|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-01-06 |
| LivBlockade: <JohnBoy> If White tries to grab the b pawn Black might consider the line 14.  xb7  xc5; 15. bxc5  b8; 16. xa6 (still trying to come out a pawn ahead) 16...xb2. While White is a pawn up, he has not completed his development and must now avoid lines like 17. c6? xc6; 18. xc6?? d2 mate. |
 |
| Mar-02-06 |
| MorphyMatt: <JohnBoy>Nimzowitsch vs Tarrasch, 1914 |
|
Jul-28-06
 |
| Knight13: 17. Bxh7+ Kxh7 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Bxg7 f6 is unclear since after 20. Qh8+ Kf7 21. Bxf8 Black can throw in the check 21... Qe5+ before capturing the bishop. --- Tactics and Strategy by G. Burgess |
|
| Oct-02-06 |
| Eggman: <<Just like Reti said, you really don't need to see a single move ahead! You just check all of the criteria, like a shopping list: (A) Weakly defended king with no escape on g7/h7. (B) The "Horowitz bishops" pointing at g7/h7. (C) A rook ready to lift in for the fatal check. (D) No good way to block the check. Everything's in your shopping cart, so it's time to ring the register! ca-ching!> >This isn't quite correct, because in the line pointed out by Honza Cervenka, namely <<20...f6 21.Qh8+ Kf7 22.Bxf8 Rxf8 23.Qh7+ and 24.Qxc7>>, it's clear that Black's undefended Queen on c7 is also crucial to the win. |
|
Jul-15-08
 |
| chocobonbon: "Horowitz bishops" is incorrect unless you want to randomly insert any name with "bishops". It is the "Horwitz bishops" after the German problem composer & member of the "Berlin Pleades". |
|
Jul-15-08
 |
| keypusher: By the way, how did they come to be named for Horwitz? Wouldn't Lasker bishops or Tarrasch bishops make more sense? |
|
Jul-26-08
|
| chocobonbon: <keypusher> I don't recall but I believe someone on these posts qoted Nimzowitsch in one of his works referring to them as such. I read the term in the early '60s when I was reading a lot of the two Laskers (sorry), Chernev, Fine, Reinfeld. Napier, Reti, P.W. Sergeant & even Staunton. I didn't read Nimzo for another 12 years or so but of course those guys could have been quoting him. I just remembered that my first Chess discovery was "The Fireside Book of Chess" & the awe with which the authors spoke of Lasker, Capablanca & Pillsbury struck me & began to permeate my fancy. I think there was a section on problems so it might have been there I saw the term. Sorry for the length of my reply. |
|
| May-02-09 |
| WhiteRook48: how about 22 Rc4 immediately? |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| grasser: This was a nice surprize. I just played a similar double bishop sac at a tournament last month. I just can't figure how to convert the game I entered into Fritz to upload to a pgn so I can upload the game here. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| Check It Out: <how about 22 Rc4 immediately?> It looks like 22...f5 could throw a wrench into that. Black's queen would drop, but there is still material compensation and could be a tricky endgame. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| kellmano: <Sneaky: A few years back I wouldn't have seen this if I looked at it for an hour. Now I looked and in 5 seconds I said "Hey! A double-bishop sac w/ rook lift!"
Just like Reti said, you really don't need to see a single move ahead! You just check all of the criteria, like a shopping list: (A) Weakly defended king with no escape on g7/h7. (B) The "Horowitz bishops" pointing at g7/h7. (C) A rook ready to lift in for the fatal check. (D) No good way to block the check. Everything's in your shopping cart, so it's time to ring the register! ca-ching!
>
Great analysis. |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| birobidjan: The Great Tony Miles ! |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| karnak64: Isn't "Miles Ahead" a Miles Davis album, too?
