|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Aug-09-09
 |
| RandomVisitor: After the suggested improvement 21...Nxg3 22.hxg3 Bxe4 23.Bxe4 Re7 black might be able to hang on.
click for larger view<[+0.47] d=22 24.Bd5> Nd7 25.e6 Nf6 [+0.46] d=22 24.c4 bxc4 25.Bd5 Nd7 |
 |
Aug-09-09
 |
| David2009: In the game continuation, 26 ...Nc6 seems better than 26...Bd5. For example: 26 ...Nc6 27 Nxc6 Bxc6 28 Rh7 Kd5 29 Rxh6 Ng7 30 Rg6 Ne6 31 h4 gxh4 32 gxh4 Kxe5. 
click for larger view White (to play) is better
but his advantage is less clear-cut than in the game. Or can White's earlier play be strengthened? |
|
Aug-09-09
 |
| LIFE Master AJ: <Aug-09-09 <An Englishman:> "Good Evening: <A Karpov Fan>, CG will sometimes torture us on Sunday with puzzles where there is no decisive combination, but rather, the solution is to find a speculative sacrifice that cannot be analyzed to the end, but offers very good chances. "> An Englishman: I would like to interject something here, if I may ... I would say that this is not a case like you discussed, this contest is actually a forced win for White. I have now worked on it many hours with the computer, so I can say this. It is actually (pretty much) <all> forced, the only catch is that - in some lines - you have to be able to calculate 10-15 moves ahead. (I know this is nearly impossible, unless your names is ... Kasparov or Fischer or Anand!) I think White could have calculated 5 (or more) moves ahead, and then proceeded with the sack on general principles. (Black's position is just too disorganized, in partucular, the Black Rook on a7 is completely out of play.) |
|
Aug-09-09
 |
| playground player: 19.Nxf5  -it felt good, so I did it. |
|
Aug-09-09
 |
| johnlspouge: < <JG27Pyth> wrote: LOL... after reviewing the answer I am sooo OK with my decision not to try the Sunday puzzle this week and just check the solution. Soooo ok... in fact, I feel like I had the correct solution in a metaphysical sense. > I have listened to many scientific talks, most boring, few with any real wisdom. I do remember one worthy talk in 1984, however, where the speaker said: "Suicide is never a good defense." Thanks for reminding me of that nugget, <Pyth>. Keep well :) |
|
| Aug-09-09 |
| Summerfruit: Material is even.
The knight Ne4 is pinned, on the other hand the other knight Nh5 has no flight squares. 19.Nxf5+
Black is obliged to capture, otherwise white wins more material. 19...exf5 20.Rxd8 Kxd8 21.Rxf5
White has two pawns for the sacrificed knight, but Nh5 is now in trouble. a) 21...g6 22.Rf8+ Kc7 23.g4 Ng7 24.Rf7+ Kb6 25.Rxg7
White is now two pawns up, but black can try
25...Bxe4 26.Rxa7 Bxg2 27.Rg7
White has R + 2P for bishop and knight, and 28.Rxg6+ followed by 29.Rxh6 are on the cards. 27...Be4 protecting Pg6, but now the Pe5 is about to queen. 28.e6 Kc6 29.e7 Kd7 30.e8Q+ Kxe8 31.Rg8+ winning the knight with an easy endgame victory. b) 21...Bxe4 22.Bxe4
b1: 22...g6 23.Rf8+ Kc7 24.e6 Nc6 25.e7 and wins.
b2: 22...Nxg3 23.hxg3 and white is a pawn up with superior position. b3: 22...Nf6 23.exf6 gxf6 24.Rxf6 and also the Ph6 is lost. c) 21...Nf6 22.exf6 gxf6 23.Rxf6 winning the Ph6.
d) 21...Nxg3 23.hxg3 and white is pawn up with the better position. |
|
Aug-09-09
|
| johnlspouge: Sunday (Insane):
T Wedberg vs G Sigurjonsson, 1979 (19.?) White to play and win.
