< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Aug-23-07|| ||alshatranji: I thought of Qe4 after 35.fxe3. Seems to lead to the same thing.|
|Aug-23-07|| ||tallinn: <Manic> I missed the first comment on Qc7 before posting mine. So after having read it I think that the line Qe4 f3 Rxg2 Kh1 Rf2! is even stronger then mine and nicer. Note that I do not take "surrendering" lines into account like Rf2 Qxg7+ Kxg7 Rg1+ (although it must be mentioned here that black has to give back the queen now but wins the rook) as for the obvious material disadvantege. OTB in a lost position like this it makes sense for the weaker side to play the most complicated line which is not necessarily the line the computer evaluates best. Make it hard for the enemy :-) It may be that your (human) opponent stumbles. For the same reason I dismissed the defenses Bb5 and Bc2 after Qd3 in my line. (I once read on the internet that computer engine developers were thinking about implementing such "anti-human" strategies into their programs to increase their score out of equal positions).|
I want to mention that I am not all too happy with computer lines posted as solutions to the problems here - although I use an engine to backup my lines. Normally they are spoilers and reduce the fun finding lines on your own and discussing them here. On saturdays and sundays they are sometimes wrong as those posiions are often challenging for computer engines as well. And in all cases one does not learn anything from computer lines that improves chess skills. They are just useful to indicate errors in own calculations that would be missed otherwise.
|Aug-23-07|| ||ellhares: notice: just i noticed that alot of players here use chess program to analyze the matchs hmm!! without no doubt programs r prilliant when it comes to tactic but programs also make major stratigic blunders so dont trust it too much!! but after all programs r tough players!!|
|Aug-23-07|| ||benjinathan: <And in all cases one does not learn anything from computer lines that improves chess skills. They are just useful to indicate errors in own calculations that would be missed otherwise.>|
I respect your view but totally disagree. Computer programs show other possibilities that you may not have considered. All that they do is provide several "answers" thereby serving the same, and even an improved, resource that the answer section of any chess puzzle book provides. There is a reason why chess tactics books have an answers section.
If you do not want to read computer lines then don't read them. I find they are pretty easy to spot.
|Aug-23-07|| ||znprdx: Ok Patzer its time to move the pieces (blushing shamelessly)-no different than consulting computer analysis - but at least I'm doing the work.
[But once again thanx to <MostlyAverageJoe> for the details]|
Oh truly sweet...34.Qe4!! after moving or protecting the Bishop the threat is Nh4. The icing on the cake is 35.Bd1 Ne3! - there I found it :) 36. Bf3 Rb1! What a thrill it would be to find this OTB. Or if 35.Qc6 Nh4 36. f3 Rxg2 + 37. Kh1 Qe2 38. Bc2+ Ng6 39.Bxg6[N]+ Kxg6[B]and mate is unstoppable
What a treat!! I'd considered the immediate Ne3 to be in the same fantasy as Rxf2 ...This was an extraordinary situation - White at first glance surely seems to have the edge, at the very least an easy draw
|Aug-23-07|| ||znprdx: znprdx: I must be psychic - while writing my post the fascinating exchange between <tallinn> and <benjinathan> ensued. Methinks this debate comes down to whether or not you think a calulator is a useful tool. It is of course - but unless you understand more or less what the answer will be or what it represents - any key input error can be costly. The heuristics of computer logic can certainly bewilder us at times....most of the time I don't bother with them - particularly in multi-optional middle game positions - since the beauty of Chess lies in envisioning the most poetic lines ... sometimes computer lines challenge our sense of esthetics...except in end-games where brutal calculation is all that counts (pun intended)|
|Aug-23-07|| ||zb2cr: Hmmm. I thought of 34. ... Ne3, but did not see a good follow-up. After some two minutes of thought, I decided that 34. ... Qe4 had to be it, even though it did not seem to be particularly forcing after 35. Bd1, Nh4; 36. Bf3, Nxf3+; 37. gxf3, Qxf3; 38. Qa7.|
|Aug-23-07|| ||TheaN: Fission mailed... *sigh* 3/4. I went for Rxf2 but that is futile.|
|Aug-23-07|| ||kevin86: Pshaw! I looked at every sacrifice move but this one-starting with the Marshall clone Qg3. BTW,I saw a neat helpmate in two by:34...♖f2 35 ♔xf2 ♕e3#} Of course ♖f2 is met by 35 ♖xf2 ♕e1+ 36 ♖f1 ♕e3+ 37 ♔h1 and escapes the checks.|
I the text if 36 ♖f2 ♕xe3 37 ♕f7 ♖e1# taking advantage of the pin.
