|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-01-05
 | | TheAlchemist: Another candidate for puzzle of the day. 20...? |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | Gargamel: Maybee Monday puzzle. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Castle In The Sky: oops of the day |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | KeRvY: simple find for this puzzle |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | JustAFish: This one must be famous, for I got it very quickly. This week is shaping up to be better than ususal. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | yataturk: Simple and fun. Mon and Tue could've been swapped.. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | Mating Net: Discovery, Deflection, Defeat, 0-1 |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | Infohunter: 20...Rb3 brings it all to an abrupt end: White must give up Queen for Rook or submit to back rank mate. The only plausible try would be 21.Rd5, but after 21...Qxd2, 22.Rxd2 comes 22...Rxb1+ and mate next. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | blingice: I saw the reveal nearly instantly (after two minutes of looking for a white win and realizing it was black's move) but had to look for a little longer to see where to put the rook. Good puzzle, a fundamental tactic that everyone should understand. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | tjshann: Nice puzzle, combines the discovered Queen threat with back row mate. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | anyways: darn I thought about 20. Qa2 ; 21. Qc1 Rxc3 , then eigher white loose queen or its a mate. but then i thought about white 20. Qe1
:S |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | cjhasbrouck: I was really disappointed in the difficulty level of Monday (way too hard), but Chessgames has come back with a puzzle that seems perfectly fit for a Tuesday. I got this one pretty quick. :) |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | zabbura2002: Seeing the King without protection gives the idea of back-rank mate threat right away.. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | LluviaSean: oooo...the infamous back rank!!! |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | RodSerling: this position is in Lev Alburt's 300 important positions book, how to exploit a weak back rank. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | Deefstes: I'd daresay white didn't resign because of the back rank mate that everyone is raving about but because of the impending loss of material. It would seem to me that the mate can not be forced but at the very least, white will lose the f5 Rook. 21.Qe1 Rxb1 22.Qxb1 Qxf5
Am I correct? |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | cuendillar: It's in Kalinichenko's combination book as well. Since the title's in Cyrillic, I can't give you the name but it has more than 4200 positions. I did solve this when I saw it first too, by the way. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | dzechiel: Found it within a couple of seconds. Pretty straight forward. Yesterday a few players were asking how to improve their ability to analyze a position. Having now been a member of the USCF for over 35 years, I would like to offer the following from my experience. In my opinion the very best way to improve your game (all parts) is to attend chess club meetings on a regular (once a week) basis, where you meet and play over the board with players of your own strength or better. The interaction and instant feedback you receive in this environment cannot be experienced online or with books. Secondly, I strongly suggest that you participate in over the board tournaments where you play formal games with slow time controls, touch-move is in effect, and you must record all of your moves with your own pencil. This type of play will enforce discipline on your game that can't be easily garnered any other way. Lastly, if those two are not possible, then I suggest you sign up for a correspondence chess tournament, such as the USCF Golden Knights. These tournaments have inexpensive entry fees (although the moves cost about $0.25 for each postal card). A short game will last five months, a typical game is about 14 months, and I have had a couple of games go over two years. By examining the same game over and over as the weeks go by you will plumb new depths in the position and it will reflect in your online and OTB games as well. I love to play online and blitz, but my game does not improve in this manner. Players starting out who want to actually feel their game improve should seriously consider the formal tournament experience. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | patzer2: The 20...Rb3! solution to today's puzzle is a discovered attack, threatening mate and the win of the Queen. Using the idea of looking for unprotected pieces and a weak King position, the solution was easy. The Queen is unprotected and the King's back rank is weak. So, how can we make a move that threatens both the unprotected Queen and the King on the weakened back rank? The solution 20...Rb3 fits the bill. Note that 21. Rd1 is met by 21...Qxd2  .
|
|
Feb-28-06
 | | cu8sfan: <patzer2> I always find your explanations very helpful. I think dissecting a PotD like that will help one become a better tactician. So I started doing it, too. Thank you! |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | thorndeux: <patzer2> I agree with cu8sfan - thanks to you and other regular posters who give their insights in the postion and on how they solved it. I see that you put this one under the category 'Double Attack'. In fact, I think, it's a triple attack. Black threatens the queen, back rank mate AND the ♖f5. White would be able to cover two of these threats, as <Deefstes> already mentioned (by ♕e1, ♕d1 or ♕c1), but not the third one. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | cjhasbrouck: Another possible line is moving the white queen to the back rank. 21. Qc1 Rxb1
22. Qxb1 Qxf5
White still loses a major piece. :)
|
|
| Feb-28-06 | | patzer2: <cu8sfan> You're welcome! By the way, where did White go wrong? On the surface 18. Bxc6 allowing 18...Rac8 looks like the guilty move. However, Fritz 8 finds a brilliant defensive resource in 19. Qd4! Rxc6 20. Nd5!  , with an obstruction move that creates an equalizing double attack (threatening both Bishops). So, I guess the real culprit for Black was 19. Bb7?? allowing 19...Rxc3! to set up today's 20...Rb3! puzzle solution. For those too young to remember, this line lost a lot of its following after White's victory in Spassky vs Fischer, 1972. There have been attempts to revive it as in E Berg vs Sadvakasov, 2006. However, for the most part it would appear that Spassky did a pretty good job of giving White a reliable weapon against this double-edged line from the Bobby Fischer heyday. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | patzer2: <thorndeux> Thanks! I had it under double attack by mistake. Thought I had deleted it, so your post brought it to my attention so I could correct my mistake. It is a discovered attack, which is technically a specific category of double attack. I've found the definitions of these terms at http://www.angelfire.com/games5/che... particularly helpful. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | logo: Monday was more difficult |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
