The first thing you notice is that black has two pieces under attack. Because of this, it looks like the first move must be

16...Rxh2

Black still has two pieces under attack, but I don't think the rook can now be taken. If 17 Kxh2 Qh4+ 18 Kg7 (or 18 Kg8) Qxg3+ 19 Kh1 Qh2#. So, if white wants to take something, he better play

17 fxg4

The next move is tougher to find. Black has several tries, but I think the most straightforward, 17...Bxg3, has problems. While this picks off another white pawn (which was contributing to the defence of the white king), protects the rook, and covers the f2 square so that white can't move his rook up to provide the king with running room, it does allow white to play 18 Qf3, which attacks the bishop on g3 and threatens 19 Qxf7+ followed by 20 Qxg7#. This looks too good for white.

Instead, I think black should go for

17....Rxe3

The black rook on h2 is still immune, and this move keeps the white queen from entering the fray on f3. There's a real threat of 18...Rxg3+ 19 Kxh2 Qh4# to be dealt with.

What now for white, how to stop all of these threats? It may be time to give something back. g3 cannot be protected, so perhaps white should block the e3-rook and attack the h2-rook with

18 Nf3 Rxb2

Black gets his piece back and is two pawns to the better. 19...Bxg3 is still threatened.

There may be more to this, but it looks to me like white is killed.

Here's my computer checked analysis:

<16...Rxh2!! 17. fxg4>

Capturing the poison Rook leads to mate-in-three after 17. Kxh2 Qh4+! 18. Kg2 18...Qxg3+ 19. Kh1 Qh2#.

<17... Rxe3!> is the only winning follow-up.

Giving White too much opportunity to equalize is 17... Bxg3? 18. Qf3! Qe7 19. Qxg3 (not 19. Bc1? Rh3 20. Kg2 Rh2+ 21. Kg1 Rh3 22. Kg2 f5! ) 19... Rxd2 20. Ba3 Rxd3 21. Rf3 =.

<18. Bf6 Rh3!> This difficult move is Black's strongest follow-up.

Problematic but perhaps still decisive for Black is 18... gxf6!? 19. Kxh2 Rxg3! 20. Kh1 f5! 21. Nf3 Rh3+ 22. Kg2 fxg4 .

<19. Rf3 Rxg3+ 20. Kh1>

Also losing is 20. Rxg3 Rxg3+ 21. Kf2 Qxf6+ .

<20... gxf6 21. Rxg3 Bxg3>

Also winning is 21... Rxg3! 22. Nf1 f5! 23. Nxg3 Qh4+ 24. Kg2 Qxg3+ 25. Kf1 Be5! 26. Rc1 Qh3+ 27. Ke1 Bg3+ 28. Kd2 Qh2+ 29.Qe2 Bf4+ .

Material: B for N. Black has developed much more than White. Both Black Re8 and Rh4 are on open or semi-open files; both Black Bd6 and Bg4 attack the White K-side; and Qd8 is ready to join the attack on the d8-h4 diagonal. The White Ra1 and Bb2 are mostly irrelevant for K-side defense. Black is about to lose a piece, either Bg4 or Rh4. The local K-side superiority permits sacrifice, if the Black attack can focus itself. The Ph2 is attacked by Rh4 and implicitly attacked by Bd3, however, suggesting a candidate.

Candidates (16…): Rxh2

16…Rxh2

(1) White cannot accept the sacrifice of Rh2, because of a mate.

17.Rxh2 Kxh2 18.Qh4+ Kg1 [or Kg2] 19.Qxg3+ Kh1 20.Qh2#

(2) White can try to accept the sacrifice of Bg4.

17.fxg4

Now,

17…Bxg3 (threatening 18…Qh4 19…Rh1+ 20…Qh2#)

looks good, but it loses. Because the Black Rh2 pins Nd2 to the unprotected Bb2, only Qd1 can stop the threatened invasion, so Black might plan on

18.Qf3 Rxd2 (threatening 19…Qh4 20…Qh2#)

Unfortunately, White can now counterattack and mate:

19.Qxf7+ Kh8 20.Qxg7#

The capture 17…Bxg3 is unnecessary, however, because the mate threat still prevents White from accepting the sacrifice of Rh2. Thus, Black keeps Qd1 out of f3 with

17…Rxe3 (threatening 18…Ree2 19…Reg2# and 18…Rxg3+ 19…Qh4# or 19…Rh1+)

White can avoid the direct threats with

18.Rf3 Ree2 (threatening 19…Rxd2 or 19…Rhg2+ 20…Rxb2)

and the position collapses with the doubled Rs on the 2-nd rank.

(3) Thus, on move 17, White must decline the sacrifice of both Rh2 and Bg4, but needs to recapture at least a P. Black can withdraw safely with 18.Bd2, however, because the mate threat still protects Rh2. To threaten Rh2, White must remove the mate threat, which depends on Rf1 blocking a flight square for Kg1.

