|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Apr-11-07
 |
| fm avari viraf: This trick of long castling & winning the Rook reminds me of a game played in my simul. exhibition wherein I played against 45 players & 1 blindfold which I won nearly 3 decades ago. The result was 40 wins, 2 draws & 3 losses. |
 |
Apr-11-07
 |
| patzer2: The decoy 12. Qxd8+! sets up 13. 0-0-0+  to pick off the Rook with a winning double attack (or more specifically a very unusual discovered attack). |
|
Apr-11-07
|
| patzer2: White sets a trap with 9. Be3!, and Black falls for it hook line and sinker. After taking the offered material, like a hungry fish swallowing all of a fisher's bait, Black is caught and cannot escape. |
|
Apr-11-07
 |
| WarmasterKron: <realbrob> That would be very tricky indeed. For example, how do you suggest White creates a significant advantage after, say, 11...Qxd3? |
|
| Apr-11-07 |
| JustAFish: It took me four minutes to find the "Key" to this puzzle, but, when I did, it gave me more pleasure than any puzzle I can recall recently. So elegant and deligtful. |
|
Apr-11-07
 |
| MostlyAverageJoe: <realbrob> The idea of starting the puzzle at move 11 has been refuted several times already, see pages 2 and 3 of the comments. <zb2cr> and <kapabl> Thanks for the ideas. <Shajmaty> You do realize that you did not even remotely address my question, right? |
|
Apr-11-07
 |
| The Diamond: <MostlyAverageJoe:
Elementary, dear Watson :-)
(1) It is Wednesday.
(1A) Therefore, there IS a solution.
(2) Every other move by white results in an advantage for the black. ...
BTW, premise (1) is not necessarily true later in the week.>In fact, Premise (1) is necessarily NOT true later in the week, though Premise (1A) is neither necessarily true nor necessarily not true. (That was fun!) |
|
| Apr-11-07 |
| Stonewaller2: <dbquintillion> is correct about the  's first, optionally two-square, move and en passant. See HJR Murray's History of Chess, the classic reference. He reported seeing al-shatranj (Arab, old-style, chess) players whipping out initial two-square moves to save time, even though strictly according to Hoyle they could only move one square at any time.Murray also reports a wide variety of castling variations taking one or two moves, with either piece moving as a  , etc. It's worth noting that castling "by hand" must involve at least four moves (d-, e- or f- moves off its square,  moves to second rank,  moves to d- or f-file, moves to c- or g-file) and as a practical matter often involves more. I'd have to take issue with the idea that castling in the text reveals a "design flaw" around White's "unprotected" b- though; no one forced Black to take it with his . A lot of common zingers in our glorious game revolve around just such a "poisoned ." The "design flaw" was Black's, failing to see White's sac that opened lines for the castle with check (come to think of it he wasn't forced to take White's either ...) My understanding is that in chess problems the general assumption is that castling is allowed unless otherwise stated in the problem conditions. Not sure if the same applies to a "problem" position taken from a game score tho. |
|
| Apr-11-07 |
| BabalooMoon: In consideration of <dbquintillion>'s points, I have been musing over a rule that would prohibit the king from capturing immediately after castling (we might imagine the king being momentarily exhausted after having to heave his drinks cabinet two whole squares). I envisage much frantic early castling and legions of bishops in fianchetto waiting to pounce. Under these rules, watch Fischer blunder horribly and lose after 19 moves ... Fischer vs Tal, 1961 |
|
Apr-11-07
 |
| YouRang: <dbquintillion><However, from a DESIGN perspective, I think the castling move was invented to speed the game along and improve king safety. It was not invented for offensive purposes...> I'm not quite ready to accept this "design flaw" argument. First of all, I think castling definitely was intended to have offensive purposes. It gets a heavy piece out of the corner and onto a more central (and often open or semi-open) file. Queenside castling is generally somewhat more offensive, yet somewhat less defensive than kingside castling. What's unusual here is that normally the KING does not have an offensive role. Then again, the king has an offensive role only because black left his unguarded rook deep in enemy territory where a castled king could attack it. |
|
| Apr-11-07 |
| Mendrys: I agree with Lurch er...YouRang about castling NOT being a design flaw. It IS both a defensive and offensive move and this is the way it was looked at right after its inception. I think it has produced many beautiful combinations (Morphy's game against Count Isouard and this game come to mind.) and should certainly be left alone. Now to the puzzle. I completely missed it. I did briefly look at QxQ but missed the followup. Maybe tomorrow perhaps.. |
|
Apr-11-07
|
| MostlyAverageJoe: <The Diamond> I definitely maybe not necessarily disagree with your comment. :-) |
|
| Apr-11-07 |
| vibes43: I missed this trick puzzle early this morning. I'm done stewing over it now. It was a good trick and I'm glad CG presented it for us. |
|
Apr-11-07
 |
| kevin86: An elementary level puzzle. White achieves a double attack by using TWO different pieces. A strane inversion with a rook attacking the king and the king a rook. Here,castling is used as an attacking move-instead of the usual defensive mode of sheltering the king. |
|
Apr-11-07
 |
| Gregor Samsa Mendel: <MostlyAverageJoe> I actually think that black's resignation was a tad on the premature side myself, and I mentioned that if it had been me as black I would have played on. But at the level of these players, had black played on, it would have been very unusual if the game ended as anything but a win for white. I imagine that O'Kelly (a particularly strong player) was very disgusted at himself for falling into this trap and did not feel like wasting any more time and energy on this game. As the Great Fischer once said, "Different people feel differently about resigning." |
|
Apr-11-07
|
| Gregor Samsa Mendel: And remember this game, where perhaps the Great Fischer should have resigned earlier, like when he lost his queen for nothing:
Spassky vs Fischer, 1972
Even at world championship level, continuing on in a dead lost game like this just looks stupid. |
|
| Apr-11-07 |
| tbentley: There's an interesting example at http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/... (item 295) where castling attacks two pieces and threatens mate. |
|
Apr-11-07
|
| MostlyAverageJoe: <Gregor Samsa Mendel> Apologies if I misstated your position. The question remains: when is it proper to resign in absence of a forced line with further growth in the disparity between the sides? One pawn advantage? Two pawns? A minor piece? How much positional advantage in addition to material advantage? 8 CPU hours since move 14, now at move 26, and white has gained about 0.10 advantage on my computer playing against itself. I am plodding with this just for kicks, and will have to try to push it into the lines suggested by the others. |
|
| Apr-12-07 |
| kapabl: <dbquintillion> I also dont think there is a <DESIGN FLAW>. If the move order had been 000 xb2 xb2 no one would have had problems with the King "attacking" and capturing the rook. Instead it would have been called legitimate defense against a trespasser. Black ended up suffering the same fate as a trespasser because he trespassed when the center lines were open and his was in danger. The trespasser had no time to get back. |
|
| Jan-02-09 |
| WhiteRook48: what a discovered check! |
|
| Mar-22-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 9...Rxb2 started all the trouble |
|
| May-20-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 11 Nxe5! |
|
Aug-15-09
 |
| whiteshark: ... und ich sag noch <Spiel nicht mit dem Feuer, Alberic!>, aber der Junge kann ja nicht zuhören ... |
|
| Oct-09-09 |
| jerseybob: The flaw is not with Chess, which is perfect (keep your meddling hands off it!), but with our limited minds, which inevitably will make mistakes. And that's the attraction of it all, regardless of whether there's someday a 10-thousand-rated Rybka, we will still have fun playing our fellow patzers. |
|
Oct-10-09
 |
| Phony Benoni: And what about Morphy vs A Morphy, 1850? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