Material: Even. The Black Ke7 has 4 legal moves. The White Rd1 and Rf1 x-ray files encircling Ke7, suggesting possible passive sacrifice of Ne4, to cramp Ke7. The White Rd1 x-rays Rd8 through the White Nd4; similarly, (the pinned) Bg2 x-rays Bb7 through Ne4, suggesting discovered attacks. Almost all Black pieces are loose or questionably guarded. The Black Nh5 has no flight squares. The White Kc1 is secured from check, although Rd8-d1+ is eventually possible. Candidates (19.): Nxf5+
19.Nxf5+ (threatening 20.Nfd6)
19…exf5 [else, drop at least a P] 20.Rxd8 Kxd8 [else, drop a R after 21.Rxb8] 21.Rxf5 (threatening 22.Rxh5, leaving White up 2P)
The defense 21…g6 leaves Nh5 without the flight square f4 against the threat Pg3-g4. 21…g5 [g6 is worse] [else, drop Nh5, leaving White up 2P] 22.Rf8+ Kc7 [else, 22.Rxb8, leaving White up 2P] 23.Rf7+ (1) 23…Kb6 24.Nd6 (threatening 25.Nc8+ winning Ra7 for Bg2) Black is best to accept the consequences of the threat. (2) 23…Kd8 [Nd7 24.e6 wins Nd7] [Kc8 or Kc6 24.Nd6+]
24.Nd6 Bxg2 [else, drop at least B for down 2P] 25.Rxa7 In both variations, White has “only” R+2P for B+N, but the Black Nh5 cannot move (and the light-square B cannot help), giving White a significant advantage with his passed Pe5. |
|
Aug-09-09
|
| johnlspouge: Toga gives the following as best play, showing the last <move> I entered from the game variation. Humans can improve near the end of the complete computer variation. [ply 19/62 time 01:41 value +0.70]
21.<Rxf5> Bxe4 22.Bxe4 Nxg3 23.hxg3 Re7 24.Bd5 Nd7 25.e6 Nc5 26.c4 Nxe6 27.cxb5 axb5 28.Bxe6 Rxe6 29.Rxb5 Re3 30.a4 Rxg3 31.a5 Kc7 32.Kd2 Rg6 33.b4 Ra6 34.Ke3 g5 35.Ke4 Kd6 36.Rd5+ Kc7 37.Kf5 Ra8 38.Rc5+ Kd6 Toga diverges from the game and the preferences shown by all the wetware (i.e., us kibitzers) in an interesting way. We likely feel the pain of drawn-out, disadvantaged positions more than computers do, so our evaluation functions differ systematically from theirs. |
|
Aug-09-09
 |
| A Karpov Fan: Could anybody here recommend a good book to improve my tactics? I barely scratched the surface with this puzzle :-( |
|
Aug-09-09
 |
| wals: The following may be of help to those seeking help
[Event "Lucerne"]
[Site "Lucerne"]
[Date "1979.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tom Wedberg"]
[Black "Gudmundur Sigurjonsson"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B98"]
[WhiteElo "2498"]
[BlackElo "2463"]
[Annotator "Rybka 3 1-cpu (30m)"]
[PlyCount "73"]
 98: Sicilian  ajdorf: 6 g5 e6 7 f4 e7, sidelines
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4
cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bh4 Qa5 10. O-O-O
Qh5 11. Qxh5 Nxh5 12. Bxe7 Kxe7 13. g3 b5 14. Bg2 (14. a4 b4 15. Na2 e5 )
14... Ra7 lack is behind in development. (14... Bb7 15. Bf3 g6 16. Rhe1 )
15. e5 $16 dxe5 16. fxe5 Rd8 (16... Rd7 17. Nce2 g6 18. g4 ) 17. Ne4 White
has a king attack (17. Rhf1 Rad7 18. Nce2 g5 ) 17... Bb7 18. Rhf1 f5 19.
