< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|May-23-06|| ||vmur2000: If there was not a pawn on e4 then I think black escapes this mate atleast|
|May-23-06|| ||SaltiNeil: Someone please tell me it's Friday since I got all the puzzles so far this week! That would be a first.|
|May-23-06|| ||gerpm: Let's have the Monday puzzle again!!!|
|May-23-06|| ||KingV93: Got this one right away. First time that's happened when all the kibitzing wasn't about how darn easy the puzzle is.|
|May-23-06|| ||Whitehat1963: I saw the trap, but I was looking at a different move order, with Bg5 first. I suppose that doesn't work though, right?|
|May-23-06|| ||avicell: 40.Bg5 was my answer. It transposes to this checkmate, or, if black responds with 40...Kg7, white gets the bishop with 41.Rxd6. But I like Quinteros' solution better. It forces mate.|
|May-23-06|| ||RandomVisitor: On 40.Bg5+ Black has Ke6! with advantage to Black.|
|May-23-06|| ||Gypsy: <RandomVisitor> Should have been clearer. I was mainly speculating about thought processes: Black clearly had no sense of any danger, whatsoever. This was all played just before the time control and it would have been so easy to do the "wiggle" <39...Kg8 40.Ra8+ Kf7 41.Ra7...> with suddenly a ton of time to think, or adjourn. It does allow the <39...Kg8 40.exf5 gxf5 41.Raa5 ...> line, but that looks decent as well. Soviets were generally urged to take clock-time gaining oportunities like this, especially before adjournments.|
|May-23-06|| ||kevin86: I got this one! White clears the way for the rook's control of the seventh row-checks with the bishop and mates with the rook in elegant fashion.|
|May-23-06|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: One of the harder Tuesday puzzles, but I still found the entire combination.|
|May-23-06|| ||YouRang: Got it. I saw that the rook sac 40. Rxd6 cxd6 made the Black king's position much less secure by opening the 7th rank for the other rook. |
Then I noticed that 41. Bg5+ created an interesting variation of the familiar rook+bishop mating pattern, where the king is trapped by his own pawns. Black can delay mate by trading his queen for the bishop, but of course that would be futile.
|May-23-06|| ||thegoodanarchist: This puzzle is in the book "Combination Challenge" by Hays and Hall. I recommend everyone study that book, but an even better one is the Informant book "Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames"|
|May-23-06|| ||HoopDreams: i found the solution in about 1 second, blacks king is trapped !|
|May-23-06|| ||Gypsy: <kennel46> 40.f3 Qxf3 41.Rxd6 Ke7 42.Bc5 Qe2+... and it looks like Black has a draw by perpetual.|
|May-23-06|| ||brainzugzwang: Have the tournament book, so had to DQ myself from this one. Remember it because it took me FOREVER to figure out the mate.|
<OBIT> Yes, the editors said 39... Kf6 was time pressure and gave it ??
<Marco65> The book says Black did resign at that point. Anyone have a definite answer?
|May-23-06|| ||Halldor: The text was the first move I checked but very briefly among other moves (didn't see the mate then). I also tried to trap the queen for a few seconds. Then I tried 40.Bg5 and then I saw the rook+bishop mating pattern (as <YouRang> mentioned) - and that 40.Rxd6+ should come first. Very good puzzle.|
|May-23-06|| ||dzechiel: <Marco65> It didn't occur to me that you might be doing your opponent a favor by alowing him to administer mate.|
When a game becomes hopeless for me, I just resign and congratulate my opponent on his play (unless, of course, I made a terrible blunder! :D).
So, what's the general opinion of the players here? Is it "gentlemanly" to allow your opponent to administer checkmate if he has sprung a dazzling combination on you? Or are you in effect saying, "Play it out, I want to see if you can do it." If you resign the moment you know the position is completely lost, is that gentlemanly?
What if the position is just "lost", but there's a 1% chance your opponent might screw up? How about when you are completely lost, but you know that your opponent is considerably weaker than you and he might blow the win? Is it rude to play on?
|May-23-06|| ||unferth: <dzechiel> In the event of a truly dazzling combo, I might play on with a smile, at least if I was on good terms with my opponent.
If it's simply a lost position but there's enough complexity to leave some doubt, then I would certainly play on unless my opponent was significantly stronger. Against a considerably weaker opponent, I would by all means play on until things were clearcut. I once blundered a queen to a D player in the early middlegame in the first round of a tournament, and I still managed to pull out the point.
On the other hand, making a strong opponent play to mate in a clearcut position with no time pressure is just insulting, IMO.|
|May-23-06|| ||NOKRO: Got the puzzle in one min. Man I am good!|
|May-23-06|| ||OBIT: Well, now, let's think about this resignation issue from a purely mathematical standpoint. If you resign, your mathematical expectation is obviously zero, while playing on always gives you an expectation greater than zero - in a ridiculously lost postion, it may be very *close* to zero, but it is always *more* than zero. Let's not forget that life insurance actuaries estimate that, assuming you are in good health, your odds of dying during the next hour are about 8 million to one, and I'd imagine those odds go up during a chess game, considering how chess is a stressful activity that can elevate blood pressure and potentially mess up your body and all. Therefore, the way to maximize your winning chances in a clearly lost position is: |
First, always play the game out to mate.
Second, when you see mate in unavoidable, let all the time run off your clock before you move again. Aside from maximizing the odds that your opponent dies before you finally move, there is the added possibility this action will push a marginally unstable opponent into full-blown bug-eyed hysteria. And, we all know there are plenty of players like *that* in the chess arena.
|May-24-06|| ||RandomVisitor: <OBIT><Well, now, let's think about this resignation issue from a purely mathematical standpoint>If we follow your logic, then every game you lose you "waste" roughly 1 hour trying for that 1 in 100 game where your opponent screws up. This activity perhaps raises your rating by 5 points. Meanwhile, if you resigned these "lost" games and spent the extra time reading chess books or reviewing opening books, your rating might go up 20 points. So, from a mathematical standpoint, it might not pay to play each game out to mate.|
|May-24-06|| ||YouRang: <dzechiel> IMO, it's apprpriate to resign if:|
(1) you see a clear-cut way for your opponent to win, and you are conviced that your opponent sees it too.
(2) you have lost interest in the game (probably because you have blundered).
In training games, I think it is best to play on to mate. The point of playing is to learn, and one can learn some things even from a lost posoition.
In a friendly game, I don't have a problem playing to mate (or if my opponent plays to mate). Maybe you can get a swindle! It's just for fun, right?
In a serious/tournament game, you might play to mate in an obviously lost position as a way to congratulate your opponent's stellar play.
|May-27-06|| ||patzer2: After the sham decoy sacrifice 40. Rxd6+! Black must surrender his Queen to avoid the game's slightly quicker mate.|
|May-18-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 40 Rxd6+!!|
|Dec-13-10|| ||notyetagm: Game Collection: Capturing removes the guard twice: D&D|
Quinteros vs V Tukmakov, 1973 40 Rd5xBd6+! destroys d6-bishop protect, deflects c7-pawn poser
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·