|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-12-11 | | MountainMatt: Alright, well after getting through the initial confusion about what move this puzzle really was, I came up with 27, er, 30. Na4. Obviously this is wrong, but it appeared to me that it would at least win the exchange (again) for white. If 30. ...Qxa4 31. Qxb6. If 30. Bxa4?? 31. Qxf7+ Kh8 32. Qf8#. So, if I'm not missing something, Na4 seems winning as well. <LifeMasterAJ>, thank you for your comments. The actual solution (which I did not begin to see or even imagine) appears much more difficult than a typical Tuesday. Looking forward to tomorrow! |
 |
Apr-12-11
 | | David2009: Spassky vs Averkin, 1973 White 27? 27.b4 Qa6 28 b5 Qa5 29 Rf4 Bg5 30 Ra4 wins the Q cheaply since 30...Qxa4 31 Nxa4 Bxc1 fails to 32 QXb6! and White has Q for BB and the passed Pawns should win. The immediate 27 Rf4 does not work : 27...Bg5 30 Ra4? Bxa4! Time to
check:
====
Looks like I missed it. The puzzle position: 
click for larger view
Crafty End Game Trainer check:
http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-t...
and I see too late that 27.b4?? is a blunder: Qxb4! and the intended 28. Rb1?? leads to mate. Crafty EGT defends as in the game until move 34, when it varies with 34...Qb5 35.Qxb5 Rxb5 to give 
click for larger view
This position is deceptively difficult: if White (to play) picks up the loose Bishop both Pawns fall because of the White back-rank weakness.
Play might continue 36.Rxf6 Rxb2 37.h3 Rxa2 38.Rxe6 to leave 
click for larger view
This is a book win, but it will not be at all easy to break down Black's hedgehog defence. Enjoy trying! POSTSCRIPT: Some very interesting comments but it is too late at night for me to take them all in. I never noticed that the move order was wrong until I read the comments - despite trying the game line out in parallel with composing the second half of my kibitz (after the ==== ). and then copying Crafty EGT's moves from the variation pasted in to the game. Perhaps <patzer2>'s recipe of starting 27. (or should that be 30?) Rb1 is the way to go. Can I beat Crafty EGT with it? - that's for another day. Well, I take consolation from the fact that I failed to solve the puzzle in excellent company! |
|
Apr-12-11
 | | estrick: Last night, when I looked at the POTD at approximately 12:15 EDT, the diagram displayed on the homepage corresponded correctly to move 27. |
|
| Apr-12-11 | | WhiteRook48: wrong move order. The diagrammed position is actually move 30. |
|
Apr-12-11
 | | Marmot PFL: Didn't spend much time on this, to decide on 27 Rxf7 bxf7 28 Rf1 Be8 (looks forced) 29 Qc8 and didn't see a defense. Guess the move numbers are wrong, but no effect on the result...black seemed to be OK up to 20...Nd7, Nxe5 which opens up too many lines and tactics for white. 20...Nf6-d5 looks like a good chance to trade some pieces and hold. Winning this Soviet ch. was very important to Spassky, to silence his critics. |
|
| Apr-12-11 | | newton296: as soon as I saw how open this position was I thought it was gonna be hard. I did find Rxf7 Bxf7 Rf1 threatening mate in 2 (Qxf7+...Kh8 Qf8++) I see black's Q and rook can't help so black has to give up more material to avoid mate. this doesn't seem easy to me, you gotta work out some serious tactics in a very open position and calculate at least 5 or 6 moves ahead. |
|
| Apr-12-11 | | M.D. Wilson: "It's not Averkin!" |
|
Apr-12-11
 | | sevenseaman: < M.D. Wilson: "It's not Averkin!"> Cryptic, like last words; what are you trying to say? |
|
| Apr-12-11 | | LIFE Master AJ: <<MM> <LifeMasterAJ>, thank you for your comments.> Your welcome, like no problem, man. (Of course, I was as confused as everyone else!) Sometimes I think people attribute too much to me ... just because I am a Life Master. To me, it was more like a case of ... "the blind leading the blind." We were just lucky that we all did not end up in the ditch! |
|
| Apr-12-11 | | LIFE Master AJ: The game itself was wonderful.
So much so, it provided the impetus for a new game collection. |
|
| Apr-12-11 | | stst: <sevenseaman: I do not see how it matters....>
Yeah, pretty much the same.
