< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Feb-03-10|| ||chrisowen: Entertaining's the King's Hall game, yet meeting Qxf2+ with Ng4 is a scam. Bridge the gap then landing the queen viar f3. The trinity of rook, queen and knight wrends the ffile where he misreads it, the architect of his own troubles. The passage of play is gxf3 Nxf3+ Kg2 Nxd2. In th first degree white should have played 20.Ng3.|
|Feb-03-10|| ||David2009: Wednesday's puzzle D King vs J Hall, 1998 Black 20...?
Material is level. There is no obvious forcing sequence. 20...Qf3 picks up a useful Pawn after 21 gxf3 Nxf3+ 22 Kg2 Nxd2
and the N has just time to escape via f3 or e4. 20...Qg5?? (hoping for Ne5?? Nf3+) is a losing blunder after 21 Qxg5!
We'll settle for the safe Pawn. Time to check:
|Feb-03-10|| ||BOSTER: According to <patzer2>, who is a great lover to use chess defenitions,and I honestly believe that this is very useful sometimes!
<Decoy: A sacrifice with the purpose of luring an enemy piece to particular square>.
But " there is no indisputable truth in chess" ,and according to Seirawan a decoy tactics can be performed without sacrifice too.
But the using chess terms in any comment arouses a simply question.
Don't you think that such sepation into parts destroys (for yourself) all masterpice, all aesthetic impression from combo, all irresistible beauty.?
Don't you think , that such breaking up into parts the brilliant chess picture you lose something? Don't you think that such "details" is a reason why we can't see " the forest from the trees sometimes"?
You know some people like a clarity in chess, another prefer the chaos . Different people, different styles.
I'm not going to change your style.
How I know you have a great experience and our habits are the second nature,but this is my point.
|Feb-03-10|| ||Once: <BOSTER> It is certainly true that different people have different definitions of beauty, in chess as in anything else. Some like a smashing violent attack, others like the precision of a neatly played endgame. Tal or Capablanca? Mozart or the Grateful Dead?|
I also find that perception of beauty changes with age. Many moons ago, when my head was carpeted rather than polished, I lived for the experience. Then it was Morphy, Alekhine and Tal. Tactics, tactics, tactics. I read a degree in English Literature and revelled in the taste of words on the tongue. Music was punk (the first time around), Pink Floyd and (ahem) Jethro Tull and Meat Loaf. It actually caused me pain that I would never again play through the Opera game for the first time, or hear Wish You Were Here, or read William Carlos William with fresh eyes. Love was the first fumble of a new partner, with sweaty anticipation and (sometimes) furniture being broken.
Then came responsibility, a job, and the ice queen who was later to become my ex-wife. And my tastes changed. In came the Beatles, history and Capablanca. I found I couldn't read literature without analysing it to death. I stopped saying "wow" and started asking "why".
Add a few more years and yet more changes. Now I have a young son to keep me in touch with "wow", and yes we have played through the opera game together as it was fresh for both of us. Lurve may not be the immediacy of the new and exciting, but the reassurance and depth of familiarity. So what if you've got wrinkles? So have I!
You can have both beauty and analysis. A tree is beautiful, but then again, so is a leaf, or the individual vein on a leaf, or the cells, atoms, quarks ...
I suppose the ultimate stage is senility when I won't remember that I've played through the Opera game before. :-)
|Feb-03-10|| ||cyclon: 20. -Qf3 ( -Nf3+? 21.gxf3 Qxf3 22.Ng3, White wins a piece) 21.gxf3 (Nf4 Qxf4 22.Qxf4 Rxf4 23.g3 Nf3+, Black wins a piece/Ne3 Qxf2+ 22.K- Nc4, Black wins) -Nxf3+ 22.K- Nxd2 Black's got a pawn and positional bind, but not immediate win. Improve?|
|Feb-03-10|| ||melianis: What??? eight-movers on wednesday???|
|Feb-03-10|| ||Brandon plays: Qf3+ is a clever way to get a big advantage.|
|Feb-03-10|| ||Patriot: <BOSTER>
My question to you is, how can anyone become a strong player if they can't break a position down into its tactical elements? That seems to be extremely important toward improving. Otherwise you wouldn't see hundreds of books written on tactical themes.
|Feb-03-10|| ||YouRang: <BOSTER><Don't you think that such sepation into parts destroys (for yourself) all masterpice, all aesthetic impression from combo, all irresistible beauty.? Don't you think , that such breaking up into parts the brilliant chess picture you lose something? Don't you think that such "details" is a reason why we can't see " the forest from the trees sometimes"?>|
Interesting concept. I agree with <Once> that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Going further though, I think that the analysis of breaking down into parts is necessary if you want to understand how to create such beautiful results yourself. After all, these great chess players don't just look at the board and say: "Hmm, what can I do that would be beautiful?".
No, the player observes the critical points of the board, and perhaps can find a potential tactic (say, a queen winning skewer). But before he can pull off that skewer, perhaps he must push the king to a particular square with a knight fork threat on f5. But before he can place the knight on f5, he must block a piece that is attacking f5 while also defending a square that the knight is currently defending -- and he sees that he can accomplish both of those goals with a rook sac.
