| Feb-09-04 |
| Whitehat1963: Watch me lead the attack with the king! |
 |
Mar-05-06
 |
| patzer2: Browne's brilliant Queen sham sacrifice 16... Qxc4!! is the solution to number 1228 in Informant's 1980 "Encyclopedia of Chess Middle Games," and is classified as a decoy (spelled "dicoying" in this multi-language book). Black resigns in the final position, as he is about to lose decisive material or get mated. Here are some possibilities after 16...Qxc4!! 17. Kxc4 Ba6+! 18. Nb5 Nxb5! (verified with Fritz 8): 
click for larger view19. Nd4 Nxd4+ 20. Kc3 Nb3+ (Fritz 8 prefers 20...Ne2+!  or 20...Nc6+ as stronger, but I like this forcing continuation.) 21. Kc2 Nxa1+ 22. Qxa1 (22. Kc1 Bxb2+ 23. Kb1 Bd4+ 24. Kc1 Bxe3+ 25. Qd2 Bxd2+ ) 22...Rxb2+ 23. Qxb2 (23. Kc1 Bd3 ; 23. Kd1 Bc3 24. Kc1 Bd3 ) 23... Bxb2 24. Kxb2 Ne7 19. Qa4 Na3+ 20. Kc5 d6+ 21. Kc6 Ne7#
19. Kc5 Na3 20. bxa3 d6+ 21. Kc6 Ne7#
19. Bc5 Nc3#
19. b4 Nc3+
19. Kb4 Nc3+
19. Kd3 Nc3+
|
|
Aug-21-08
 |
| wanabe2000: This interesting game appears not to have been played in Lone Pine 1979. Anyone know where it was played? |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| Smothered Mate: What is the computer defense for white in the final position? |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| Lightboxes: Maybe one of the longest life to live...
19. Nd4, Nxd4+
20. Kc3, Nxf3+
21. Kc2, Rxb2+
22. Kc1, Be2
And the queen is stuck
If:
19. Kc5, d6+
20. Kc6, Ne7#
If:
19. Kd3, Nc3+
20. Kd2, Nxd1
21. Kxd1, Rxb2
Black is up a piece and has better position.
If:
19. Qa4, Na3+
20. Kc5, d6+
21. Kc6, Ne7# |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| Andrijadj: Like the pun... |
|
Jun-27-09
 |
| Richard Taylor: 16 ... Qxc4+ I would have played in Blitz - it was pretty obvious but nice. |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| Granny O Doul: <wanabe2000> I think it is from the CalChess Masters tourney. That's based on a faint memory of the "Chess Life" issue the game appeared in. |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| Gouvaneur: <Richard Taylor> You're very cool aren't you? I bet you would've also played Kasparov's Rook sacrifice against his legendary game against Topalov. Imo there is a difference between actually playing a move, and having checked all possible variations (Which Walter Browne obviously did). |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| tommy boy: great game, great pun |
|
Jun-27-09
 |
| Once: Brutal finish. If white had played on, we might have had this bloodbath: 19. Kb4 Nc3+ 20. Ka5 Nxd1 21. Bxa7 Bxe2 22. Bxb8 Kc8 23. Raxd1 Bxd1 24. Rxd1 Kxb8 
click for larger viewThe final position makes a comical impression. Black wins thanks to his largely unmoved cluster of kingside pieces. Meanwhile the white king has been dragged all the way to a5. If you just saw the final position, it would be very difficult to work out how on earth the players had managed to get there! |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| WhiteRook48: and then he never played 1 c4 again? |
|
Jun-27-09
 |
| kevin86: Leading the attack with the king is like leading with your head in boxing. Just imagine have done that with Joe Frazier or George Foreman! OUCH! |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| Everett: What is it with the king walks in this opening?
Rohde vs Zsuzsa Polgar, 1992
It seems 7.f3 may not be best, but certainly 12.Re1, developing with tempo, was a way to at least survive the opening with roughly equal chances. |
|
Jun-27-09
 |
| Marmot PFL: One of the most bizarre games i've seen in modern chess. |
|
Jun-27-09
 |
| whiskeyrebel: 5. d5 seems to work and avoid the sort of silly game Yasser wound up in. |
|
| Jun-27-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: I think Seirawan can be forgiven for not seeing the queen sacrifice coming. |
|
Jun-27-09
 |
| vonKrolock: <"decoy">, yes - to the line of a <"battery"> <11... d8! 12. g1?!> Maybe white should play a2-a3 with idea of ce2 with Kc2 to follow... This slow manoeuvering and K march to the center looks like foolhardiness |
|
Jun-28-09
|
| Richard Taylor: < Gouvaneur: <Richard Taylor> You're very cool aren't you? I bet you would've also played Kasparov's Rook sacrifice against his legendary game against Topalov.> When I came on here I saw the problem of the day and it was that one and I found the rook sac fairly easily but I had Topalov moving toward his own end of the board and forgot he could move out toward's white's end. So I then loooked the game up. So while I would (almost certainly - unless I thought the black King might escape and it wasn't going to work - here judgement comes in...(I suspect Kasparov didn't calculate all the moves BTW but made out he saw the end position - and it was ceratainly one of the greatest games ever played - and he surely always sees hundreds of moves I would never see...if he did see all those ideas to the end then it just confirms what we all know: that he was a chess genius); Iowudl probably have played what Kasprov did (at least the initial sac etc) I wouldn't claim to have calculated all the moves. But recently I worked out a variation that was about 18 moves or so involving two rook sacs. (It was relatively easy compared to the Kasparov sac of course!) It took me some time as there were a few other variations but the point was I needed to know if I could actually make a strategical decision - that is place my knight on e4 - this happned and I won after an attack in 20 moves. But in that tournament I lost the next 5 games!
