< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Aug-05-12|| ||stst: <I won't ruin it for you, you will have to buy your own copy to see what its all about. (I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK!!!!!!!)>
Sorry to bother!! As "afficionados" (or just faked afficionados" we're poor people who never afford such luxury.
Could anyone share this (or part of this) on-line!?|
|Aug-05-12|| ||chrisowen: Colda tie ball breaker... in g4 roar Amos in just again dry it hope in stave it off in ghost a shell it alive in for empty it only try in oyster nf3 og hurt winger in up again g1 g4 joy forever beatufil!|
|Aug-05-12|| ||chrisowen: Defensive resource completely shattering blacks hopes objectively |
drawing cherubim queen boing g4 angel hand down inter-gfile-ference,
looking stalemate he he he king becomes unbridled as right in rook
dangling g4 fifth element nf3 in aether it regains the queen in e2
got to hand in him eg as masking checker in bolthole ar got
majesty rock in g3 but at least black has staved off my capital
concern bubbling up ply g5 doesnt drop in straight away g4 provide
another clincher great rivalry Edmond sure put up aware resistance
only one for cheeky can of worms it hope in great complexity finish
look in equal it yeah in germinate the seedling g4.
|Aug-05-12|| ||JohnBoy: This is unfair for me - I was just recently going though S Levitsky vs Marshall, 1912 and followed the link to this game given by <FSR> (25 July 12). One look at the position and my reading of the analysis all came back.|
I don't care what anyone says. That Burn could will his hand to move that black queen to g4 deserves my awe. I wonder if he had it in mind for a while or was in pure survival mode.
Interesting is the <syracrophy> puzzle on page 1 of these comments. I believe the solution there is 1.Bg4 - anyone care to contradict or corroborate?
|Aug-05-12|| ||DanielBryant: My first thought was actually Qxh3, followed by the clearance sac Nf3+ to set up Rh8+. However, Black doesn't even have enough material left to set up a mating net.|
|Aug-05-12|| ||Once: <QueenMe> All of the POTDs equate to one thing - what is the best move in the position? Not necessarily a move which mates. Not necessarily a move which wins material. In some cases, the best move might be the one that salvages a draw from a difficult position. Or, as in today's POTD, dodges some threatening tactics.|
Can you find a better move for black than 33...Qg4? If none of us can, then that is today's solution.
|Aug-05-12|| ||Dr. Pipit Wagtail: <stst>
The Levitsky-Marshall game of 1912 refered to in earlier posts today regarding The Joys of Chess can be found at the below link:
As a small aside... not being a wordsmith... would overuse of the word "meretricious" be considered in and of itself.... meretricious??
|Aug-05-12|| ||Patriot: There is a common idea here that occurred in one of my own games. My opponent played 10.Qe2 here:|
click for larger view
My pawn is pinned so by unpinning it with 10...Qe7, I'm free to win a piece.
In the POTD black's bishop is pinned and if it can be unpinned successfully, the white queen may fall. Knowing these kinds of ideas can help you spot them during a game efficiently. And seeing tactical elements like Nf3+, even though it may not be possible yet, can help piece together a workable combination.
|Aug-05-12|| ||morfishine: <FSR> Its obvious that <34.Bxg4> loses for White fairly handily. I find it hard to believe that <LM> would state <34.Bxg4, Bxd2; does NOT look like a win, in fact, (without an engine); it looks like Black might be struggling to make a draw ... (it) hardly looks like "an easy knock-out."> when its clear that White is struggling to draw if not is already downright lost. This statement by <LM> defies rational analysis|
|Aug-05-12|| ||Jimfromprovidence: Here's another game with a bolt-out-of-the-blue move. |
It's white to play and win. Move 21.
click for larger view
The game link is below
Sutovsky vs E Inarkiev, 2009
|Aug-05-12|| ||Conrad93: I should have realized that removing the pin was the best tactic...|
|Aug-05-12|| ||morfishine: <Jimfromprovidence> That is terrific your post with the game Sutovsky vs E Inarkiev, 2009|
I wanted to add your overall posts for the past couple of weeks have been outstanding, to say the least! Morf
|Aug-05-12|| ||QueenMe: <Once>: Actually, at the time I posted I found only 4 posts (well, 5, but one [from <ajile>] was conceded to be a line generated from Rybka). And of the remaining 4, 2 were mere mentions of it; hardly rising to the level of "analysis" you credit them for. And even so, in 4 (at the time) pages of kibitzing, that meant that only about one player per page commented on it. It's important because it continues to defend the night fork at f3, and guarantees that black has simply an exchange of queens. Moreover, I did fully concede, in a later post, that the move, while not resulting in a mate or other decisive win, DOES prevent the loss of the otherwise-doomed pinned bishop. Collaborating my point, BTW, is a similar post wondering why so few people mentioned 33) Be4. My main point was that I expected roughly 1/3 of the folks to be bringing up 34) Bxg4 instead of capturing with the rook, since there are three different ways the Queen can be captured (plus it has to obvious appeal of preserving defense of the knight fork, while capturing with the rook doesn't).|
|Aug-05-12|| ||Eduardo Leon: Easiest Sunday I have ever solved. 33...g4 breaks the pin, and if white restores it with 34.xg4, then 34...f3+ 35.(any) xd2 36.xg5+ h6!, a nasty surprise.|
|Aug-05-12|| ||Marmot PFL: 34 Bxg4 is not worth analyzing. As <gofer> pointed out the key line is 34 Rxg4 Nf3+ 35 Kg3! when it is black, not white, who still has to fight to draw. if black plays as in the game with 35...Nxd2 36 Rxg5+ Kh6 then 37 Kg4 threatening Rg6+ and Rxd6 puts white on top and if instead 36...Kf8 white's passed h pawn is dangerous.|
|Aug-05-12|| ||raul555: I found the cue winner move in one minute: Qg4; but I am lazy, and I din't follow the secuence|
|Aug-05-12|| ||Mendrys: Moves like 33...Qg4 are beauties that captured my interest in chess while I was in my teens. Not that I got it though but to be honest, it's not the deepest move I've seen lately. Surely not as deep as Anand's 24...Nc7 in Karjakin vs Anand, 2006|
<QueenMe> It's ok to be humbled every once in a while. Finding out that perhaps you aren't, perhaps, cut from a different "mould" by not seeing that 34. Bxg4 is the only way white can ensure his own defeat, must be humbling indeed.