Nxf5+ (19. exf6+ gxf6 20. Rf2 Ng7 ) 19... exf5 20. Rxd8 Kxd8 21. Rxf5 g5 ?? blunder
(21... Nxg3 would hold out 22. hxg3 Bxe4 23. Bxe4 Re7 ) 22. Rf8+
Kc7 23. Rf7+ Kb6 24. Nd6 Bxg2 25. Nc8+ Kc5 26. Nxa7 (ot 26. Rxa7 Bd5
) 26... Bd5 (26... Nc6 27. Nxc6 Bxc6 28. Rh7 ) 27. Rh7 Kd4 (27... a5 28. Rh8
Nc6 29. Nxc6 Bxc6 30. Rxh6 ) 28. Rxh6 (28. Rh8 keeps an even
firmer grip Nxg3 29. hxg3 Nd7 30. Rxh6 Nc5 ) 28... Ng7 29. Rh8 (29. Rb6
seems even better Nd7 30. Rxa6 b4 ) 29... Nd7 (29... Nc6 30. Nxc6+
Bxc6 ) 30. Rh7 Nxe5 (30... Nf5 cannot change destiny 31. Rxd7 Kxe5 32. b3
) 31. Rxg7 g4 32. Nc8 (32. c3+ makes it even easier for White Ke4 33. b3
Kf5 ) 32... Be6 (32... b4 is not the saving move 33. Nd6 ) 33. Ne7 (33.
Nd6 and White can already relax Nf3 34. Ra7 b4 35. Rxa6 Nxh2 36. Nb5+ Ke5
) 33... Nf3 (33... Kc5 does not solve anything 34. Rg5 Kd6 35. Nf5+ Kd5 36.
Ng7 ) 34. Rg6 Ke5 35. Rh6 Bd7 36. Kd1 a5 (36... Be8 doesn't get the cat
off the tree 37. c3 ) 37. Nc6+ (37. Nc6+ Bxc6 38. Rxc6 ) 1-0 |
|
Aug-09-09
|
| wals: <A Karpov fan>
http://chess.emrald.net/
would give you free tactical exercises |
|
Aug-09-09
 |
| An Englishman: Good Evening: <Life Master AJ> has raised some excellent points in his reply to my post. Let's take a closer look at his sentence "I think White could have calculated 5 (or more) moves ahead, and then proceeded with the sack on general principles." I believe your statement is correct, but the irony is that to me, this statement describes the essence of the speculative sacrifice. I must clarify what I mean by "combination." To me, a combination is one where you can calculate every variation to the end and know that no matter what your opponent does, you will realize a tangible gain, as in "leads to mate or loss of the Queen." I should probably illustrate my thinking with some examples. Example of a combination: White's 3-mover in Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858 Example of a speculative sacrifice: naturally, it's Alekhine: 13.Rd1 in Alekhine vs Book, 1938 Until Wedberg weighs in with his input, we will have to agree that he probably didn't calculate those 10-15 moves you mentioned. To me, that's a speculative sac, but reasonable persons can disagree. I hope this will help you understand my way of thinking. |
|
| Aug-09-09 |
| Old Wolf: We found a line not mentioned yet:
Nxf5 ef; Rxd8 Kxd8; Rf5+ g5 (or g6); Rf8+ Kc7; e6
Black king is tied to defending the b8 N, he has to give up a piece to stop promotion. |
|
| Aug-09-09 |
| OBIT: <David2009>Now that I know the en passant capture is available, there is little doubt in my mind that I'd play 19. exf6 OTB, since it both saves the knight and eliminates my crappy pawn on e5. I'd say the move leaves White with a slight advantage, mainly because his pawn structure looks a little better. Looking at the combination as played in the game, I wouldn't call it super difficult, but I doubt I'd be looking for it OTB. I think I'd be more concerned about conserving my time for what could easily be a tough endgame. This gives me a chance to make a soapbox comment about how puzzles are different from games. Posters here are fond of commenting about how they can find key moves in puzzles that they'd never find OTB - since it's a puzzle, they say, they know there must be a flashy move here, but OTB there is no buzzer going off saying "there is a flashy move here, now find it." While I agree with that to a point, at times I still try to find flashy moves in OTB games. From a practical standpoint, however, this can't be done on every move. Frankly, most sacrifices do not work, so if you spend your time investigating every sacrificial possibility that comes up, in most games you will end up in time trouble. Of course, if you don't spend a lot of time on the sacrifice and just "go for it" the first time you see a sacrifice that looks appealing, you will lose a lot. So, knowing that time management is an issue, when do you decide to spend 15 or 30 minutes looking for a big move? I suppose that comes from experience - knowing when you are at a critical position. I also suppose that, the better the player, the better he is at realizing a critical position has been reached. And, I suppose that, the better the player, the faster he can calculate, which means he can study more big moves during a game. For sure, though, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can look at every possibility on every move when a clock is running. |