Everytime I just look at the front page, and try to solve it right there, without anything else (no paper, no pencil, no board, no chessmen, etc.) I trust only in this way I can improve - just like mental arithmetic, no external aid.
When done, I come over to this window and type in and submit my proposed solution or comments, only after that I read other stuff....
If I got it wrong, it's wrong, and I have to do it better next time!! |
|
Apr-12-11
 | | chessgames.com: Today's puzzle was in fact a move number slip-up. We intended to continue the theme of "forks" by presenting this position at White's 27th:
click for larger viewThe best move is elementary. The only reason we thought of it as Tuesday (and not Monday) is that queen-rook forks are sometimes able to elude the eye. But what we didn't notice is this: we actually ran this puzzle back in 2004, from a different move number. Our software used the old graphic we had from 2004, showing the position at White's 30th move:
click for larger viewAs it turns out, both of these positions make fine puzzles. |
|
| Apr-13-11 | | M.D. Wilson: It's not working for Averkin, sevenseaman.
Games like this well and truly knock on the head the idea that Spassky was finished after his loss in the previous year's World Championship. |
|
| Apr-13-11 | | ChessieGuy: Dear Zugzwang67, don't change the subject into why we didn't post our analysis, please. There are all kind of (personal) reasons why we did or didn't post it. I, for instance, saw the right move (Rxf7) and actually did solve it. It's not because i didn't post it, you have to doubt my analysis or anything else. But yes, you may if you feel like it. But i'm not complaining about things going wrong on behalve of CG. I'm not complaining about whether it should be rated easy, medium, difficult etc. In my opinion it all doesn't matter. (note: i'm complaining about the complaints, hahaha). So, there is a chess puzzle to solve. And eventually you see the right position...so just try to solve it. There really is nothing more to it. I'm rated only 1942 ELO, and i don't care if it's monday or friday, don't care if it's easy or difficult. I want to solve it. For me. For my improvement. An i love to read the analysis others make! And starting the analysis by looking at b4 is no shame. I also looked at b4 myself. But why complain when i find out that it's move 30 in stead of 27. Also, the position and move number... what's the point? And maybe CG made a 'fault' by rating it too easy while subjective i could think it should be medium. But a grandmaster or a 2200 ELO would look at the puzzle and actually find it EASY. He would say it's correct rated. My little brother looked at the position for 5 minutes and ran away. So it'll always have a subjective character. But again, what does it matter? Are you a better player or analyser if you know in advance how the puzzle is rated? Does it really help you? "Wow difficult, i'm going to spend 50 minutes in stead of 20" or "wow, difficult, on move 27!! Now, i'm going to try harder this time, analyse a couple more different moves". I think it shouldn't matter. Dzechiel and others were mainly explaining why they went wrong. As if for them it's a shame they can't solve an easy rated puzzle. As if CG does them wrong. He calls it 'inconsistancies' and wrappes it up in all kinds of reasons... Gladly, there are lots of others who can handle what happened with this puzzle. And all the complaining some did...? Well, CG has eventually admitted their fault. Some of them truly must be and feel a 'richer' chessplayer now! I hope you get my point here but if you don't, i understand. Cause i can't explain what i mean more clearly. I consider that as my limitation and i apologize for it in advance. So, here an now, for me, this discussion stops. Sleep well. |
|
Apr-13-11
 | | Once: Mistakes happen. We can try to minimise the number of mistakes we make, we can have contingency plans to deal with the consequences, but there is no getting away from the basic fact that mistakes do happen. How we distinguish ourselves is the way that we deal with those mistakes. In this POTD, CG made a small inadvertent mistake. No big deal. It happens. Many (myself included) didn't even notice it at the time. I just solved the problem put in front of me - or at least I tried to. But when you look back at how we reacted to this mistake, you will see that nearly everyone reacted well to it. We didn't complain or rant or criticise. We just pointed out the problem and said that we were confused. We didn't resort to sarcasm or critical posts. That for me is the sign of a mature forum. Rewind a few years and you will see that glitches like this were handled very differently. Folks would complain about the moderators not doing their jobs, threaten to leave the site, criticise CG.com ... that sort of thing. We don't do that now - or not nearly so much. The position from move 30 is probably around Saturday strength and a number of us pointed that out. But that was all we did. No carping, no criticising, no intent to harm anyone. Just a statement of fact. I like to think of this site as a group of like-minded friends who are trying to help each other out. If someone doesn't get a puzzle we don't criticise them for being dumb - we try to help. If someone is confused by a puzzle, we try to explain. If CG.com gets a puzzle wrong we try to work out what has gone wrong so that subsequent posters can enjoy the puzzle in the way that it was meant to be. <And all the complaining some did...?> The funny thing is, as I read through the previous five pages I don't see the complaining that you are talking about. But what I do see is a heap of unwarranted sarcasm - and a pile of kibitzers quite rightly annoyed by that. As I said, when glitches happen we distinguish ourselves by how we handle them. |
|
Apr-13-11
 | | scormus: <chessgames.com> thanks for clarification, perfectly understandable. When I arrived home from work around midnight Europe time I thought Id make myself feel good by solving the "easy" Tuesday puzzle. I couldnt find the win. Oh, I must be working too hard :( After your explanation I feel abit better.