Always nice to see the double-bishop sack, unless I'm on the losing end of it ... |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| gtgloner: After 12. c5, black (so long as his King's bishop is resting on a7 and the white queenside pawn wall stays intact) may as well be playing down a minor piece. In that sense, Tony Miles is only going down one piece with the double B sac. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| RandomVisitor: 5 minutes per move:
Anthony Miles - Walter Shawn Browne
[A04]
Lucerne (Switzerland) Lucerne (Switzerland), 1982
[Rybka 3 ]
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3 Nc6 5.d4 d5 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7.a3 a6 8.b4 Ba7 9.Bb2 0-0 10.Rc1 last book move 10...d4  0.29/21
[Rybka 3 : 10...Qe7 11.cxd5 Rd8 12.b5 axb5 13.Nxb5 Rxd5 14.Qa4 Bd7 15.Bc4 Qf8 16.Qc2 Nb4 17.axb4 Bxb5 18.0-0 Bxc4 19.Qxc4 b5 20.Qb3 Ne4 21.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1 Rd8= 0.05/19 ] 11.exd4 0.09/20 Nxd4 0.09/19
12.c5 0.09/18 Nxf3+ 0.67/21
[Rybka 3 : 12...e5 13.Nxe5 Bb8 14.Nc4 Bf4 15.Ne3 Ng4 16.Ncd5 Bxe3 17.fxe3 Qxd5 18.Qxd4 Qg5 19.Qf4 Qxf4 20.exf4 Re8+ 21.Be2 Bf5 22.Kf1 Rad8 23.Bf3 Ne3+ 24.Kg1 Be4 25.Kf2 Bxf3 26.Kxf3 f6 27.g3 Rd2= 0.09/18 ] 13.Qxf3 0.47/19 Bd7 0.57/20
14.Bd3 0.57/18 Bc6 0.57/20
15.Ne4 0.56/18 Nxe4 0.66/21
16.Bxe4 0.51/20 Qc7 0.70/21
[Rybka 3 : 16...Bxe4 17.Qxe4 Qe7 18.0-0 Rad8 19.Rcd1 f6 20.Rfe1 Bb8 21.g3 e5 22.Rd5 Qf7 23.Red1 Rxd5 24.Qxd5 0.51/20 ] 17.0-0 0.52/20 Rad8?  3.66/23
[Rybka 3 : 17...Bxe4 18.Qxe4 Rad8 19.Be5 Qe7 0.52/20 ] 18.Bxh7+ 3.66/23 Kxh7 3.66/22
19.Qh5+ 3.49/22 Kg8 3.49/21
20.Bxg7 3.43/20 Kxg7? #19/11
[Rybka 3 : 20...f5 21.Qh8+ Kf7 22.Bxf8 Bb8 23.Qg7+ Ke8 24.Qxc7 Bxc7 25.Bd6 Bxd6 26.cxd6 Kd7 27.Rfd1 Rg8 28.g3 Rb8 29.h4 Bd5 30.Rc7+ Kxd6 31.Rdc1 Rh8 32.f4 Bc6 33.Rg7 Kd5 34.Kf2 Kd4 35.Rc7 Kd5 3.43/20 ] 21.Qg5+ #19/11 Kh8 #18/11
22.Qf6+ #18/11 Kg8 #17/11
23.Rc4 #18/10 1-0 |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| RandomVisitor: 10...Qe7 and 12...e5!? are interesting attempts that might equalize. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| technical draw: <Karnak64><Isn't "Miles Ahead" a Miles Davis album, too?> Yep, one of the great ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_... |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| playground player: All you need to know is the names of the two players involved, and you know you're in for a treat. |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| eric the Baptist: could black have played rook to e8 to give his king some room? any problem with that? |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| eric the Baptist: nevermind. got it. |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| ounos: <Sep-04-04 offramp: I bet this is a puzzle this week!> Excellent guess! Way to go! (5 years late, and GOTD instead of puzzle :P ) |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| WhiteRook48: ouch! |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| The Famous Chess Cat: There of course is always a small cluster of questions as to the explanation of a move, or whether a move would have been better than the one played. In this case, I'm simply seeking black's reasoning behind black's 13...Bd7. Thanks a million!
-The Famous Chess Cat- |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| swissteam: I'm sure I'm missing something simple; what's wrong with 14. Qxb7? |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| Jim Bartle: Maybe 14...Bxc5 15 bxc5 Rb8, picking up the b2 bishop? |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
