|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Aug-13-08
 |
| whiteshark: <TheaN :<52....Qf5!>> Now that's, ...hmmm, funny. Is use this sign () only for 'died' in some player's bio. This time it's quite a deadly check, too. :o) |
 |
Aug-13-08
 |
| TheaN: However you want to go against it, and are the official signs for check and checkmate, opposed to + (which is seemingly right as it's still a dagger) and # (which is just incorrect but progressable for computers). I've heard this is not the same everywhere, but ever since I started some higher tactical learning sessions was told as checkmate, and it is the equivalent of with an extra dash (called Dagger and DoubleDagger in ASCII and HTML). |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| TheaN: <Woody Wood Pusher: If 52...Qd1 white can play Kc4 safely> 52....Qd1 53.Kc4?? Qb1! identical to the theme used ingame. Compared to 52....Qf5 53.Kc4?? Qb1! nothing is different, actually. |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| johnlspouge: Wednesday (Medium/Easy): Black to play and win.
Material: N for B. White has a bad dark-square B, so Black can infiltrate almost at will on light squares. The White Qe3 and Bg5 mutually protect on a rubber band. Mate requires forcing a self-block with the White pieces or driving the White Kd3 towards the Black Ps and Kc7. The Ng3 has a possible royal fork with Nf1+. Candidates (52
): Qf5+, Qd1+
52
Qf5+ 53.Kc4 [Kd2 Nf1+] Qb1 (threatening Qb5#)
The White Qe3 and Bg5 are singularly unable to offer aid to Kc4. Against a mate-in-1 threat, the only defenses are: check, direct frustration of the threat, or run with the K. Direct frustration does not work:
(1) 54.d5 Qb5+ 55.Kd4 Nf5+
winning Qe3. Because flight with Kc4-c5 stops short with Qb5#, the only option is check: (2) 54.Bd8+ Kd7
and White faces the same deadly variations as before, without the option of check. As <lost in space> posted and <SuperPatzer77> pointed out, in Variation (1), 55...Nf5+ is better replaced by 55...Qd5#. |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| johnlspouge: <<dzechiel> wrote: [snip] "When you look and look and look and can't find the win (no matter how promising it is), go back and try another line." [snip] > This is why calculation is sometimes necessary :)
|
|
Aug-13-08
|
| johnlspouge: <<kap54> wrote: While 52.Qe3 was a terrible choice, 53.Kc4 was even worse. Two bad blunders and Tal is toast.> Can you suggest some alternative to 53.Kc4 that might have saved the game for Tal? "Blunder" is a strong word, because the conditions of the move (e.g., extreme time-pressure) are unknown. Please recall that Tal was a world champion. |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| playground player: Is it me, or have the puzzles been harder this week than usual? |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| lost in space: <<playground player> wrote: Is it me, or have the puzzles been harder this week than usual?> I have the same impression. On Monday I was close to give up and today it took me much more time as usual on a Wednesday. |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| lost in space: After reading the comments posted today, I decided to buy a book about Tal from Tal. Here one of most impressive wins of Tal. He beat his most feared opponent Polugajewsi Polugaevsky vs Tal, 1979 |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| YouRang: It took me a while to see the light here. I figured I had to do one of the following: [1] Create a threat to mate (and I noted that c4 would be a good final resting place for the white king), or [2] Push the king to a square where I can fork the K+Q (and I noted that d2 or possibly d4 would be good for that). Now what? I seemed pretty clear that I had to lead off by moving my queen, and that it should be a forcing move. That leaves only two such candidates: ...Qd1+ or ...Qf5+. Naturally, I first spent a bunch of time exploring 52...Qd1+, and after getting nowhere, I took a look at 52...Qf5+. Not seeing the winning move, I flipped back again to ...Qd1+, and renewed my confidence that there was nothing there. Just as I was getting weary of flip-flopping, I *finally* I noticed that I had time to follow 52...Qf5+ 53.Kc4 with 53...Qb1! (threatening ...Qb5#), and that black had precious little to do about it. He seems forced to try 54.d5 to make an escape square, but then 54...Qb5+ 55.Kd4 and now my knight fork is there. Okay, I see now people posting that black can still mate rather than win the queen. But winning the queen is more fun (...and I didn't notice that black had mate). I'm not sure why it took me so long to see 53...Qb1. I guess that sometimes it's hard to spot moves where the opponent seems to have a free tempo to defend, and you're not expecting that tempo to turn out to be useless. |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| kevin86: Funny,I saw the first move,but completely muffed the follow-up. After 52... f5+,white has to play 53  c4 as d2 would sucuumb to  f1+ picking off the queen.  lack's second move is 53...b1!!  b5#. White's only defense is to give the king a flight square with 54 d5 ;black then counters with a second fork by the versitile horse 54...b5+ 55 d4 f5+ again picking off the queen.
That ain't no way to treat a lady!