|
| Aug-09-09 |
| DarthStapler: I didn't get it |
|
| Aug-09-09 |
| tallinn: <OBIT> As CG is known to sometimes present puzzles that are not really some (i.e. no tactical blow available) I can't take your side. I spent some time investigating the position which is ok as a puzzle position is different from an OTB situation in the way that one did not see the situation evolving. OTB a lot of thinking has been done already. CG asks for the best move and I looked for the best move and eventually noticed the odd position of the N on h5. OTB you would think a move before "He can't play f5, I would take it." And if you feel there is a tactical chance you are obliged to investigate it. One of the most humiliating experiences in analyzing games that did not went as well as you feeled they should do during the game is to notice that you missed the decisive blow. If you miss it more often then not your advantage vanishes just like that. exf is a move that reactivates the black knight. Not really attractive. |
|
Aug-09-09
 |
| dzechiel: <A Karpov Fan: Could anybody here recommend a good book to improve my tactics? I barely scratched the surface with this puzzle :-(> Early in my chess "career" I read "Chess Traps, Pitfalls and Swindles" cover to cover, and it caused me look at the board in new and different ways. Can't say it will do the same for you (and you will likely have to learn descriptive notation), but that would be my recommendation. Good luck. |
|
Aug-09-09
 |
| jheiner: <A Karpov Fan> Also take a look at "Predator at the Chessboard" to get some solid concepts. http://www.bu.edu/dbin/law/chess/ |
|
Aug-09-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: < <An Englisman> <"Until Wedberg weighs in with his input, we will have to agree that he probably didn't calculate those 10-15 moves you mentioned. To me, that's a speculative sac, but reasonable persons can disagree. I hope this will help you understand my way of thinking."> > OK, I think I understand what you are saying. You stated your point so clearly, precisely and eloquently, that I will not disagree with you. As you say, it is a pointless argument until Wedberg himself tells ... "his side of the story." :) |
|
| Aug-09-09 |
| TheBish: T Wedberg vs G Sigurjonsson, 1979 White to play (19.?) "Insane"
There is only move that makes sense:
19. Nxf5+! exf5 20. Rxd8 and now:
A) 20...Kxd8 21. Rxf5 leads to
A1) 21...Bxe4 22. Rxe4 g5 (22...g6 is similar) 23. Rf8+ Kc7 24. e6! Nc6 (or 24...Ng7 25. e7 and the pawn will cost Black a piece) 25. Rf7+ Kd6 26. Bxc6 Rxf7 27. exf7 Ke7 28. b4! Kxf7 29. Bb7 and White will win easily. A2) 21...g5 (or 21...g6) 22. Rf8+ Kc7 23. Rf7+ Kb6 (or 23...Nd7 24. e6) 24. Nd6 Bxg2 25. Nc8+ (this move is why this whole line works!) Kc5 26. Nxa7 followed by Rh7 and Rxh6 and White should win the endgame. B) 20...Bxe4 21. Rxb8 Bxg2 22. Rxf5 g6 23. Rff8 Ng7 24. Rf6 Be4 26. Rbf8 Bd5 27. Rh8 and White will win another pawn and should win the endgame. This one is "insane" because of all the tactics involved, just to get a winning endgame. You still have to win that! |
|
Aug-10-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <dzechiel:> <A Karpov Fan: Could anybody here recommend a good book to improve my tactics? I barely scratched the surface with this puzzle :-(> < "Early in my chess "career" I read "Chess Traps, Pitfalls and Swindles" cover to cover," ...> I still have that book, its one of my favorites! (I like the stories in it as well.) |
|
| Aug-10-09 |
| obender71: I fought hard to make work 19.Rxf5 but overlooked the sac refuse other than g6. BTW I'm happy that my diligent work after 19... exf5 is very right. This is what I saw:
19 Rxf5
19 ... g6?!
