|Jul-09-03|| ||rookbj: Isn't it mate in two after 10... Kf7 with 11. Bb4 and then 12. Qf8#? |
|Jul-09-03|| ||jmcd2002: <rookbj> There's still a black knight on a6. Therefore, 11. Bb4 leads to 11... Nxb4 with no compensation for white. |
|Jul-09-03|| ||clocked: No, 11.Bb4 Nxb4
and even if white can play two moves in a row then 11.Bb4 pass 12. Qf8+ Kg6 escapes (for now).
However, if you want to help mate then either 11.Bb4 g6 12.Qf8# or 11.Bb4 Qg6 12.Qf8# will do
|Jul-09-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Another victim of pawn grubbing. I once heard another player claim that each pawn is worth 3 tempoes / tempi whatever. |
|Jul-09-03|| ||AussiePatzer: and not 17...Qxh2 18.Rxg7+ Kxg7 19.Qxe7+ Kg8 20.Bg6! Be6 21.Rd7! |
|Nov-28-03|| ||JSYantiss: Wouldn't 20. Bg6 be met by 20...hxg6?
Granted, I am rather drowsy so I might have missed something, but why wouldn't Black play 20...hxg6 if White played 20. Bg6 ??
|Nov-28-03|| ||BiLL RobeRTiE: Why did he play 17...Qxg1? |
|Nov-28-03|| ||Qian: Bill, because if the Queen moves away, 18. Rxg7+ Kxg7 19. Qxe7 Kh6 (Kg8 leads to 20. Rg1+) with a fork on the second knight |
|Nov-28-03|| ||mjk: 9...b6 10.c3 xg2? 11.f3 and 12.xc6+ so 10...f6 and then? |
|Nov-28-03|| ||Wade Keller: Why not 17........Ne6 |
|Nov-29-03|| ||mjk: <WK> 17...e6 18.xe7+ xe7 19.xg2 with a vs. nearly 3 connected passed s might be fun to watch. The White is well within the squares. |
|Nov-29-03|| ||Wade Keller: Thanks MJK. This was my first kibitz. Do you have a favorite online site to play? |
|Nov-17-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Remarkable game from the player of the day. |
|Apr-12-07|| ||Poisonpawns: This game embodies the axiom "play your attack in such a way,that when the fire is out,it aint out!"|
|Sep-24-07|| ||sanyas: <Benjamin Lau> It was <Lasker> who said that a pawn is worth three <tempi>, but only in the first few moves of a game.|
<Poisonpawns> <maxim>, not axiom.
sanyas the pedant to the rescue!
|Sep-24-07|| ||technical draw: <sanyas> You're wasting your pedantry on Benjamin Lau. He left the site 3 years ago. And about maxim, well here's one: Maxim Rodshtein|
|Sep-24-07|| ||keypusher: <sanyas: <Benjamin Lau> It was <Lasker> who said that a pawn is worth three <tempi>, but only in the first few moves of a game.>|
Wasn't it Tarrasch? I seem to remember that from one of his instructional books.
|Sep-25-07|| ||sanyas: <technical draw> Was that because of the Goldsby email virus affair?|
Male or female, the maxim is by Marshall.
<keypusher> From Lasker's Manual of Chess:
To fix the exchange value of the Pawns and pieces and the move, in order to decide whether we may sacrifice a pawn for so many moves in development and similar questions, the following table will be found to be a fairly accurate guide.
of the first move = 1
of the second move =4/5
of the third move =3/4
of the fourth move =2/3
of the fifth move =1/2
of the KP or QP =2
of the KBP or QBP =1 1/2
of the KKt or QKtP =5/4
of the KRP or QRP =1/2
of the Kt =4 1/2
of the KB =5
of the QB =4 1/2
of the KR =7
of the QR =6
of the Q =11
These are, of course only estimates based on experience. The numbers given are obviously only approximate. But even though the position is complicated, they can still be of service in helping to determine whether one may venture upon sacrificing a piece for two Pawns, and in elucidating similar thorny problems.
But Tarrasch may have said it too, I don't know.
|Sep-25-07|| ||technical draw: <sanyas> I'm not one to gossip but if you want to know about Benjamin Lau just go to "search kibitzing" enter his user name and you'll get all the story.|