< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Sep-19-05|| ||Richard Taylor: <al wazir: <SamuelS: Guess who thought it was White to move and played the brilliant sacrifice Qxe6!!> It's a neat problem either way. I think you should get full credit. Incidentally, have you noticed that CG usually chooses games that are closely matched in material, where both sides have tactical chances?> If they do that is frequently the case in "real" chess games (from club ches amongst "patzers" to super GMs - Black had a bad position here but possibilties of a swindle (as happened ) - but in many games - the best games (or the most exciting /interesting games) have chances either way and its not easy to see always who is going to win - hence if the 'puzzles' are thus it is good. (Of course many are also clear wins for one or the other side - there seems to be a good mix here)|
|Sep-19-05|| ||Gazman5: nice easy one to ease us gently into the week|
|Sep-19-05|| ||billcrutcher: What I like about this puzzle is how the move where White stubbed his toe is such a natural move. It looks to me as if White's three previous moves were a tactic designed to attack the on e5 with two pieces, while it can only be defended by one. |
After Black's 22... xe5, the knight has one attacker and one defender, the on b2 and the on e8, respectively. The moves 23 e7+ xe7 24 fxe7 serve to remove one defender (and gain the exchange) but a new defender is uncovered -- namely, the on h8. But no matter, White can bring a second attacker with check with 25 d5+ and one of the two knights must fall.
After 24 fxe7, Black had a tempo, with an opportunity to shore up the defense of one of the two knights. The move 24 ... a7 seems to do just that, giving cover to the on c5. In White's mindset, with such a strong, clearly winning advantage, he probably only gave a cursory consideration of its offensive possiblities.
Now, after the planned 25 d5+, White is likely expecting 25 ... f7, putting off the loss of the piece by a couple of moves. Next we have 26. hf1 e8 27. xf7 xf7 28. d8+ xd8 29. exd8()+} g7 30. xh8. And White has a full rook and a piece advantage. Surely Black will finally admit defeat.
Of course, I have no idea what goes on in the mind of a grandmaster, and I sure don't think like one, with my pitiful rating. But it seems possible that GMs, too, might be susceptible to being too overconfident in clearly won positions. It has definitely been my downfall in many a game.
|Sep-19-05|| ||RookFile: I was just talking to someboday about 1. b3 e5 the other day. Very interesting kind of a game develops.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||The Backward Pawn: How about 26. Qxe6+ Bxe6 27. Rd8+ Rxd8 28. exd8=Q+|
|Sep-19-05|| ||zb2cr: Quick and easy. I love Mondays!|
|Sep-19-05|| ||who: Sorry, but just to repeat my question from before - does anyone know of the Pillsbury game (played in a simul) where Pillsbury mates a king caught in the h1 corner with a bishop - I think he plays a queen to the back rank first.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||YouRang: <SamuelS: Guess who thought it was White to move and played the brilliant sacrifice Qxe6!!> LOL - I did that too. I figured out Qxe6 (thinking that it was a little harder than most Monday puzzles). Just as I clicked to the solution, I noticed that the caption said 'Black to play'. So I hit the 'back' button before the solution appeared, and quickly figured out Black's B+R mate. Kind of a humouous position, with both sides having a clever queen sac tactic.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: I guess this puzzle is about right for Mondays. Nice one!|
|Sep-19-05|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: By the way, what is the idea behind 18...f5?|
|Sep-19-05|| ||WannaBe: <EmperorAtahualpa> I think the idea is either the e-column for the rook or get the other bishop on the white diagnal. (19. exf4 Bxf4) Then white king has a pawn on c2 & a wide open a-column. That's what I think anyway...|
|Sep-19-05|| ||YouRang: It looks to me like White, instead of 26. Bxe5, should have tried 26. Qxe6+! One follow-up: 26...Bxe6 27. Rd8+ Rxd8 28. exd8=Q+. After this, Black is faced with either 28...Kg7 29. Bxe5+, or 28...Kf7 29. Rhf1+, and Black can resign.|
I think Black was VERY fortunate to win this game.
<EmperorAtahualpa: By the way, what is the idea behind 18...f5?> Good question. It looks like a bad move to me -- as if he didn't consider the en passant capture.
|Sep-19-05|| ||who: <yourang> see my post on page 1|
|Sep-19-05|| ||kevin86: A nice sac-mate by black. Too bad white missed his own sac and committed suicide instead.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||YouRang: <who> Sorry, I missed your earlier post. I see you found that line earlier. I agree with you that White blundered this game away.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||TIMER: I don't think that you can call Qa1+ a sacrifice given that it is a forced mate in 2. Neither if there was a clear forced regaining of material. It is more a sacrifice if as far as you can see you are still material down, no mate, but based on your judgement of position.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||TIMER: For the same reason of being clear and forced I would not consider Qe6+ a real sacrifice as the follow-up Rd8+ is so immediate.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||atrifix: It is amazing that a 2300+ player who drew against Geller, Polugayevsky, and Botvinnik in the same tournament, should make a blunder like 26. Bxe5??. 25. Bd5+ Ne6 26. Bxe6+ Bxe6 26. Qd8+ was clearly winning, and even 26. Qxe6+ (or, for that matter, practically anything besides 26. Bxe5) would have won. White probably got lazy--although how you can get lazy against a player of Matulovic's level is beyond me.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||TIMER: <atrifix> Even top players and world champions have made outrageous blunders, it happens to us all. The most dangerous time is when you have already switched off assuming a game is over.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||belgradegambit: I guess Matulovic should have said "j'adoube" after Bxe5 and played
Qxe6+ instead ;-)|
|Sep-19-05|| ||YouRang: <TIMER> <I don't think that you can call Qa1+ a sacrifice given that it is a forced mate in 2. > I know there is some debate over what a 'sacrifice' is. Some argue that it's not a sacrifice if the benefit of the sacrifice is too apparent, but this makes the definition of 'sacrifice' a bit too subjective. |
I prefer the simpler idea that a sacrifice is when one player intentionally surrenders (or offers to surrender) material for what he/she perceives to be an advantage in other respects (possibly positional superiority - including mate or draw or future material gain). With this view, the Qa1+ move could be called a queen sac.
|Sep-19-05|| ||eonny: Botvinnik's definition: "A combination is a forced variation with sacrifice". This distinguishes it from a mere 'forced variation' which has no sacrifice or 'intuitive sacrifices' which have no forced variation." This defines a combination, for a sacrifice see Speilman's "The Art of the Sacrifice."|
|Jan-02-07|| ||syracrophy: This is just as in the game: Euwe vs Loman, 1923.|
|May-26-07|| ||hesyrett: I don't think this is a good choice for a "Guess-The-Move" database entry, since most of Matulovic's moves in the early middlegame are third-rate. His play is much too passive, allowing White a huge space advantage and a crushing attack which he proceeds to butcher. The final Qa1+ is a stock sacrifice, hardly a brilliancy even between experts. A low-quality game.|
|Apr-24-10|| ||rossvassilev: I guess the fatal flaw was 15.axb3. Must have seemed like a minor move to Sahovic, but even I'm smart enough to always capture with cxb3 in this situation.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·