< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jul-01-08|| ||TheaN: Oh, wait, I missed the check on d3.... pretty vital, but alas it does not destroy the combination, as Black moves away his only defender. Without the Knight, White does not need his Bishop, and calculating that is not really needed.|
Ouch. Followed by either:
Where the immediate mate was not removed or Black has too few time to do something about the other rook.
No Knight to interpose, no Bishop needed for a pin.
|Jul-01-08|| ||vanytchouck: zenpharaohs>
I'm agree with you (see my last but one post).
|Jul-01-08|| ||zb2cr: Quick and simple. Is this a named mating pattern?|
|Jul-01-08|| ||Once: <zb2cr> The only name I could find for this mating pattern is the "h file mate" from Eric Schiller's "Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom". Not a very good book, and not a very exciting name either!|
|Jul-01-08|| ||DarthStapler: Got it|
|Jul-01-08|| ||ToTheDeath: Very common pattern, commit it to memory.|
|Jul-01-08|| ||johnlspouge: Hi, <Once> and <zb2cr>. The mate is called Anderssen's mate (http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/Ch...).|
|Jul-01-08|| ||YouRang: I've seen this 2-rook theme <Rook1: smash defense, Rook2: slide over to where Rook1 was with check and attack> so many times that the solution was almost automatic.|
It would be a Monday puzzle, except for the nifty way that our bishop pins the g6 pawn, spoiling the "defense" provided by interposing the black knight.
|Jul-01-08|| ||johnlspouge: <<YouRang> wrote: I've seen this 2-rook theme <Rook1: smash defense, Rook2: slide over to where Rook1 was with check and attack> so many times that the solution was almost automatic.>|
<jadedpawn> aptly and memorably called this the "reloader" theme:
I Sokolov vs S Williams, 2006
|Jul-01-08|| ||Once: <johnlspouge> I thought that Anderssen's mate used a bishop sacrifice on h7, after Anderssen-Zukertort, Barmen, 1869.|
My understanding was that other sacs on h7 are close to Anderssen's mate, but have no specific name.
But the final position is virtually the same as Anderssen, so it's close enough!
|Jul-01-08|| ||YouRang: <Once> When it comes to naming different mates, all that matters is the final (mating) position. It doesn't matter how they got there.|
|Jul-01-08|| ||234: Jun-30-08 Monday puzzle <27. ?> H Kramer vs J J Van Oosterwijk Bruyn, 1946|
|Jul-01-08|| ||whiteshark: <234> Thank you very much for your permanent <older puzzles <service>>! And please keep up the good work!!|
|Jul-01-08|| ||Once: <YouRang> Intriguing thought - are mates only named after the final position? That's not what I understood, so you've sent me scurrying to my book collection (and the internet) to see if you are right.|
This website suggests that it is Anderssen's mate when the bishop sacs on h7, but a related mate when another piece is sacrificed.
Ashamed to name it again, but the "Encyclopedia of chess wisdom" has Anderssen's mate on page 295 (with pawn on g7 and rook on h8) and the "h file mate" on page 311 with a bishop on b2 and a rook on h8.
Even more embarassing is "How to beat your Dad at chess" (bought for my son, honest!) which has Anderssen's mate on page 102 again involving the bishop sac on h7.
Can we think of other mates where the pattern is named for a series of moves rather than just the final position? How about Legall, the classic smothered mate (aka Philidor's legacy), the staircase mate (aka Damiano's mate), anastasia's mate ... ?
You could even argue that Boden's mate is as much about the queen sac as it is about the bishops giving mate.
In each case, the classic mating involves a series of moves and not just the final position.
Interested to read what others think. Or we may need to mark this one down as another instance where there is ambiguity in the language we use to describe chess.
|Jul-01-08|| ||johnlspouge: Hi, <Once> and <YouRang>. I was under the same impression as <YouRang>, but my knowledge base is narrow indeed, based mostly on the Internet sites listed in the NAMED MATES part of my chessgames.com chessforum. I have not seen any indication that a named mate depends on anything but the final position, however.|
|Jul-01-08|| ||dzechiel: <YouRang: When it comes to naming different mates, all that matters is the final (mating) position.>|
I have to respectfully disagree as well. I think that most named mates are named for the combination (or combinatorial theme) that leads to the final position.
