|Apr-30-05|| ||notyetagm: A <nasty intermezzo> by Sherwin, 45 ... f3+! 0-1. He takes neither bishop (45 ... ♖xb3, 45 ... exd6) but instead <decoys> the White king to the third rank with the pawn fork threat of 45 ... f3+!, forking king and rook. If the White king takes the pawn to defend the e2-rook, then Black takes the b3-bishop <with check> and <then> grabs the d6-bishop (46 ♔xf3 ♖xb3+ and 47 ... exd6), emerging ahead a piece for a pawn.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||syracrophy: 44...f3+! is for a "Sure win" (Sherwin)
44...f3+! 45.♔xf3 ♖xb3 46.♔moves exd6 with a whole piece up
What a really nice pun! "Sherwin = Sure win" :-P
|Jan-17-07|| ||Ashram64: nice pun!
strong pawn sac that lead things into domino effect! the fall of the ironwall.
|Jan-17-07|| ||black knight c6: would I be correct in thinking that 13. Nd1 loses? black has reached a comfortable development here, and white needs fast action to keep any initiative rather than trying to reposisition and getting overwhelmed by the classic black push in the sicilian, d5.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||Shams: 13...Nd1 is too slow for sure. But I'd pick on 15...c4 first. The dragon bishop must have been thrilled to see that.|
On the other hand, I'm probably "annotating by result", since a couple moves later black moves his queen knight back to the first rank too.
|Jan-17-07|| ||Petronius: 44...Rb1 followed by 45...f3+! Great play from Sherwin. The pun is really nice and quite true.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||Phony Benoni: An interesting combination of Najdorf and Dragon. 7.a3 is the slow move which allows Black this luxury. It was also played by Cardoso twice at the Portoroz Interzonal, with no better results for White.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||MarvinTsai: 41.Bd2 is really bad. White could easily get back a pawn by stopping the black rook. If it's played with regular time basis, that's pityful since he finally got lots of time after 40 moves but just made a blunder!|
|Jan-17-07|| ||Wade Keller: Seems could have played 42....f3+|
|Jan-17-07|| ||Phony Benoni: 42...f3+ 43.Kxh1 fxe2 44.Be1, and it doesn't look like Black can break down the blockade of his passed pawn before the White king gets over and eliminates it.|
The play after move 40 is a bit purposeless, but it's possible that the players were in such a time scramble that they weren't aware of reaching the time control. I know that Sherwin was notorious for being a time pressure addict.
|Jan-17-07|| ||kevin86: Rats! Just when it looked like white found a way for his bishops to escape the pin-skewer on his two bishops by exchanging one and moving the other,black comes up with a perfect intermezzo in the form of yet another fork-unguarded that it be. White's king is thus diverted into a place where a check allows black to gobble up the bishops back to back.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||DKWRRT: i am new to chess and for the life of me can't figure out who won, and why. can anybody help.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||euripides: <DK> assuming you are familiar with the notation: 0-1 means White lost. Rossetto resigned because after 46.Kxf3 (otherwise the rook is lost) Rxb3+ if the king moves e.g. 47.Kf2 Black wins the bishop with 47...exd6. If white instead plays 47.Re3+ Black exchanges rooks and then wins the bishop, 47...Rxe3+ 48.Kxe3 exd6. Either way Black is left a piece up in an endgame, which is enough to resign at this level. Black will eventually use his extra material to queen one of his pawns.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||WannaBe: <DKWRRT> In chess, winner is (usually) awarded one point, and the loser zero point. |
If you look at the score, it will list the score of white first, followed by black.
So, if you see 1-0, it means white won, if you see 0-1, it means black won, and 1/2-1/2 means draw.
The why part may be a little more complicated to explain. It's gonna take some time. =)
|Jan-17-07|| ||DKWRRT: thank you both. i figured out the 0-1 but couldn't get to the end. are there any sources that you would suggest. a few guys at work started a chess club of sorts and they all have played for a few years and some a very long time. so long story short, they are killing me i have only one win and 2 stalemates, otherwise all loses.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||nescio: <41.Bd2 is really bad. White could easily get back a pawn by stopping the black rook.> Could be I'm missing something, but I think White can still easily draw with 43.h4 (instead of 43.Be1) 43...Bxh4 44.Bxf4 Bg5 45.Bxd6.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||euripides: <DK> If you're completely new to the game, it's a great help to read an introductory book. An author I like is William Hartston who wrote 'Teach yourself chess' but that may only be available in Britain.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||Chess Carnival: <William Hartston> I was googling about this guy and found out that he wrote a book that is called <How To Cheat At Chess> (1977). It's funny because how can you cheat back in 1977? Much harder because there weren't those super-computer available (neither the micro communication devices), probably they would need to find a way to communicate with other GMs in the audience. Also, as you are OTB, its likely you have a better 'feel' of what is going on.|
|Jan-17-07|| ||hidude: his complete works:
How To Cheat At Chess (1977)
Soft Pawn (1980)
The Ultimate Irrelevant Encyclopaedia (1984)
Kings of Chess (1985)
Chess - The Making of the Musical(1986)
Drunken Goldfish and Other Irrelevant Scientific Research (1988)
Teach Yourself Better Chess (1997)
The Book of Numbers: The Ultimate Compendium of Facts About Figures (2000)
What Are the Chances of That? (2004)
What's What - The Encyclopedia of Quite Extraordinary Information (2005)
|Jan-17-07|| ||Chess Carnival: From your list, one book seems to be the clear sequel of another:|
<How To Cheat At Chess> then <What Are the Chances of That?>
In his 2004 book <What Are the Chances of That?> the author had to deal with the problems his tricks of cheating got after FIDE rigorous new rules, strongly condemnatory ones got in practice. In this volume he revisits his '77 book and concludes that cheating doesn't pay it. Very sad ;)