< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-21-03|| ||Minor Piece Activity: Okay, never mind, that was a bit too unspecific.
11... Kxf7 12. e6+ Kxe6 13. Qxa5
12... Kf8 (or Kd8) 13. Bxg6 (and the bishop is safe from capture due to the pin on the h pawn and rook.)
That's how it works, I think.
|Oct-21-03|| ||rndapology: Yes...but still, that's what? 2 pawns down but a minor peice up? These puzzles should have different captions. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||JSYantiss: Those two lines are what I was looking at too, Minor. I don't know if I would have resigned here, but I suppose that being down two pawns after 13. Bxg6 and having one of my rooks boxed in by my own king would be enough to force me to resign anyway |
|Oct-21-03|| ||Helloween: White has an oppressive position and is up a piece. These guys aren't patzers, and therefore it would only be a matter of time before White easily wins. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||pkramer: Yes, and don't forget black has lost his right to castle, and that keeps his rooks fixed. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||AdrianP: Black's going to have problems keeping two pawns for the piece. <Minor Piece Activity>'s lines are, I think, the correct solution. The position after either of those is simply winning for white.|
By the way, the opening 1. b4 is usually known as the Sokolsky after it's inventor (?) and most common practitioner Alexey Sokolsky
Does anyone know of any recent 1. b4 players?
|Oct-21-03|| ||refutor: Lapshun tried it in Lapshun vs M Robert, 2003 all the 1.b4 games on the database can be found here http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|Oct-21-03|| ||AdrianP: <Refutor> Thanks for the message. How do you do a position search...? |
|Oct-21-03|| ||refutor: <adrianp> go to Opening Explorer you can search by position there |
|Oct-21-03|| ||kevin86: 1 b4 used to be called the Polish opening;I'm just guessing that Sokolsky was Polish and people couldn't spell his name. White is up a piece for two pawns,black's king is wide open,and white is the aggressor-I think that he has an easy win. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||AdrianP: <kevin86> Alexey Sokolsky's nationality was Russian according to the Chessbase player database http://www.chesslive.de/scripts/ser...|
I wonder whether there is some other reason for the opening being also known as the Polish. <Refutor>'s search shows that 1. b4 had been played by people before Sokolsky.
|Oct-21-03|| ||mack: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orang... |
|Oct-21-03|| ||AdrianP: "This move, which has so bizarre an aspect, occupies a place of honour amongst the `freak' openings. Later, at the New York Tournament of 1924, I termed this the `Orangutang' Opening, not only because I employed it there against Maroczy -- after a previous consultation with a young orangutang (during a visit by all the masters to the New York Zoo on the eve of the game in question) but also since the climbing movement of the pawn to b4 and then b5 is reminiscent of that inventive animal. The name has stuck" – Tartakower. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||eainca: To answer the question on the "Polish Opening", I believe this term was used in the same manner as "How many Poles does it take to......?" (This is no longer PC).|
The opening is also known as the Oragnutan. Chess base lists 1000 games starting with b4 between 1868 and 1975. Quite a few of the games were played in the 60's to 75. A list of those using the opening is surprising, I saw one game with Capablanca (a loss) as well as many of the older past big names of the early 1900's.
There is also a web site devoted to the Sokolsky.
|Oct-21-03|| ||AdrianP: <eainca> <kevin86> <refutor> <mack> I think I have found the answer to my own question. Tartakower (although born in Vienna) acquired Polish citizenship in the 1920s... 1. b4 must be known as the Polish because of this. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||MoonlitKnight: Black resigned, so at least it's a win to that extent. Good call for today's puzzle, chessgames.com. It was neither too hard nor too easy (for me). |
|Oct-21-03|| ||helloriker: hmm I always thought the Polish started with g3. Not sure though. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||kevin86: Thanks for the remarks;it is not unusual for such an international game as chess to have different names for the same opening move. It is in fact remarkable,that chess has the uniformity as it does in rules,etiquite,etc.
For example,in golf,the PGA,USGA,and R&A have differences in the rules of golf-small though they may be. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||WhyDevelop: I believe you are calling this "Polish opening" incorrectly. As far as I know, this is the Sokolski or Orangutang opening. The Polish defense is played after 1.d4 b5. The most commom continuation is 2. e4 a6, reaching the exact same position as in the famous game between Karpov and Miles, 1980 I believe. |
|Oct-21-03|| ||eainca: There is both a Polish defense and the Polish (Sokolsky) opening. |
|Oct-22-03|| ||Eggman: 1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 transposes into the St George Defense, sometimes adopted by IM Michael Basman of England. |
|Jan-04-04|| ||pilot: There is both a Polish opening and a Polish Defense. The difference lies in 1.b4 or 1..b5|
I read a book about the Polish D before (it was thin and cheap so I bought it) most of the material in that book is devoted to Baseman's ideas. I've played it in tournaments before, and it's not entirely sound. However, it will completely throw off your opponent. Most times I end up converting it to Sicilian since black needs to play c5 at some point or s/he's screwed big time.
|Mar-02-07|| ||gauer: P H Clarke in 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures says the Gambit is simply another transposition to an Evans Gambit strategy, with the benefit of the f4 break from the King's Gambit idea. Compare Sokolsky vs Strugatch, 1958, Ch. of White Russia for a similar idea.|
|Mar-11-07|| ||gauer: Within a month after his 20th birthday, the Champ was caught showing off the same idea in a simul: Fischer vs J Gloger, 1964 . I wonder whether the popular criticism of the theory of this opening hit its peak around the mid 1960s (at least, it turned out to be an occasional GM Gambit, which might've made it worth something).|
|Mar-15-08|| ||Domdaniel: Another reason for b4's prominence in the USA in the 1950-60s was Anthony Santasiere, who wrote a book on 'his' opening 1.Nf3 d5 2.b4 -- compare Larsen's Opening 1.b3 and the Nimzowitsch Attack 1.Nf3 and 2.b3, collectively known as the Nimzo-Larsen.|
Santasiere had the same idea re b4, and called it <Santasiere's Folly> -- a name that never really caught on. But I think it's worth distinguishing the 1.Nf3/2.b4 lines from the Sokolsky/Orangutan/Polish proper, where ...e5 is normally played.
The Polish Defence 1...b5 (or the currently fashionable 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b5) was originally named *before* 1.b4 by white. This isn't so strange: the Dutch Defence 1...f5 is older than Bird's Opening 1.f4 -- and even in the 1920s Nimzowitsch called 1.f4 the 'Dutch Attack/Opening'.
And I haven't even mentioned the Munster Attack: 1.Nf3 and 2.a3 ...
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·