For instance, Philidor's Legacy wouldn't be the same without the queen sacrifice forcing the opponent to seal himself in. Without that, it's just another smothered mate.
|Jul-01-08|| ||YouRang: <Once> Interesting. From the site you referenced, it says:|
<“Anderssen’s mate” generally refers to one particular type of sacrifice used to open up the h-file for this purpose; it is named after a famous game of Anderssen's we will see in a moment.>
Which suggests that you have a point. The name is associated with the sequence of moves from the game from which it was derived. However, it continues as follows:
<But you also might as well associate Anderssen with this general point to make it easier to remember: if you have a diagonal attack against h8, you should ask whether you might mate there with a heavy piece—even if it takes heavy sacrifices to get it done. >
So, this appears to be an example of how terminology evolves. For practical discussion, it is quite awkward to have a term like "Anderssen's Mate" refer only to a particular sequence of moves, thus requiring other sequences that lead to a similar result be known as "sequences related to Anderssen's Mate".
It's far more useful to let "Anderssen's Mate" refer to the basic pattern of the mating position, and not have to subclass all the varieties of ways to get there.
BTW, you mentioned "Legal's Mate", which I think is another matter. That does refer to a specific opening sequence, and as such, it really should be called "Legal's Trap".
|Jul-01-08|| ||Once: At the risk of muddying this still further, here's what Eric Schiller says in that "Encyclopedia of chess wisdom":|
"Many authorities use the names of the checkmates to refer to a pattern of attack to reach the final position. I have always found this approach to be a bit confusing, since it is not clear, when a mating position can be reached by several means, what the name of the checkmate actually refers to. I have therefore used just the final checkmate position for purposes of classification."
So it's probably not surprising that we have a difference of opinion here. Chess authors seem to classify openings in different ways.
I have always thought of a mating pattern as a series of moves, but looking through my book collection I can find a number of books which refer to just the final position as well as some which talk about a pattern of moves.
|Jul-01-08|| ||YouRang: <dzechiel> I wonder if what we're observing is that chess uses somewhat sloppy terminology? The term "Mate" is overworked!|
Certainly there are some named mates that refer (1) only to the pattern of the final position (like Epaulette), (2) others that refer to a final sequence (like Philidor's), and (3) still others (like Legal's) that refers to an opening sequence.
Again, I think that "Legal's mate" should be called "Legal's Trap", while "Philidor's Legacy" is not really a mate, but rather a named <sequence> that leads to "Smothered mate".
But then, I'm perhaps overly prickily about avoiding ambiguous terminology. Evidently, the idea of named mates, in practice, do refer to different things.
|Jul-01-08|| ||littlefermat: Wow. I saw the entire sequence but dismissed it because I thought black could recapture the rook at h5 with the g6 pawn. Ugh. Talk about frustrating.|
|Jul-01-08|| ||zb2cr: I seem to have started a search, and a debate, among <Once>, <johnlspouge>, and <YouRang>. Thanks to all of you, gentlemen. |
To throw an extra pint of bat's blood into the cauldron, the classic <The Art of Attack in Chess>, by Vladimir Vukovic, defines the mate by the mating pattern--the final position.
|Jul-01-08|| ||MaxxLange: The attack resembles the "Blackburne's Mate" pattern in that it uses 2 bishops and, in some sidelines, a knight, but with elements of another classical mate pattern, with the replacement killer Rooks|
whatever it's called, sacking on h7, when the King has to take back, with a White bishop on d3, so that Qh5+ is possible since the Black pawn on g6 is pinned, is one of my favorite tactical patterns
Looking again through Vooky Vicky's chapter on mating patterns, I don't see this one named. If I were sober, I would drag out "The Art of the Checkmate" and see if it is in that text.
|Jul-02-08|| ||Once: <YouRang> I agree - it is down to sloppy terminology. So far I have found:|
Some sources use "mating pattern" as the final pattern only, and some use it as a series of moves leading to the final pattern. Wikipedia calls Philidor's Legacy "a technique".
Some say that Anderssen's mate is any mate with a rook or queen on h8 and something to control the long diagonal (queen, pawn or bishop). Equally, some say that it has to be a pawn on g7 (Schiller) or a bishop on the long diagonal (just about everyone else).
Some say that it is only Anderssen's when a bishop has been sacrificed on h7 to open up the h file. Others ignore this and just concentrate on the final position.
Some classic named mating patterns can be defined by just the final position (epaullette, back rank) and some are defined by a number of moves (Damiano's, Legall's and Philidor's Legacy).
|Jul-02-08|| ||Jabot: <littlefermat> cold comfort though it may be, you are not alone!|
|Oct-13-12|| ||JENTA: 5... Bb4 - White has not yet moved the d-pawn.
6... Nc6? - Seems to be a mistake.
10. Bc4! - Pins the f-pawn. 10. Bd3 would block the pawn d2 and the Bishop c1.
13... g6?? - Why not 13... f5 (14. ef6 gf6) ?
14... Qg4 - Perhaps 14... Nd8 with the idea c6, Ne6, Bd8
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·