<Imo there is a difference between actually playing a move, and having checked all possible variations (Which Walter Browne obviously did).> They - the GMs - don't always work out all the variations but it could easily be done here - you might miss one line but often one sacrifices by intuition - that is it is clear from experience that the game is winning for one side - so judgement and planning - as in Euwe's book are required. I saw a video of Kasparov palying Karpov and he was most excited when he made a sacrifice in one game - he was most excited that he didn't actually calculate all the moves...he said repatedly and excitedly: "I didn''t calculate it! I didn't calculate it!" I have also seen games by him where the results of sacrifice happen many many moves after and couldn't have been calculated - these are true sacrifices based on real knowledge of positions and endings etc Do I make sacrifice and lose by overlooking defences? All the time. It is a question of imagination and courage. (Or kind of blind hope and some speculation..and that and some wood butcher calculations - often only partly right -) But sometimes I simply overlook a very obvious plan by my opponent or an obvious - or fairly obvious tactic and I lose. Recently I lost a game but it came very close to me winning and I changed the game by sacrificing a rook - I got about 3 pawns for it and an attack on my oponnent's King...I had at least a draw ... but I made some errors in time trouble - as did my opponent and I lost - but it was an exciting and interesting game. Am I thus a very strong player? No -not at all. ... I am good in certain positions if I get going but overall I am not particularly strong and I overlook as much as I see... it's just that I studied many many combinations over the years and I am quite good at finding ideas - I am not so good at planning or calculating in the late opening to middle game etc and I often stuff up endings. So - to sum it - I am basically a bunny! |
|
| Jun-28-09 |
| James Demery: Richard Taylor: Do you think Browne didn`t calculate this very far? Speaking as someone who patzes it up on a regular basis, to sac a Queen purely on speculation seems, in a word, terrifying. I`m sure Masters use instinct, but my goodness surely they must calculate things to a degree. |
|
| Jun-29-09 |
| Everett: Must say, the combination is not well-hidden. The issue is the fact that for three moves the play is forced. White has no other options but to play as he did, and all black had to do, visualizing a position after only two forced moves by white, is see if black has a square that somehow avoids a double attack and loss of material. |
|
Jun-29-09
|
| Richard Taylor: He calculated it - but probably not all the lines - the idea is clear -drag the king where it can be the more easily consumed! Some combinations are more easily calculated (with forcing lines) and sometimes one just evaluates the position. Of course players such as IMs or GMs of Browne's calibre see so much more than the average player and more accurately and more quickly - it is in fact the many many moves they see (and their ability to plan etc) rather than these dramatic things that count. I beat an FM last night - now I had 2 sacs but based my initial one (knight on f6) partly on the fact I had space (my oppponent missed playing e5 at a critical moment) and tempi and two centralised B's pointing at my opponents's King. Also some lines lead to the win of a Q or mate. But white's B's were very strong and I had space and I was well placed for a K-side attack which is thematic of such positions. I didn't actually see this combo by Browne - I already knew there was going to be a Q sac! I just played the game over quickly (and I saw someone's comment about a Q-sac) ... (I was jiving a bit about seeing it in Blitz! Although I do see such moves and I always play them - but I often lose... but I can't resist them!); but it is the sort of thing I see as I "collect" Q sacs I have a number of games where I have sacrificed my queen - I either for a quick win or for a longer advantage. Here is my game played last night - sure I got lucky in that my opponent "went wrong" but - I did calculate most of the moves and saw most of the ideas - but not all - the key move is my 23 Qh6 !! [Event "Winter Cup ACC"]
[Site "Auckland, ACC"]
[Date "2009.06.29"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Richard Taylor"]
[Black "Bruce Watson"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 a6 7. O-O Nf6
8. Be3 Be7 9. f4 d6 10. Bd3 O-O 11. Kh1 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 b5 13. e5 Ne8 14. Ne4 Bb7 15. Nf6+ Bxf6 16. exf6 Nxf6 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Qg4+ Kh8 19. Qh4 f5 20. Qf6+ Kg8 21. Rf3 Bxf3 22. gxf3 Rfc8 23. Qh6 Qc5 24. Rg1+ Qxg1+ 25. Kxg1 d5 26. h4 Rd8 27. h5 Rdc8 28. Kf2 Rd8 29. Kg3 f6 30. Qxf6 Re8 31. h6 Ra7 32. Kf2 Rf7 33. Qe5
1-0 |
|
sac: 16...Qxc4+