17.Re1 [Rf2 Rxf2] Bxg3 (threatening 18…Qxh4 and mate soon)

and because the Rf1 is at e1 and no longer supporting White mate threats along the f-file, the failed variation above succeeds.

18.Bf6 Rh3, threatening

19…Rexg3+ 20.Kf2 Rh2+ 21.Ke1 Re3+ 22.Qe2 Rexe2+ etc.

so White cannot capture Qd8 with 19.Bxd8, without losing material.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote...

A chess genius is a human being who focuses vast, little-understood mental gifts and labors on an ultimately trivial human enterprise.

- George Steiner

- George Steiner>

John of course you are right in dismissing Steiner's view.

I am going to second that a little less politely.... (and verbosely as is my want :>) tough luck to those opposed)

George Steiner can suck my proverbial appendage :>)

If chess is a trivial human enterprise, then so are all the arts. I've never heard someone talk of Beethoven or Shakespeare as wasted minds.

There is no way you can deny chess is an art, because it involves intense creativity and imagination, and at its heights culminates in profound aesthetic beauty. The aesthetic beauty lies not only in the elegant geometry of tactical patterns, but in the logic of both tactics and strategy.

Anyone who says that something that doesn't directly impact on the practical world is trivial, is a shallow and trivial thinker.

What is more important than the concrete output of cultures is their richness and meaning. Arts are crucial here. And chess is an art that allows not just for creative expression and deep aesthetic appreciation; it also builds and expands minds. Chess requires a rare level of right/left brain co-ordination, and demands the application of an extremely diverse range of mental faculties:

*Memory
*Intuition and pattern recognition
*Logic
*Problem solving
*Planning and flexible planning
*Spatial intelligence
*Creativity
*Imagination
*Abstract thinking/reasoning
*Integration of abstract and concrete thinking

Chess also develops character traits, and without an exhaustive list there are:

*Calmness and clarity under pressure
*Emotional control
*Fighting spirit
*Ability to accept setbacks

So chess is an important aspect of culture, which provides practitioners with:

*Rich aesthetic appreciation,
*The opportunity for creative expression
*The development of mind and character, with flow on effects to other pursuits

With this in mind, the chess genius is:

"A flagship for an integral aspect of global culture(s). The chess genius applies their talents to provide the world with an opportunity for rich aesthetic appreciation. As the primary developers of the skills and knowledge that underpin the game, chess geniuses bring to the world a craft that strengthens the mind and character of its practitioners, which in turn contributes to a better world".

- David Lacey

I wrote very deliberately. How did you infer that I was dismissing it?

I'm sure Steiner is a well educated intellectual, with great knowledge of languages and literature. However, looking down his nose at Chess professionals and enthusiasts as enguaged in a "trivial enterprise" makes about as much sense as criticizing great musicians, writers and artists who produce works of art for the pleasure and edification of their audiences.

I'm not familiar with Steiner's work as a literary critic, where he is supposed to be an expert, but I found the following quote from http://www.jeetheer.com/culture/ste... amusing:

<Unlike their insect counterparts, book reviewers can be very entertaining when they sting. In tribute to the art of book reviewing, it is worth revisiting one of the most amusing critiques ever inflicted upon a George Steiner book.

“But what can you expect from a critic who, in his Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, performed stylistic analysis on a passage from the Russian on the basis of its uses of ‘a’ and ‘the,’ even though Russian has neither the definite nor the indefinite article?” John Simon once asked in The New Criterion. “Or a scholar, moreover, who in an essay in The Atlantic Monthly settled the vexed ‘Homeric question’ (without knowing Greek): the Iliad and Odyssey are the works of the same poet, the former of his angry youth, the latter of his mellow old age? Or of a fellow (sorry, Extraordinary Fellow, his title at Cambridge University; in Geneva, he is a professor) who published a two-part essay in The Kenyon Review arguing that Robert Graves was an overrated minor poet, but an underrated major prose writer, and cited as evidence, among others, Grave’s two novels about the Argonauts, The Golden Fleece and Hercules, My Shipmate – without realizing that they were the same novel under its British and American titles? And when a reader wrote in pointing out this and other comparable errors, Steiner’s printed rejoinder was not an apology but a string of insults hurled at the hapless correspondent.”>

Another even less kind critic of Steiner suggested that as a literary critic and author Steiner "packs eleven pounds of (slang word for human waste) into a ten pound bag."

Perhaps Steiner would do well to remember the words of a truly well rounded intellectual and former World Chess Champion, Emanuel Lasker, who really knew something about what he called "our little game:"

"Lies and hypocrisy do not survive for long on the chessboard. The creative combination lies bare the presumption of a lie, while the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite."

-- Lasker's Manual of Chess

I wrote very deliberately. How did you infer that I was dismissing it?>

When you said, now back to something non-trivial, I thought you meant back to the chess/kibitzing.

Now that I'm thinking about it you could have meant you were ceasing chess activity for the moment and moving on to something else.