BTW The puzzle set in 2004. that wasnt Tuesday, I hope! |
|
| Apr-13-11 | | BishopsPawn: No, it wasn't a Tuesday puzzle at move 30. From the comments, it appears to have run on May 22, 2004, which was a Saturday. |
|
| Apr-14-11 | | chesssantosh: <once> i got u right....while solving the puzzle u study the position first irrsepective of move no. and then play the game until u find the right.....i was right on the money on your case well i was just asking that approach of puzzle solving but <ZUGZWANG67> might find it vitriolic post which i dont mind. but <once> i am really impressed by your sincerity and humbleness...you dont bother to answer any silly or stupid question we patzer ask.kibitzers like you are really a great asset for <chessgames.comr>,,,forget about < ZUGZWANG67> and yes <dzchiel> i was confused same as you did....thats why i asked you the question because i know your puzzle solving technique......thanks for your clarification!!! < ZUGZWANG67 > was also interested on it....wasn't he? |
|
| Apr-14-11 | | chesssantosh: oh god!! i m really surprised to know that i am mixed up with unnecessary debate here. <ChessieGuy:@ chesssantosh: i totally agree!
I really don't understand how sometimes some of you understand the most difficult sunday end-game puzzle, and then get blown away by the number 27 on tuesday...like dûûûûh!>
but i dont agree with you <ChessieGuy> because i didnt mean to prove <dzchiel> <once> and others wrong which you are trying to do with your level best.i was merely asking their way of puzzle solving which i guess i knew but this time was a bit different. so if anybody found my post insulting especially <dzchiel> and <once>, i sincerely apologize ...i really didnt mean it.how can i disrespect such GREAT people like you? i wonder how will you find this post because this is old puzzle and might not visit again... interesting and funny...!!! |
|
| Apr-14-11 | | pkkandel: <chesssantosh> seems to be too innocent. |
|
Apr-14-11
| | Once: <chesssantosh> No worries, my friend, and no need to apologise. I knew what you were saying! |
|
| May-23-11 | | Llawdogg: Wow! 26 Bc7! I love it. Way to go, Spassky! |
|
Dec-09-11
 | | notyetagm: PGN ->
[Event "Moskva ch-SU"]
[Site "Moskva ch-SU"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Boris Spassky"]
[Black "Orest Averkin"]
[ECO "B44"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "69"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nb5 d6 6. c4 Nf6
7. N1c3 a6 8. Na3 Be7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O Bd7 11. Be3 Rb8
12. Rc1 Qa5 13. f4 Rfd8 14. Qd2 Be8 15. Rfd1 Nb4 16. Qe1 b5
17. Kh1 Rdc8 18. cxb5 axb5 19. e5 dxe5 20. fxe5 Nd7 21. Naxb5
Nxe5 22. Bf4 Ned3 23. Bxd3 Nxd3 24. Rxd3 Bxb5 25. Rg3 Rb6
26. Bc7 Rxc7 27. Qe5 g6 28. Qxc7 Bh4 29. Rf3 Be8 30. Rxf7 Bxf7
31. Rf1 Be8 32. Qc8 Kg7 33. Qxe8 Bf6 34. Ne4 e5 35. Nxf6 1-0 |
|
Dec-09-11
| | notyetagm: Game Collection: VISIALIZE THE THREAT: ++ ! Spassky vs Averkin, 1973 26 Bf4-c7! White gains additional control of c7 with 27 Qe1-e5 |
|
Dec-26-11
| | notyetagm: Game Collection: CLEARANCE FORK: TACTICAL BASE SELF-BLOCKED NOT D |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 30.Rxf7