|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-18-07 | | Shinermatt: <alshatranji> I tend to agree, I don't play it anymore either. It seemed logical to me when I was beginning to learn the game, as far as placing pieces in the center, but it seems to allow black too many chances for early counterplay. |
 |
Dec-18-07
 | | dzechiel: White to move. White is down a pawn. "Easy."
Check out those tripled pawns!
This problem really IS easy, IF you have been playing chess long enough! The simple solution is:
11 O-O-O+!
Picking up the rook.
For those of you a bit unfamiliar with the rules, the king is not allowed to castle over a square attacked by the opponent, but there's no such restriction on the rook! This must have been really embarrassing for Chawkin. |
|
Dec-18-07
 | | DarthStapler: Ha, got it |
|
Dec-18-07
 | | amadeus: Very easy. 0-0-0, and Chawkin resigned. The Dunbar from catch-22 would not have resigned. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | CaptGeorge: Easy One!
Assuming K hasn't moved,
0-0-0+ & free R! Should be enough to win. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | HelaNubo: This is really easy, but you have to know the rules of chess in detail, or you will react like <Chessdork> protesting that the move is not legal. (I guess that between 11. 0-0-0 and 11.... 1-0, Chawkin stood up, furiously went to the arbiter, only to be confirmed that the move is legal.)
Anyway, <Chessdork> has not to shame for his doubt, because I dont remember which famous grandmaster (Korchnoi?) questioned the arbiter before castling long with the opponent's bishop in f5 covering b1. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | willyfly: After only eleven moves we have arrived at a very interesting position in which Black is up by a  . However, three of them are on the c-file. 11  a4 is a double attack on and  but there is a far more interesting move.11 O-O-O+
If the  moves out of check or if the  interposes then 12 xb2 wins a and if the interposes then 12 xd2+. So I think Black might resign after 11 O-O-O+. Now I'm going to look and see not only if I got it right but also to see how we arrived at such a strange position so early in the game. -----
very cool - I've made the move 0-0-0+ in three of my games. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | Shinermatt: <HelaNubo> It was Korchnoi. |
|
Dec-18-07
| | amadeus: <HelaNubo>, I think you're talkin about this game: Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1974 The arbiter was Alberic O'Kelly -- e.g.: Feuer vs O'Kelly, 1934 |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | Cibator: Given the diagram and no other data (apart from whose move it is), you can't necessarily assume that White is able to castle. However, it's a reasonable supposition given the fewness of moves played - and anyway if you were told, it would kinda give the solution away! And <The beginner>: it was Xavier Tartakover who first made that (much-quoted) remark that no-one ever improved his game by resigning. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | dabearsrock1010: i looked looked looked and finally realized i could castle and then it was obvious... |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | zooter: I still haven't gotten an answer as to who these chess masters are who have only 1 game to their credit and that too a 11 move game.... |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | Autoreparaturwerkbau: Before even seeing today's puzzle i knew, cg.com will try to compensate yesterday's over-toughness of puzzle with today's over-easiness of it. Of course, here it is just as one could have thought. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | chopin4525: This is a real chess minature in my opinion :-) |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | Boerboel Guy: This was easy, but this problem can trip up many people, if, with the exception of a rook each, all the pieces and pawns are removed (like an end-game study)...then 0-0-0 is not so obvious!
Set this problem up with just four pieces and see who you can catch! |
|
Dec-18-07
 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <Autoreparaturwerkbau: Before even seeing today's puzzle i knew, cg.com will try to compensate yesterday's over-toughness of puzzle with today's over-easiness of it.> Indeed, this one evaluates in the easier range of Monday puzzles. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | dabearsrock1010: <MAJ> Im fairly sure this occured because what made this hard had nothing to do with calculation but just overall awareness of possibilities, which for a computer isnt a factor since it looks at every legal move. so perhaps computer evaluations dont mean as much in this situation. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | somitra: Another interesting game with similar ending is Anand vs Svidler, 1999 It is one of my favourite games by Anand. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | greensfield: <11. O-O-O+> to win the rook.
Surely Black would not have snaffled the b-pawn if he had been fully aware of the castling rules |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | Sularus: yep, too easy. |
|
Dec-18-07
 | | johnlspouge: 11.0-0-0+ winning the b2.
I hate it when castling solves a puzzle. The ability to castle is not intrinsic to a position, but depends on the position's history, which is then required external information. I grant that castling is likely on move 11, but I remember from 36 years ago a puzzle (without the move number) in Chernev's "Combinations, the Heart of Chess" with the castling theme. I hated it then, and I hate it now. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | JMJ565X: aghh piece cake queenside castling of course!!!! something harder please |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | gus inn: <ashatranti> I mainly agree with you....
So 3.Bb5 ? .Have you ever considered 1.d4
once and a while ? Well sometimes it really pays off , to make a change.Keeps one more alert.Good luck BTW. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | gus inn: <johnlspouge> Perhaps when you stop hating it , you will easier find the solution.Often it works in that way. |
|
| Dec-18-07 | | zb2cr: I saw this in seconds. Most of the time was spent in convincing myself that castling must still be legal in this position. And to <jacklovecaissa>, please don't carry the war analogy too far. Chess is not war, for several reasons. 1. Clausewitz reminds us that "War is the province of mistake." The history of warfare is replete with battles lost by simple-minded mistakes. Thus, it's more reasonable to expect a mistake from the enemy in war than over the chessboard. 2. Clausewitz also coined the expression, "the fog of war", to express the confusion and lack of information that is common to all battles. There is no such fog on the chessboard--all of the opponent's pieces and maneuvers are visible. Once you've lost a piece, your opponent doesn't have to worry about hidden forces or a suddenly introduced secret weapon. 3. Over the chessboard, a single piece is a far larger part of your total forces than a single "aircraft carrier". If you reduce everything to its equivalent in Pawns, you start with 39 units. So being a piece down is having a loss of about 10% (or more, if it's late in the game) of your total fighting force. In a war, loss of a unit can be recouped, given time; you can produce more hardware, recruit and train more fighters. This is absolutely not the case with chess. There are other reasons too why the analogy between chess and war shouldn't be pushed too far, but this post is already turning into a book, so I'll cut myself off. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
