldTiger69, boolberry)
Rd1: 2 votes (Morecoin, languagehasmeaning)
Nxd6: 2 votes (GoldTiger69, boolberry)
Rd1: 1 vote (Morecoin)
Rd1: 1 vote (Morecoin)
Jump to: