Chess

Why does the computer recommend this move and why should I not just take the rook on a8?

I wouldn’t do either, just move your bishop to D5

My guess is because while Bxa8 leaves you up in immediate material, Qxd4 spreads your boipucci wide open, so it's recommending the more conservative line of protecting d4.

Qxd4 just causes black to lose it's queen. That seems hardly recommendable.

After queen takes rook at a8 there is strong attack potential at your kingside. Pressure easily increased with blacks bishop to prevent youre queen and rook maneuvering

Oh, yeah, fuck, missed that pawn.

Is it trying to swing the knight to h4 so it can kick the bishop and threaten g6?

The knight is about to be killed by a pawn so it needs to move to safety. If you take the rook with your bishop then you lose your bishop to the queen and the knight has nowhere safe to move anymore. You lose a knight and a bishop to kill a rook that would have needed several moves to threaten anything.

This.

2 pieces for a rook can be a decent trade but when the game is as closed as this one the pieces will do more work.

>and the knight has nowhere safe to move anymore
kf3 would not be a safe move..?

There is a rook literally next to it

Sorry f7 rook next to it, g4 bishop, f3 would not be protected by the bishop and would be threatened by the queen on a8 down that line

What..?
bxa8 Qxa8
kf3
is the sequence I'm talking about, black's remaining rook will still be at f8, I don't see what you mean

If the queen where to take the knight on f3 she could be freely captured by white's queen though, so it's an idle threat.

There's no rook next to it. The knight is only attacked by black's queen on A8 but protected by white's queen, hence Kf3 is a safe move

Why not Bxa8, Qxa8, and then the knight has either f3 or g4 to get to relative safety? G4 has a pawn for protection, while f3 has the queen. Trading a bishop for a rook seems decent.

>2018
>not having any pawns in defense mode
>not tribute two towers to summon the Emperor piece
oh user..

What are you talking about?

>He doesn't know about Chess 2.0

Because it allows black to break open your center.

>no custom paintjobs on any of the pieces

GW has really gone downhill

1.5e was the best edition, 2e is storygame bullshit

That rook isn't doing much on a closed board, blacks bishop and other rook are also locked up.

Taking the rook leads to pawn takes knight and an open centre.

Better question is: If you play Knight f3, what the heck does black do?

2e wasn't that bad.. I disliked the grimdark tone they went with the white knights story but on the other hand.. I really liked the romance options for the queens.

Chessfinder though.. it seems that it will solve all of 1.5e's problems.

Kc4, regaining center control

What? You like Chessfinder?

What with the Ivory Rook design structure and the 300 splat books.

And don't get me started on that weaboo en passant shit.

What is Kc4?

well my group went on the chessfinder wagon.. and since you can't play with different editions in the same game.. I had to.
But then again I just see it as 1.5.1e

Wait, I meant Kc6 (Knight to c6)

Then knight to h4 kicks the bishop, you move it to d7 and pawn to f6.

White can bring the queen in and black can't stop the attack without sacrificing a rook.

So you end up with the rook anyway, but all your pieces are breathing down the kings neck.

Though I went through the line with stockfish just then and I would not want to play the Nf3 line with any harsh time control because it gets pretty complex.

Bxa8, fxe5, and you're actually in a bit of a bind. You can't take the pawn back because Qxa8 and you will have 2 minor pieces for a rook (bad), but if you withdraw the bishop, say

Bf3, then black can play exd4, and you can't even recover the pawn because after Qxd4, he's now simultaneously threatening your rook and your knight on d3.

I'd move that night to b6 instead.

it threatens the queen.
If they take your knight with the a5 knight you can sweep that up with the g2 bishop

But that's terrible. Black's knight is trapped on the rim of the board, otherwise unable to move. You let him trade it off for your centralized knight and he's better, not worse. Then he moves his rook to c8 to get out of your attack and you have nothing

Quick question: My opening strategy is always to move my knights out first and feint. Move a knight into a position where it can threaten one of my opponent's pieces, wait for him to move to protect that piece, then withdraw. Never taking a piece unless it can be done without losing the knight.

Is there a name for this? I know there's a lot of fancy named strategies, but I never formally studied the game. So what is this called, beyond 'being a dick'?

>Is there a name for this?
Playing badly.

As a VERY general rule, the more squares overall your back rank pieces can move to on the next turn, the better off you are, as you have more of an ability to project force over a wider part of the board. As a corallary to that, you generally want to move as many of your pieces to the center, or at least forward in the early game: At the starting position your rooks, queen, and bishops can make a grand total of 0 moves, as they are blocked in by the pawns, and your knights can each make 2 moves, to a3/c3 and f3/h3 (switch to 6 if you're looking at black) But with a few moves, pushing some pawns, developing your bishops, castling, etc, you can raise that enormously.

What you're describing is moving your knight at least 3 times in order to threaten a piece that your opponent can defend by moving two different pieces at least once. He will display an enormous advantage over you by turn 7 or so, and if he's skilled, will probably have you checkmated by move 25.

Look up. I didn't realize it was such a terrible idea. In my experience usually puts me in a distinct advantage, with whatever offense my opponent plans disrupted by constantly having to shift pieces to avoid the probing nights, and all of my other pieces unmoved. That leaves me with a strong defense, and them with a scattered and disorganized defense and offense. After that I think we play war of attrition for 10 to 15 turns before my appointment either concedes out of frustration or I land a checkmate. I guess I will have to play more and see how often this strategy gets stomped.