|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-22-04 |
| abejnood: Finally there is a puzzle that doesn't have a long follow up! This one has been for me a lot easier than the previous ones. Out of curiosity, are Monday puzzles simpler than Sunday puzzles? |
 |
Mar-22-04
 |
| Sneaky: Wow, look at this: In Plachetka vs Ftacnik, 2002 the same position arose, and Plachetka let Ftacnik off the hook with 8.Nc3?? and went on to lose the game! Shame on both of them! |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| likestofork: Or, maybe, Gee, I wouldn't let a knight out on a horse, like this? Maybe I have, but revisionist history, coupled with selective memory is a pretty strong combination.... |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| Bobsterman3000: Wait, why exactly did black resign? |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| Creator of Time: nah, losin a minor in the openin hurts |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| erikcu: <Bobstermann3000: Wait, why exactly did black resign?>
It took me a minute to answer that question too. I think because if black does not do anything to protect c8 in the next move white mates the king. Meanwhile if black tries protecting c8 white takes the knight at h6 with his bishop. Black can retake that with his bishop and white follows by taking the bishop with the queen. Black down a bishop with no recourse, game over for the most part. |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| TheTurk: i realy like problems like this that exploite two weaknesses that cant both be parried at once. they make you think a little harder, and though there arent necessarily more variations theres just more going on on the board at once. |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| Jatayu: Where was Razuvaev going with that knight? f6, to challenge the bishop on e3? Expecting white to move Qd2 on the next move to try to take out his bishop on g7? |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| TheTurk: jat: you mean f5 |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| Calchexas: <abejnood>:Oh yeah.
<pawntificator>:LOL to all. |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| Egghead: 8. ... Qe6 seems to meet both threats, covering c8 and pinning the bishop, but then White has 9.d5. |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| gcnmarcus: I don't know if taking the knight is necessarily a guaranteed win. Has someone actually analyzed this out or have some chess tool to determine the stats on this? |
|
Mar-22-04
 |
| kevin86: Short and Sweet! A rare queen fork from the first rank!! |
|
Mar-22-04
 |
| patzer2: For some reason, it helps me in solving a combination to repeat the maxim that combinations usually result from "inadequately protected pieces or a weak King position." In this case, the Knight on h6 is defended only once and the Bishop on c8 is undefended. So, how can we get a double attack going against both weak pieces? The answer 8. Qc1 to today's (8. ?) puzzle then becomes obvious. Of course, as Egghead points out, you also need to look ahead one more move to see that 8...Qe6 fails to the pretty deflection move 9. d5! |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| trguitar: from Crafty:
+2.43 8. Qc1 Bg4 9. Bxh6 Bxh6 10. Qxh6 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Qxf3 12. Qg7 Qe4+ 13. Kd2 Rf8 14. Nc3 Qf3 15. Bb5+ Nd7 16. Bxd7+ Kxd7 17. Rhf1 Basically, the idea is that white will be a piece up, and neither side has completed development, yet. |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| karlzen: Amusing. If black wants to play his knight to h6 en route to f5, he should insert Qa5+ Nc3. The knight may go to f5 and d6 (if white places a bishop on c4) to let the light-squared bishop out, then the knight can return to f5 which is a nice outpost. The d4-pawn may prove weak. <egghead>, I think some people may have missed Qe6. d5 is obvious of course, but still.. <gcnmarcus>, Black's best is probably 8...Bg4 to gain some pawns for the piece. 9.Bxh6 Bxh6 10.Qxh6 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nc6 12.Nc3 Qxf3 13.Rg1 Nxd4 14.Rc1 is a position we might've seen if the two players were not GMs. Here, I would say that, with some work white will win. He can't get his king to safety thus activating the rooks. However, white has some diffuclties with co-ordination too for the time being. A possible continuation is 14...Qf6 15.Bg2 Qb6 16.b3 Rc8 (not 16...Nf5?! 17.Qf4 0-0? 18.Bxb7 and Qxf5, or 17...Rc8 18.Bh3!) 17.Qe3 (new threat of Bxb7) 17...Rc7 18.Bd5!? with the ideas of Ke1-f1-g2 and Rg4 hitting the knight or 18.Kd1!? with Nd5 Rxc1+ Kxc1 and Kb1/2 to follow. |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| karlzen: <patzer2>, I think that can be of great help when solving combinations. For example, I believe that the "Silman technique" uses the same idea, perhaps that's where you got it? |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| CapAnson: I think I have chess burnout, I just couldn't see this one, even after a couple minutes.. |
|
| Mar-22-04 |
| karlzen: <capanson>, It will get better, I promise! Just eep on working with it! :) |
|
Mar-24-04
|
| patzer2: <Karlzen> My post that combinations result from "inadequately protected pieces or a weakened King position" is a paraphrase from Jeremy Silman's "Reassess Your Chess" Chapter Two. Silman argues that three things must be present for a combination to work: 1) Open or weakened King (including the stalemated King) 2) Undefended pieces (not including pawns)
3) Inadequately defended pieces.
Hence, Silman's rule is "if you see these items in a position, then and only then do you look for a possible combination." While I am no where near Silman in playing strength, and I think his rule is good over 99% of the time, the play of Tal and other former and current super GMs in finding apparently forced wins against very well defended positions leads me to believe that there are probably some exceptions to this rule. However, as a practical matter, I find Silman's rule to be extremely practical and useful. If nothing else, it is a good rule for keeping your santity in practical play by not wasting time calculating overly complicated variations in positions with little or no potential benefit. It is also a good rule for deciding when to play for positional advantage and when to look for mate or material advantage from a "pseudo sacrifice" in a "combination." |
|
| Mar-24-04 |
| karlzen: I agree with Silman. This is the kind of rules that all GMs use intuitively, they don't need to think about them, they just check for undefended pieces, etc. |
|
| Mar-24-04 |
| ruylopez900: I think its good that, once in a while, a GM (or IM) breaks down an essential concept (like factors that produce combinations) that seems second nature to them. |
|
| Apr-02-05 |
| peanut: This guy has a really good appetite for wooden horse meat. :) |
|
| May-27-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 8 Qc1 lol |
|
Jul-19-09
 |
| whiteshark: A small step for a queen ... |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