|Aug-23-07|| ||MostlyAverageJoe: <znprdx: 34.Qe4!! after moving or protecting the Bishop the threat is Nh4. The icing on the cake is 35.Bd1 Ne3! - there I found it :) 36. Bf3 Rb1!>|
Hmm, maybe I am misreading your line, but 34...Qe4 35.Bd1 Ne3 36.Bf3 Rb1 is refuted by 37.Bxe4+ which wins for white (without a check on BxQ, this indeed would be a winning position for the black).
BTW, I did not use software on this puzzle (it is busy running Fritz for the 5.? move for the GMT game). If I did, I'd see RV's line <34...Qe4 35.Bd1 Nh4 36.Bf3 Qg6 37.Bxd5> diverging on the 37th move from my "forced" < 34...Qe4 35.Bd1 Nh4 36. Bf3 Qg6 37.Kh1>
<tallinn: ... one does not learn anything from computer lines that improves chess skills. They are just useful to indicate errors in own calculations that would be missed otherwise>
Depends on what you do with the analysis. I always ask myself "what would I have to look for in order to find the same solution?" This sometimes generates useful insights.
For short tactical shots, software cannot be beat. But yes, it will miss long-term strategies, as well as winning sacrifices that are not recovered very quickly.
In complex positions, one still has to use software as more than just a push-button solution provider. The multi-variant lines done with shallow (20 plies or less) analysis generally cannot be trusted past the first 6-8 plies. They have to be augmented with sliding forward/backward analysis (which I normally do when I post "best for both sides" lines). The software is still just a tool, and it does require some skill in using it. Personally, I feel I have barely started to understand how to use software effectively...
|Aug-23-07|| ||playground player: I wonder how many warehouses are full of Nehru jackets because some marketing computer told the company to buy them...|
|Aug-23-07|| ||newton296: 4 for 4 woo hoo !
this seemed so easy . mate threats or a loss of material are unavoidable after ne3 ! As soon as I saw the puzzle ne3 jumped out at me. also considered Nh4 but didnt see any good lines , so checked game.
didn't look at all the silly computer lines posted. especially the ones where white blocks the rook to avoid mate with Bc2? and Q c2??
why not just resign if that's all white has. only a computer would invest thought in such a hopeless moves.
|Aug-23-07|| ||TimothyFoster: Please explain to me:
Why give up after losing only one pawn? Didn't he still have more material and a reasonably attacking position. Wasn't there a way to (at least) draw the game?
|Aug-23-07|| ||euripides: <tim> white is getting checkmated e.g. 36.Rf2 Rb1+ 37.Rf1 Qxe3+ 38.Kh1 Rxf1 mate or 36.g3 Qxe3+ 37.Kh1 Qe4+ etc.|
|Aug-23-07|| ||fm avari viraf: My intuition says 34...Ne3 since 35.fxe3 then ...Qg5 [ even 35...Qxe3+ 36.Kh1 Qe4 threatening mate on g2 & Qxa4 is possible but inferior to the text. ] But if White declines the Knight & plays 35.Re1 then simply ...Ng4! with multiple threats should win.|
|Aug-23-07|| ||OwenNG: I looked at Nf3 but was put off by 35 Re1, but looking again I see that 35...Nc2 would quickly end things.|
|Aug-23-07|| ||RandomVisitor: <tallinn><And in all cases one does not learn anything from computer lines that improves chess skills.>I have to respectfully disagree. The computer lines are an estimate of best play, just like that of any other person who comes to this site and offers his opinion. The effectiveness of the machine estimate depends on the type of position and the length of time that the computer spends on the position.|
The correct way to interpret a computer line is as a suggestion, and the depth of the search in ply or half-moves should indicate roughly how much time was used in creating the estimate. The grandmasters in these games are also offering their estimate of the best move, and even they are sometimes wrong.
