If we double our rooks in the H vertical, what can you do then?

DB, after the moves you suggested the board could look like this. What could white do next? Black's going to move Rh7 and Rbh8

Yeah, that sounds good, too. I just wanted to play for sure (there's really not much that white could do to prevent Rxh4 anyways...)

No not just that, please look again. Countering those threats as I listed them in my (option,countermeasure)-post on the previous page always also prepares for an attack on vital black pieces, mainly the rooks and also aims on disturbing their king.

Is Evert implying that my evaluation of the situation is dishonest?
We are playing like we've done all the time, by taking votes on what to move. With the problem that this is difficult now, because it seems that Dustin has completely decided to ignore this game, and since our(Everts and mine) thinking is so different in almost every way, that taking votes doesn't do any good. It only puts more tension to everyone and wastes our energy, asking ourselves "Why the hell does he not SEE it?"
What do the black team members think?

Should we fork the game? I don't feel like the discussion between me and Evert is leading anywhere, because we both are blind towards the respective other ones way of playing chess.:-/
Sure Evert has much more experience in chess but that doesn't automatically make my view of the situation invalid and I have the impression that I'm the only one left actively thinking about moves and tactics here, while Evert is always just saying this or that is not good but has completely stopped to make suggestions himself.
Not saying that i don't appreciate that feedback, because it helps us staying alert.

Sorry Evert, I don't mean to piss you off or appear stubborn or anything, but I think all we can do here is to agree to disagree.
And next time(if any) we make a TeamChess, we should pick an executive dictator(!) for each team that will have the last word in every decision and also maybe three members per team is not a good number, because it has the drawback that if one member drops out, the remaining ones will have problems to come to an agreement, especially when their way of analyzing, looking and playing is so unfortunately different like it is the case here.

Fladimir:
In that position you show, the threat of your original plan of putting us into check with the queen is gone again, because your bishop is back in his original position.
We could just move our bishop back to its previous position then, having two pieces defend the h pawn and in case you were going to get a rook on line two then that rook would be blocked off by our bishop and if you take that bishop with that same rook, it would get recaptured with the queen and then our h pawn would still be protected by the queen.

[Note since posts are getting so long that there might be other posts inbetween: This post was written after Fladimirs question on what to do in the theoretical setup of the board after a previously discussed sequence of moves.]

I'm not going to make any more posts now, until the black team has moved, because i think everything has already been said at this point.

I'm saying it's wrong and too optimistic. I think you want to see it in a more optimistic light than it is and in that sense the evaluation is dishonest.

That is indeed what I'm thinking.

No. I'm not going to spend time trying to defend the position as it is now.

Where should it lead? It's a discussion on the evaluation of the position and the proper strategy to emply in defending it.

No, but honestly, I wouldn't mind at least getting the impression that I'm being listened to when I take the effort of explaining why some strategies are bad or why certain moves were wrong.

It's not white to move for one thing. For another, I said a while back that advancing pawns on the kingside was a bad idea. What do you want me to suggest in this position?

I don't think team chess in this sense makes much sense, unless the players on one team are of roughly the same playing strength. As it stands, I can propse a tacktic, make a few moves based on that idea - and then someone else decides to make a couple of moves that don't fit into the previous plan, which creates a position in which none of the pieces are working together properly, none of the threads are properly defended and none of the weaknesses are properly exploited. It has the same effect as playing without a plan, which is worse by far than playing with a bad plan (which is why I pulled out a while back and why I said that having chosen for a head-over-heels rush on the kingside, you have to stick to it because if you don't you've just created a weakness without even a ghost of compensation).
Taking a look at black, Kirr seems to have made most of the moves and done most of the proposals. This gives a consistency to black's game that white's game lacks.

There are alternatives for doing a team-based chess though. I don't know the term in English, but the Dutch name for what I have in mind is `doorgeef schaak'. Take a team of two against two (can be more on each team, but they must be the same size). One of them plays black against a member of the other team, one plays white. Whenever you capture a piece, you pass it to your teammate (or to the right if there is more than two players on each team), who may insert the piece into the game instead of doing a move. A few rules apply: 1) The piece cannot be inserted with check, 2) Pawns cannot be put on the first or eight rows, 3) You cannot insert a piece in the same move you received it in (effectively, you cannot delay playing a move until your partner passes you that queen), 4) Pawns always promote to queens (for simplicity) and revert to pawns when captured.