Perhaps that assumption is wrong though . I'm sure that you'll find, if you look, moves that are gross blunders in tomorrows puzzle too that a certain percentage of the kibbitzers here don't mention.
|Aug-06-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <FSR>:
Yes. I *do* know your opinion of 33. ...g4. It would be difficult to read your many comments on this game and fail to know it. ;-)
Beyond that, I suppose we'll just have to make the proverbial agreement to disagree. Burn's move may have been his best practical chance, but objectively it fails to save him, and I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea to give too much credit in such an instance. However, "De gustibus non disputandum est," and all that.
|Aug-06-12|| ||Once: <QueenMe> Ahem. 4 or 5 kibitzers is not exactly nobody, is it? You may have expected one third of people to point it out, but as it clearly loses for white it doesn't need much discussion.|
As for 33. Be4, that comes one move before the puzzle position...
As I said before, we like to keep it pleasant on these pages. And that means not launching into a piece about "I'm surprised nobody has mentioned move X" - when people have mentioned it and anyway it's a clear blunder that doesn't need much discussion.
Time to move on, methinks.
|Aug-06-12|| ||FSR: <Abdel Irada> Yes, different strokes for different folks. As if to confirm this, Krabbé's own choice for the most fantastic move ever is a very strange one IMO: 16...Nc6?!? in Averbakh vs Spassky, 1956. My guess is that you and I can at least agree that that is an odd choice. :-)|
|Aug-06-12|| ||morfishine: <QueenMe> On your comment <...Or perhaps, more evidence that a lot of you guys here just re-post others' analysis, and there's a whole heckuva lot more herd-mentality here than anybody's willing to admit to...> IMHO, this is not the case. I believe the vast majority of POTD solvers simply post their best line in an honest fashion. With so many skilled solvers present, duplication is bound to happen. But there are holes. Look at my solution for example: I neglected to mention White's best response <34.Rxg4> which was the move played. That was a poor oversight on my part|
I think most if not all solvers are simply doing their unassisted best
|Aug-06-12|| ||Once: I suppose we've all done it at one time or another. You play through a chess game and spot a move that no-one else has mentioned. A move that seems to turn defeat into victory, or at the very least gives the loser a reason to play on.|
And for a brief instant you get that glow of personal pride that a scientist must get when he discovers a new breed of bug or a planet orbiting a distant star or a tiny particle even smaller than the previously discovered tiny particle.
You imagine the fame and riches which will follow. The applause and acclamation of your peers. Maybe an honorary title - say CGGM, a chessgames grandmaster? Gold medals, riches, adoring female fans drawn exclusively from the beach volleyball teams?
Then, one of three things will happen. If you are lucky, you will double check your analysis. Perhaps use a chess engine. Or play it out on a board. Then 999 times out of a hundred, you will discover that you haven't spotted something new. That miracle move doesn't save the day. It doesn't rewrite chess theory. In fact, it probably loses far more quickly than the lines that everyone else is talking about.
<Phew, that was close. Glad I didn't post it.>
Scenario #2 is that you tentatively offer your move to the world. You say something like "Doesn't 34...Bxg4 work?". You might add in something suitable humble like "or have I missed something?". Then someone will gently point out the problem with your line, and you can accept it with good grace.
<Aha, I see it now. Thanks for pointing it out.>
But then we get to scenario #3, the worst of all possible worlds. You can't help yourself. You want to shout from the rooftops about this marvellous move that you've found. So you post something hyper-aggressive - possibly with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS!!! - to say how wonderful you are to have spotted this move and how stoooopid everyone else is for missing it. Throw in a few insults and puff your chest out for added effect.
And the inevitable happens. <Ooops>
The moral of the story is this. Mistakes do sometimes happen in analysis. GMs do miss good moves, sometimes game-changing moves. A kibitzer will sometimes spot something that no-one else has.
But it is very rare. Especially in an age when powerful chess engines are available for free.
If you think you have spotted something new, check, check and double-check before announcing it to the world.
And do so politely, hmmm?
|Aug-22-13|| ||MarkFinan: How does white lose this??? 33.Be4 and its a totally different result, and to shadow box for 25 moves (missing 21.b4) without so much as a pawn being taken, building up a positional advantage and still not winning is unforgivable..
I've never heard of either player but this game must be pretty well known as there are 6 pages of kibitzing.. I'm now gonna read some comments and see if others agree. I hate reading the kibitzing first because if someone says anything remotely similar to what you're gonna say then i don't see the need to comment and repeat what others say..|
|Nov-14-13|| ||JustAnotherPatzer: <Mark> lol, that's why i never say anything technical; and also b/c i don't use engines so would probably get torn to shreds; 'better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt', that's my approach to kibitzing|
|Dec-14-13|| ||shallowred: When I make a simple combination or sacrifice that works OTB I am elated.|
This move is one of a kind.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·