Unsure of next move
Sort:
Good evening. First post here. How is everyone today? I find myself stuck here unsure how to proceed. My opponent has locked down the field and won't make a move.
I'm white and its my move. Any suggestions?
Feb 15, 2018
0
#3
When the position is completely losing I'm unsure what to do too. Usually I resign.
Other than resign, black is relatively weak on the light squares. As a last try you can aim for something like queen and knight on g4/f5/h5 slide rook along the 3rd rank and open lines with h4.
But desperate stuff like this is usually what you try when your opponent is worse than you. I guess you could keep playing if you're curious how black will finish you off. That's a way to learn about chess too.
So you're saying I'm doomed and there's no chance of a win for white?
You are playing computer 10 and are 3 pawns down. So you are bot going to win. However you probably knew that even before you started playing.
So lets look at the current situation. I would say double rooks by playing Rc3. This targets the c7 pawn and that pawn could be won in a few moves.
So lets look at the current situation. I would say double rooks by playing Rc3. This targets the c7 pawn and that pawn could be won in a few moves.
What about stalling and waiting for black to attack?
Almost hopeless... I'd start with Rc4. h4 comes to mind but I don't like the reply g4.
Waiting for the opponent to attack while you just make nothing moves is the worst strategy ever.
Why would waiting for the opponent to attack be a bad idea? Clearly he is waiting for me to make a move. So why give it to him? Why not let him come to me? And just defend accordingly
Rooookai wrote:
Why would waiting for the opponent to attack be a bad idea? Clearly he is waiting for me to make a move. So why give it to him? Why not let him come to me? And just defend accordingly
That's called being passive. Generally, in chess, being passive is not a good idea and should only be done if passive play is rewarded with some sort of advantage e.g better pawn structure (like in the classical variation of the Caro-Kann). In this case, passive play will result in the simplifying of the position (trading pieces and pawns down) all the way to the endgame (the computer isn't stupid and won't just let you draw without pushing for a win by trading pieces and pawns down), in which White (you) will have nothing to show for it especially as you are already three pawns down.
To explain why passivity is a poor approach to chess in general, Imagine if Allied generals in WWII were passive:
"You know what, we should just wait for the Axis forces to come, THEN we can defend accordingly! Away with this D-Day nonsense!"
The Allies would very likely lose WWII then.
Feb 19, 2018
0
#11
Rooookai wrote:
Why would waiting for the opponent to attack be a bad idea? Clearly he is waiting for me to make a move. So why give it to him? Why not let him come to me? And just defend accordingly
Chess is not a game where random things happen. If your opponent is 3 pawns ahead, and you have no compensation, then black will stay 3 pawns ahead until he checkmates you or turns them into queens.
If your opponent is bad, or low on time, you can make threats and hope for a mistake... but in an untimed game against an engine that's really silly. You can keep playing to learn from black's winning moves, or you can resign.
Any ideas now? Got a chance on the right side? It's whites move