For this variation, form teams of roughly equal strength and have players of similar strength play eachother directly.

hum.. hum... King to g7?

Yeah!

I would like to put the queen to f4, as already said on the previous page.
Why?
Because it prepares to get the queen to f6.
They can prevent that by moving the bishop, in which case we can make a queens exchange, or they can prevent it by moving a pawn, which we could take after both of that pawns movement possibilities.

As Dustin said he doesn't want to play anymore and Evert said he doesn't want to defend the situation... I'm not sure if that means that I can just move.
Am I allowed to just move?

Good point, though:
I would only want to put the queen to f6, if the king stayed on g7. If you just move it away after queen to f4, there'd be no reason to proceed to f6 immediately, so you wouldn't be able to lock the queen then. And if you only move the king away after the queen already is on f6, then you can't lock it either because I can just put it back to f4 then.
But thanks for pointing the lock possibilty out, because I didn't see that.

[append]
Hm, though even If you locked the queen on f6:
Your king on h7 would spoil the plan of doubling your rooks on h.
Your king on g8 would also spoil that plan or even if you already had put one rook to h8 then, I could proceed the queen to d8, putting the king into check and after that pick away the other rook.
So there is some danger in whites queen coming to f6.

Cool down, I didn't mean to be disrespectful, never. If you feel that way then you are really reading my posts with wrong (angry? or arrogant?) intonation.:-/
I too have a real chess board setup next to my pc, which is starting to collect dust already, because it sits there for several months already and I think about it every day and even move it around here and there and play against myself, playing black and stuff...
All I wanted to say is that locking our queen on f6 isn't the end to everything and that I still think it would be good for white under certain circumstances.
That of course depends on what you do next and where you move your king or rooks.

I am well aware of the fact that you are probably very intensively into chess and that you won't do anything totally stupid, so if you do anything after queen to f4 that would spoil the plan that I mentioned, we (or I, since I'm not sure if my teammates are still around) would also not continue into that direction.
So what's the point?
I don't disrespect you at all. I'm just publicly thinking about moves.
Why does everyone always seem to take that as a personal attack towards his chess-mastery?
I really don't understand that and I'm very unhappy about it. People always get me wrong, even If I stay totally neutral in my descriptions of my thoughts. It's pulling me down.

And I never said "I move this and that and then I will...". I use words like "could" for a reason, since imho there is rarely anything SURE to happen here.

I feel that this thread is really more about politics and psycho-warfare than about chess and I have to say I HATE that it turned into that direction.:(

Pointing out the trap was indeed very nice of you Kirr, but I still play with the thought of walking into it nonetheless.:) (no really, I'm not joking or being sarcastic, if you promise to keep the king on g7 after white queen to f4 then I am likely(given that the way doesn't get blocked by something) to move to f6 afterwards. With the exception that if you do something, which I don't see, that would turn out alarmingly dangerous, then I would not.:-X So nothing is sure.)

The only thing that's keeping me from moving the queen to f4 now, is that I am still unsure if Everts comment that the situation is hopeless was final in his opinion and if he hasn't changed his mind in the meantime.
If he stays with his opinion and doesn't want to defend the situation anymore, then if nobody objects, I will just take full responsibility for everything that has possibly gone or will go wrong in this game and if white should lose this game, everybody may say it was entirely my fault.(please don't be too harsh though...)

If Evert should have changed his opinion and would like to defend the situtation again then I would like to fork the game and still play Qf4 to prevent further unnecessary arguing between us, because it's pulling us down.
Or in other words: I really want to try this, because I am very excited and curious about how the game is going to go on in that direction and I can't be convinced otherwise. (Call that stubborn if you want, blame all faults to me if you must, but please don't feel insulted or disrespected.)

I waited a few days to see if the white "team" wanted to contribute something but since that's not the case, I will just go on playing the game now, without waiting or asking anymore, because the game has to go on.
If someone should think i'm not allowed to do so, the game should be considered forked then.:-/

32. Qf4

. r . . . . . .*
p . r . . p k .
P . p . p . p .
. . P p P . P .
. . q . b Q . P
. . P . . . . .
. . . . . B . .
R . R . . . K .

{"name":"show.php","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/d\/bd8f632b866c989718c968f4a1e5ff02.gif","w":400,"h":430,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/d\/bd8f632b866c989718c968f4a1e5ff02"}