20 Rf2 with the idea of Rfd2 with better pieces.
19 ... exf5
20 Nxf5+
20 ... Kf7 20 ... Kf8 20 ... Ke6 obviously are bad.
20 ... Ke8
21 Ned6+
21 ... Rxd6?
22 Nxd6+ Ke7
23 Nxb7 Nd7
24 Na5 Rc7
25 Nc6+
21 ... Kf8
22 Nxb7
22 ... Rc8
23 Nfd6 Rc7
24 Rf1+ with the idea of g4
22 ... Re8
23 Nfd6 Rxe5
24 Nc8
22 ... Rxd1+
23 Kxd1 g6
24 Nfd6
24 ... Nd7
25 e6 Nf6
26 e7+ Kxe7
27 Nc8+
24 ... Ng7
25 Nc8 Ra8
26 Nbd6
Not bad but wrong :( for 19 ... Bxe4 |
|
Aug-11-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: Wedberg,T - Sigurjonsson,G [B98]
Luzern 1979 [T. Wedberg]
From Informant # 27/ game #484.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 h6 9.Bh4 Qa5 N 10.0-0-0 Qh5 11.Qxh5 [11.Qg3 - 27/(484)] 11...Nxh5 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.g3² b5? [13...Nf6] 14.Bg2 Ra7 [14...Bb7 15.Bf3 g6 (15...Nf6?? 16.e5 ) 16.e5 Bxf3 17.exd6+ Kxd6 18.Nxf3+ Ke7 19.Ne5±] 15.e5!± dxe5 16.fxe5 Rd8 17.Ne4 Bb7 18.Rhf1 [. 19. ¤d6, 19. g4] 18...f5 [18...Bxe4 19.Bxe4 Rad7 20.Nc6+ Nxc6 21.Bxc6 Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 23.Kxd1 ; 18...f6 19.exf6+ gxf6 (19...Nxf6 20.Rfe1) 20.Rfe1 Ng7 21.Bh3±] 19.Nxf5+! exf5 20.Rxd8 Kxd8 21.Rxf5 g5 [21...Bxe4 22.Bxe4 g5 23.Rf8+ Kc7 24.e6! Nc6 (24...Ng7 25.e7) 25.Rf7+ Kb6 26.Bxc6 ] 22.Rf8+ Kc7 23.Rf7+ Kb6 24.Nd6 Bxg2 [24...Nc6 25.Bxc6 Kxc6 26.Rh7 ] 25.Nc8+ Kc5 26.Nxa7 Bd5 27.Rh7 Kd4 28.Rxh6 Ng7 29.Rh8 Nd7? [29...Nc6 30.Nxc6+ Bxc6 31.Rh6 ] 30.Rh7 Nxe5 31.Rxg7 g4 32.Nc8 Be6 33.Ne7 Nf3 34.Rg6 Ke5 35.Rh6 Bd7 36.Kd1 a5 37.Nc6+ 1-0 |
|
Aug-11-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: The above analysis differs greatly from mine ... of course, this is largely due to the influence of strong chess programs. |
|
Aug-11-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: And while Black's 29th move was considered a mistake, Fritz analysis will clearly show that Black was already lost. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
Secrets of Opening Surprises
|
|
|