By looking at all available estimates for the best moves, including those made by a computer, we can obtain understanding and insight into the position offered as the daily puzzle.
|Aug-23-07|| ||pandi: simple|
|Aug-23-07|| ||gilbertblondy: Bonjour,
2.fe ♕g5(Δ ♕g2#)
4.♖f1 ♕e3 and mate next move
|Aug-23-07|| ||Marmot PFL: You just have to make yourself analyse every threat or capture, which today for some reason I did not do. Nice example of piece coordination in an attack on a castled king.|
|Aug-24-07|| ||kfkcapa2001: <kevin86>True that <34...♖xf2 35.♖xf2,♕e1+ 36.♖f1,♕e3+ 37.♔h1 and escapes the checks>. . . but not how you might expect: a plausable line may go 37...♕e2 38.♖c1,♘e3 39.♖g1,♘g4 40.h3,♘f2+ 41.♔h2,♕e5+ 42.g3,♕f5 43.g4,♕f4+ 44.♔g2,♘e4 45.♕c7,e5 46.♕c2,♕g3+ 47.♔f1,♕f3+ 48.♔e1,♕e3+ 49.♔f3,♕f3+ with perpetual. Instead of 43.g4, the exquisite 43.♖g2! seals Black's fate. |
Incidentally, <tallinn> might take note that 43.♖g2! here was found by a computer. And though I've found great master moves missed by computers also, these silicon thinkers do help us see things from fresh vantage points.
A cool position; it's interesting how many motifs lurk inside. Too bad Razuvaev didn't defend stronger.
|Aug-24-07|| ||Honza Cervenka: <But if White declines the Knight & plays 35.Re1 then simply ...Ng4! with multiple threats should win.> Correct and very elegant but 35...Qe4 would be possible as well, for example 36.f3 Rxg2+ 36.Kh1 Qxf3 with mate.|
|Aug-24-07|| ||patzer2: The Thursday, Aug 23,2007 puzzle solution
was the little demolition combination 34...Ne3!! After 35. fxe3 Qg5! 36. g3 (36. Rf2 Rb1+ ), Black wins with 36...Qxe3+ 37. Kh1 Qe4+ 38. Kg1 Qg2#.
|Aug-24-07|| ||TimothyFoster: <Euripides>
|Sep-06-07|| ||kfkcapa2001: <zb2cr: "I decided that 34...♕e4 had to be it even though it did not seem to be particularly forcing after 35.♗d1,♘h4 36.♗f3,♘xf3+...">|
34...♕e4 is quite forcing (though 34...♘e3 is more so). But Black must continue not 36...♘xf3+(premature) but rather 36...♕g6 37.♔h1,♖xf2!
Then after 38.♖g1,♘xf3 39.gxf3,♕f6 40.♖g3 (40.f4, nets Black a rook after ...♕b2 41.♖xg7+,♕xg7 42.♕xg7+,♔xg7 43.a4,♖xd4 and mops up the q-side pawns), 40...♕a1+ 41.♖g1,♖f1 42.♕xg7+,♕xg7 43.♖xf1,d4with a whopping Q vs. R advantage for Black.
Note that the Black queen makes half the moves. Its precise play joined to the crackling ...♖xf2 shot busts the underdefended White kingside, all because the White queen is cut off from the scene of action.
A fine position to linger over--with more than one way to win.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·