Then, he finally springs his impressive combination beginning with the rook sac and ending with the skewer. Observers will say: "What a beautiful masterpiece!", but the player knows that it's just an assembly of simple tactics working together.
|Feb-03-10|| ||Domdaniel: <Once> Fascinating bit of chess (and related stuff) autobiography. I don't have an ex-wife to hand, but I've known a few ice queens.|
Weirdly - while immersed in the same 70s music, especially the unlikely mix of punk and Jethro Tull - my path went in the opposite direction. Back then I was crazy about Nimzowitsch and positional play... some horribly messy games resulted, and I failed to see that I was actually quite good at tactics.
Now, back at chess after a 15-year gap, I'm a Tal fan. And I've sacrificed more material in the last two years than in all of the 80s.
"... and your wise men don't know how it feels/ to be thick as a brick ..."
|Feb-03-10|| ||YouRang: I see <Patriot> pretty much made the same point I was making, except he was much more efficient. :-)|
|Feb-03-10|| ||OhioChessFan: <<OhioChessFan>: Anyone have a look at <24. h6>?>|
<Patriot: Apparently to play Nh5 - f6+ in some lines? 24...g6 may be best, maintaining symmetry.>
No, expecting 24..g6 and then the strong outpost 25. Ne5. I can't really analyze it but the idea seems better than the game.
click for larger view
|Feb-03-10|| ||muwatalli: the very first thing i notice is that black's queen is under attack, then i notice the possibility of forks at f3, a move i am looking at now is qf3, but it appears it does not really force a win, but just wins a pawn after gxf3 nxf3+ kh1 or h2 or even f1 and it doesn't seem decisive enough for a puzzle. nf3+ immediately seems to get nowhere after gxf3 qxf3 ng3, after 10 minutes the best i can find is qf3 gxf3 nxf3+ winning only a pawn as i see it.|
|Feb-03-10|| ||Patriot: <OhioChessFan>
I put the position into Fritz and it agrees that 24.h6 g6 are best. The straightforward 24.Ne5 is only slightly worse (about 0.18 pawns worse). But 24.h6 doesn't help strengthen e5, so I tested to see what Fritz does on 24...gxh6. It valued 25.Be2 as best (-0.55) and 25.Nh5 as second best (-0.81) after several minutes.
So basically Fritz agrees with you. But if you can consistently choose moves that are 0.2 pawns better than other moves...I would be shaking in my boots if we got paired in a match!
|Feb-03-10|| ||A Karpov Fan: Got it, but I wanted more somehow...|
|Feb-03-10|| ||A Karpov Fan: on second thoughts i do like this puzzle...mainly becasue GM Daniel King is so irritating :-)|
|Feb-03-10|| ||BOSTER: <Once>
I guess it was not so easy to reveal some pages from The Golden Days.
Chess like a literature is an analysis what have already happened. Thanks.
|Feb-03-10|| ||BOSTER: <Patriot> <how can anyone become a strong player if they can not break a position down in tactical elements>. You drink the water without the breaking it into in elements.|
|Feb-03-10|| ||YouRang: <BOSTER: <Patriot> <how can anyone become a strong player if they can not break a position down in tactical elements>. You drink the water without the breaking it into in elements.>|
Yes, but analogies are tricky...
Is 'drinking the water' analogous to observing someone else's masterful combination, or making your own masterful combinations?
If the former, then yes, you can appreciate the water that someone else made.
But if the latter, then nobody is making water for you. You've got to understand how to find the elements and put them together to make your own water. :-)
|Feb-03-10|| ||Patriot: <BOSTER>
How does someone become a chemist without knowing anything about the elements? How does someone become a mathematician without knowing basic arithmetic? How can a programmer create software without knowing the syntax of the language or programming concepts? Likewise a chess player cannot become very strong without learning basic tactics and becoming very familiar with them.
|Feb-04-10|| ||Once: I think chess is sufficiently complex that we may never understand all of it. So as we gain a little understanding, some of the mystery disappears but we notice other, more subtle mysteries.|
So, yes, knowing about chess tactics does take away some of the beauty of chess. Moves look a lot less miraculous when you can see why they are played, just as magic tricks look less magic when you know that the woman is hiding in a secret compartment and not really being sawed in half.
If we are to improve chess skill, then we must acquire these basic tactical skills and the memory to recall previous games and tactics. After all, we are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
But there will always be something else to learn, especially positional themes and the tricky subject of when to trade material for position advantage. And that, for me, keeps the game fresh and interesting, even when most tactics are things I have seen before.
|Feb-04-10|| ||kevin86: What gives? It looks like all the problem solved was how to keeo the attack going without losing time.|
|Feb-04-10|| ||YouRang: <Once> Good analogy regarding the magician. :-)|
|Feb-05-10|| ||Xeroxx: In the Hall of the Mountain King|
|Sep-24-10|| ||whiteshark: <Boster> What effect does truth have on our experience?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·