|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Nov-07-04 |
| cheski: The castling move 7...0-0 has actually been played quite a few times over the past decade.
One Black came up with 11...Bb4, which seems unpromising at first, but can produce an endgame with two rooks each and one pawn deficit for Black,(6/5) which he managed to turn into a draw. I've lost the game again. |
 |
| Nov-07-04 |
| Lawrence: <Infohunter>, Junior 8 confirms that <eschewing 11.....Bxe4> is indeed the correct line of conduct, and suggests 11.....Bd7 as the best move (eval +0.84 whereas 11.....Bxe4 gets +1.71) |
|
Nov-07-04
 |
| Knight13: There are no winning moves here. I don't get this puzzle. |
|
Nov-07-04
 |
| EXIDE: What prevents 18...,Nd3
19 pxR, NxR
20 RxN, Kf7 followed by RxB equalizing for black. |
|
| Nov-07-04 |
| Swindler: 21.Bb4 saves the bishop (and the rook). |
|
Nov-07-04
 |
| Chessical: <Exide> <18...Nd3> does not work as after: 19.cxd5 Nxe1 20.Rxe1 Kf7 <21.Bb4> retreats the B and simultaneously covers the R leaving White a piece up. |
|
Nov-07-04
 |
| patzer2: <Knight13> Even after the best defense with 11...Bd7, as pointed out by <Lawrence>, White is up a pawn in a good position. Among strong players that is more often than not a winning advantage. I understand the Polgar sisters often studied such "win a single pawn" combinations as part of their early training. So, I find the combination useful and instructive, even though it may not be an obvious "forced win" for White. |
|
Nov-07-04
|
| patzer2: Notice that the 8. Bxc6!! combination solution to today's Sunday puzzle relies mostly on the "deflection" tactic. Tarrasch's 14. f3! utilizes the pin as a deflection technique, along with the double attack threat 16. Bg5!, to set up the final decisive deflection with 17. c4  . |
|
| Nov-07-04 |
| dac1990: Ah, the Tarrasch Trap! This is the first Sunday Puzzle I actually got, due only to prior knowledge. |
|
Nov-07-04
 |
| kevin86: Tarrasch rules!!! |
|
| Nov-07-04 |
| Rama: Oh?
Nimzowitsch vs Tarrasch, 1912 |
|
| Nov-07-04 |
| aw1988: <patzer2> Giving Bxc6 a double exclam seems a little extreme. |
|
| Nov-07-04 |
| Dave Murray: 8. Bxc6 looks so obvious, I wonder how far Tarrash sow when he played that... |
|
| Nov-07-04 |
| Saruman: First time ive seen 2 exclamation marks for a simple "removing the guard theme" :-) |
|
| Nov-07-04 |
| Shadout Mapes: exclamation marks are subjective, plus the whole combination was rather long to it's logical conclusion |
|
Nov-07-04
|
| patzer2: <Giving Bxc6 a double exclam seems a little extreme.> I gave 8. Bxc6!! because Tarrasch's deliberate playing of it as a winning move requires visualizing the complicated sequence by which 11...Bxe4?? allows White to win the game with 16. Bg5!, 17. Be7! and 18. c4! By my count, Tarrasch made eleven consecutive deflection moves to arrive at the winning final position. Pretty and impressive! |
|
| Nov-07-04 |
| Minor Piece Activity: I agree with what shadout said a few weeks ago about about awarding exclams. - "I do what I want." ;) |
|
| Nov-08-04 |
| Saruman: Still I think the exlamation-inflation(yeah) has increased. In that case all combinations in one of my books would have 2 exclamation marks. Also even a very long and difficult combo might usually deserve only one. |
|
Nov-08-04
 |
| Calli: If one reads the earlier posts - an unreasonable request some would say - it was pointed out that Dr T had worked it all out in advance and, in fact, published it "about a year and a half earlier in the February, 1891 issue of _Deutsche Schachzeitung" from <infohunter> . This makes the length and intricacies less impressive than an OTB calculation. |
|
| Dec-28-04 |
| aw1988: I wouldn't doubt that it had been analyzed beforehand; even then they knew the main lines of the Ruy Steinitz and O-O is certainly a plausible looking move. |
|
| Mar-26-05 |
| Whitehat1963: Such a simple move to end the game! Excellent forsight. |
|
| Apr-18-05 |
| invincible: Why does Black play 7...exd4 when I said the idea is to hold on in the centre? Tarrasch's famous trap showed that Black cannot play 7...0-0 because of the forcing continuation 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8 [10...Rfxd8 allows 15 Kf1 - see later 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Kf1] 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 [11...Nxe4 12.Nxc6] 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Nxc5 [15.Kf1 Bb6 16.fxe4 fxe4+; 15.Kh1 Nf2+ 16.Nxf2 Bxf2 17.Rf1] 15...Nxc5 16.Bg5 Rd5 [16...Rde8 17.Be7] 17.Be7 Re8 18.c4 winning the exchange. (If instead 10...Rexd8 White would have 15 Kh1 (15...Rxd3; 16 fxe4).) Tarrasch won a game with this against Marco AFTER publishing it as analysis! 1-0 wins the exchange. (If instead 10...Rexd8 White would have 15 Kh1 (15...Rxd3; 16 fxe4).)
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Open... |
|
Jun-29-07
 |
| whiteshark: 108 years later: E M Green vs R Gibbons, 2000 |
|
| Nov-15-07 |
| Dr. Siggy: Forgive me all, but... this is not the "Tarrasch trap"! That is in <Tarrasch vs Zukertort, Dresden 1887> and <Tarrasch vs Gunsberg, Manchester 1890>. This is the "Dresden trap", the largest opening trap there is, so large that someone called it "the Everest of traps" (!!!) - an amazing demonstration of Tarrasch's analytical habilities... |
|
Oct-21-08
 |
| tpstar: I combined all the comments here into an article on the Tarrasch Trap = http://www.westmichiganchess.com/au... Special thanks to Junior 8 and Crafty. =) |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