Note:there is an even BETTER move for black after 55 d4 xd5# a fine epaulette mate. |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| chrisowen: Was there cooperation of queen and knight, you have to know it or you dont? Ng3 forks and any harsh advantage is compensated for. |
|
| Aug-13-08 |
| zb2cr: Oh, boo. I missed this one--too many lines to check, and I lost track of who did what to whom. |
|
| Aug-13-08 |
| ILikeFruits: tal was a cool dude...
i do not know the man...
but i have heard of his exploits...
tal is better than you....
and you too... |
|
| Aug-13-08 |
| AccDrag: Official according to whom, Thea? :D |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| patzer2: For today's Wednesday puzzle solution, Black's deflection 52...Qf5+! initiates an interesting double attack to finish off a pursuit combination. If 53. Kd2, then the Knight Fork 53...Nf1+  wins. In the game continuation after 53. Kc4 Qb1!, Black has managed to corner the great Tal in a simple mating web. If 54. d5, then 54...Qb5+ 55. Kd4 Nf5+ is another winning Knight Fork. |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| Marmot PFL: Only queen checks need be considered -
Qf1+ Kc2 and white is OK
Qd1+ Qd2 Qb1+ Qc2 defends
this leaves Qf5+ Kc4 (Kd2 Nf1+) Qb1 d5 cd5+ Kc5 Qb6+ winning the queen |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| johnlspouge: <<YouRang> wrote: [snip] I'm not sure why it took me so long to see 53...Qb1. [snip] > I enjoy your posts because we solve the puzzles very differently. I gather you do not consider your board vision a strength ;>) Given your ability to synthesize, however, the following observation might be useful. Many CG puzzles demonstrate that, although checks yield instant gratification, the threat of mate-in-1 (which also forces an opponent to drop everything) is often more effective. With all the major piece mates I have (rather pointlessly) calculated to completion, it was natural to push the White K toward the Black K and Ps for a mating net, suggesting 52...Qf5+ 53.Kc4. Explicit recognition of the nearly equal merits of mate-in-1 threats vs. checks then made 53...Qb1 readily visible. |
|
| Aug-13-08 |
| Vollmer: Wow , Tal was lost from about move 25 . Is this Taimanov's best effort or what . Hats off to Mr. T . I am amazed . |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| TheaN: <Official according to whom, Thea? :D> Sidenote: TheaN is a nickname as whole; it is not the Thea N. combination which is logical: now don't go there asking me WHERE the nick cam from. Answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...
Direct link does not appear with the brackets: click the top of the list; usage point six in the article. Not really official.
And in such a way, that the FIDE seems to apply the computerized signs, which I wasn't aware of: http://www.fide.com/component/handb...
Appendix E13
...or the above article must not have come from the official rules but it seems that it does. I have to admit that in true writing / look more natural, but on the computer +/# do. It's weird, though, but I've actually been using the Daggers for quite some time now not knowing they are stylistic symbols. I like them, as they show some correlation (the double dagger only has one dash extra), where the + and # do not. |
|
Aug-13-08
 |
| dzechiel: I have some really old chess books that use "ch." to indicate check. Some just old chess books that use the dagger for check. But all recent books seem to conform to the PGN standard and use '+' for check and '#' for mate. |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| TheaN: I believe that the official idea was that '' was indeed a sign of the deceased, so they related it to checking of the King in chess (although that's weird as it should be checkmate in that way), of course, was a logical followup: the deadliest of deceased :), so the last check... in some way. <But all recent books seem to conform to the PGN standard> The PGN standard is corrected for computer play, computer analysis, computer notation and computer storage: I don't know if the FIDE really ever 'corrected' and (correction for some maybe). For as far as I know, and ARE accepted in official play. But I'm actually not sure. As long as the notation is clear enough it should not be a true problem: I guess it's preference. I never understood why stalemate never got a sign. I suggest $. Gotta love confusion: Be2$... |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| YouRang: <johnlspouge: <<YouRang> wrote: [snip] I'm not sure why it took me so long to see 53...Qb1. [snip] >
I enjoy your posts because we solve the puzzles very differently. I gather you do not consider your board vision a strength ;>) > Well, on Monday I was having board vision difficulties, but that was because I went down a less efficient (i.e. longer) path. Today, I don't think my problem was board vision, but rather my mental chess engine was pruning too quickly. I probably glanced at 53...Qb1, but noticed that it wasn't check, so I assumed that white would have time to respond effectively. What bothers me even more is that I had previously noticed that the white king would be vulnerable to mate on c4 via ...Qb5#. So I already had all the pieces of the puzzle (and by that I mean *both* pieces) right in front of me, but it took me a long time to realize that I could put them together. :-( |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| patzer2: For those interested in the shortest route to mate from the final position, here's a breakout: Mikhail Tal - Mark Taimanov
click for larger view
White to move, after 53...Qb1:
1. (-#3): 54.Bd8+ Kd7 55.d5 Qb5+ 56.Kd4 Qxd5#
2. (-#2): 54.d5 Qb5+ 55. Kd5 Qxd5#
3. (-#1): 54.Qxg3 Qb5#
4. (-#1): 54.Qf3 Qb5#
5. (-#1): 54.Bf6 Qb5#
6. (-#1): 54.Kc5 Qb5#
|
|
Aug-13-08
|
| johnlspouge: <<YouRang> wrote: [snip] I probably glanced at 53...Qb1, but noticed that it wasn't check, so I assumed that white would have time to respond effectively. [snip] > This is of course why it is worth pointing out the strength of mate-in-1 threats. It took me many CG puzzles to realize their immediacy. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 34...Rxc2+
