|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-28-05
 | | BishopofBlunder: Complete moron here...
Couldn't find the right move with a road map!
Actually, I did consider 35. Rxd5, but couldn't see a clear advantage... completely missed the knight fork. |
 |
Jul-28-05
 | | TheAlchemist: <BishopofBlunder> At least you honored the 2nd half of your handle :-))) |
|
| Jul-28-05 | | Granite: <BishopofBlunder> I used to miss problems like this as well, thankfully having worked on every puzzle here for the last 7 months which has sharpened my understanding considerably. My advice - always consider every possible capture even if it seems silly and completely off balance. The reason is because captures force the opponent to recapture to maintain equality, which is a gain of Time and also compels them to respond making it a forcing move. Even a pawn for a rook can be a good trade if you get enough Time from it! Also, try to picture the 'what if' scenerios. In solving this one I first noticed that the rook was the only defender of the queen which is attacked, and that if I could remove the e6 pawn I'd have a discovery on the king. Combining those two ideas led me to deeply calculate the move Rxd5 since it seemed promising, and indeed it was. Also, I pay attention to Patzer2's regular commentary on tactics puzzles, he tends to break them down into components you can learn to look for in future tactics which I've found very useful for solving puzzles like this one. For example he's often brought the 'removing the defender' tactic to my attention until eventually I started to notice it puzzles and my own games, and subsequently improved the quality of my play. Hopefully with a bit of time and some attention you'll start getting the harder puzzles too - I know the first Saturday puzzle I ever solved was a huge thrill! |
|
Jul-29-05
 | | Richard Taylor: <Granite> right on! I solved this but I was wary as i ofen miss a counter attack but in this case I saw "everything" as they say in the trade -I would have played OTB <sahrpnovas> "complete moron" comment is silly as no one "gets" these things immediately and its like doing the crossword - you might not be able to come up with a word that you would have "instantly" the previous day - I assume sharpnova is being humoresque - player who has been playing as long as myself hasnt so many excusse but on here there are people of all levels of ability and playing time etc etc but I am assuming sharpnova is joking |
|
Jul-29-05
| | Richard Taylor: <sharpnova> was indeed joculating as I see above -but some players who are just kind of starting out would find some of these tactics dificult so the joke is ok but some people might be upset by such a comment (they might think that they are hopeless at chess -forgetting that most of us have studied the game forever - unless there are some Tals or Fischers - (and THEY werent slack about their chess studies!) amongst us) ....for most of us <Dan Ross> we only "get"
these quickly as we have studied tactics for ages...Patzer has that huge encylcopedia of tactics and Reinfeld's (1001 combos) book - which I would like to have - a chess player (even a "casual" player) cant get enough tactics training |
|
Jul-29-05
| | BishopofBlunder: <TheAlchemist: <BishopofBlunder> At least you honored the 2nd half of your handle> Oh yes, I rarely dishonor it. I deserve to wear the title of "KingofBlunder" but I preferred the alliteration. Besides, this way people can just call me "BoB" for short :) |
|
Jul-29-05
| | BishopofBlunder: <Granite> Thanks for the advice and the encouragement.
I really don't mind not solving the puzzles too much (unless it's Monday). I am only a casual player, but I have learned alot since coming to this site. I am generally much better at puzzles than I am OTB. Over the board I really am the Bishop of Blunder. Oh well, I'm getting better. :) |
|
| Jul-29-05 | | alexandrovm: <"complete moron" comment is silly> I got it in two seconds! <that's a silly comment as well :)> |
|
| Jul-29-05 | | PawnField: Take a look at this
Game Collection: Kramnik Miniatures |
|
| Sep-24-05 | | Teacher X: Nice game by Kasparov. |
|
May-10-06
 | | notyetagm: One of the best played rapid games I have ever seen. |
|
| Sep-05-06 | | Zorts: Excellent Kasparov game but how did he manage to keep Kramnik from Castling? |
|
| Sep-05-06 | | MrPatzer: <Zorts: Excellent Kasparov game but how did he manage to keep Kramnik from Castling?> The White bishop on A3 is blocking Kramnik from castling. |
|
| Sep-15-06 | | Tenderfoot: 35. Rxd5 is pretty devastating, did Kramnick not see the discover check that was to follow? It seems like a pretty natural continuation of that line, and if he did, I don't see why he didn't resign one move earlier. |
|
Oct-01-07
| | notyetagm: Kasparov was in simply unbelievable form in 1999.
|
|
| Oct-07-07 | | Thecheckmater: 34...Qc7??Terrible,34...Rg8 is much better |
|
| Oct-07-07 | | Thecheckmater: <Tenderfoot>If 35...Rxd5 then 36.Qxd7 |
|
Oct-07-07
| | notyetagm: One of my fav Kasparov games.
|
|
Oct-07-07
| | notyetagm: Position after 34 ...  d8-c7?:
click for larger viewBlack (Kramnik) has just blundered, being too eager to trade queens with his king trapped in the center on e8. Here Kasparov (White) won on the spot by beginning a tremendous combination with 35  d1x d5!. Position after 35 d1xd5!:
click for larger viewThe tactical point is that the Black d5-bishop is not really defended. Since the Black d7-rook is tied down <DEFENDING> the Black c7-queen (else f4xc7) and the Black e6-pawn must <BLOCK> the e-file that the White e1-rook and Black e8-king are on, there is no Black piece or pawn available to meet the threat of 35 d1xd5!. Both of the Black pieces that -appear- to defend the Black d5-bishop (Black e6-pawn, Black c7-rook) actually have more important defensive duties to perform, i.e., both the of these defenders are <OVERWORKED>. |
|
| Jun-21-09 | | WhiteRook48: well wasn't Black lost anyway? |
|
Jul-18-11
 | | koleos: notyetagm, yes, kasparov was in great shape in 1999, save in cases when he was drawing back his moves in the games, like he did in the game versus J. Polgar, which was recorded by serbian journalist and chess IM Dimitrije Bjelica. |
|
Jul-18-11
 | | plang: <notyetagm, yes, kasparov was in great shape in 1999, save in cases when he was drawing back his moves in the games> The incident you are referring to was in 1994 not 1999. As far as I know it is the only incident of this type in his career. Why you are bringing it up here I have no idea. |
|
Aug-04-11
| | koleos: plang, I bring it up here and everywhere, since this you call "incident", I call scandal. It is of minor important when exactly it happened. Drawing back a move is extremely incorrect. Kasparov was W.Champion and he did it in the middle of the game vs J.Polgar. Such behavior was illegal and done against a lady. What else should I write here to explain that it was scandal not only "incident" ? This "incident" speaks itself of what kind a man Kasparov is. |
|
| Aug-04-11 | | Blunderdome: <I bring it up here and everywhere> It's completely off-topic here. I suggest Judit Polgar vs Kasparov, 1994. |
|
Aug-05-11
| | koleos: blunderdome, thanks for the link |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 35.Rxd5
