|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-06-09 | | puchou: I can't believe he missed a simple mate in 2!
|
|
| Jan-06-09 | | gmalino: I had the same shocking feeling then zooter, like what the hell did i miss....
but sometimes it's weird how ANYONE does overlook mates or "easy" combinations.
See this well known example:
Deep Fritz vs Kramnik, 2006
So, that's life! Cheers and have fun anyway. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | jovack: lol he missed it, but he goes on to win
reminds me of a game i saw waitzkin play that he annotated on chessmaster when he missed taking a free rook, and went on to win |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | DarthStapler: I got it but it took a while, I kept looking at other things first |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | hot pawn: I got this in under a minute therefore it stands to reason that I am much better than a grandmaster. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | Samagonka: I was ready to bet 100 Euros for a queen sac until I saw the rook on a7. Thereafter, I started asking myself if today was really Tuesday. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | geeker: Not that hard, but a very pretty mate. Took me longer than usual for a Tuesday, though. First thing I tried was the queen sac, but rejected it because of the defending Ra7. Then thought about Ng6 ideas, but it could be captured by Pf7. Finally came back to the Q sac idea. Checked the game, and was shocked that Plaskett missed it. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | FrogC: GM Plaskett looks in here from time to time, doesn't he? I wonder if he'll comment. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | gtgloner: Qxf7+ should seal the deal since Rxf7 results in Ng6# |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | njchess: Got it and was promptly amazed to see Bd3. |
|
Jan-06-09
 | | TheDestruktor: It reminded me of a book review at ChessCafe:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/revie... |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | zb2cr: This puzzle caused me to have a bit of an emotional rollercoaster. Found 23. Qxf7+, Rxf7; 24. Ng6# within 10 seconds. Felt quite pleased with myself. Opened the actual game and saw 23. Bd3 and promptly felt deflated. Then, I saw by the comments that other posters found this same solution and that the puzzle was to find the solution which Plaskett missed and promptly felt vindicated. |
|
Jan-06-09
| | TheDestruktor: But let's be fair: it is always easier to find a combination when you know in advance that it exists. If a leprechaun had whispered at Plaskett's ear "there is a combination", he would have found it in two seconds. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | johnlspouge: Tuesday (Easy):
Plaskett vs Emms, 1986 (23.?) White to play and win.
Material: Even. The Black Kf8 has 1 legal move. To mate, White needs a check on f8 and to cover the legal move, e7, both dark squares accessible to Ne5 from g6. Thus, Pg6 is burdened with protecting a mate, but it can be removed. Candidates (23.): Qxf7+
23.Qxf7+ Rxf7 24.Ng6#
The candidate is also visible to the usual examination of checks, captures, and threats. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | MaczynskiPratten: It's an unusual and rather elegant smothered mate. I guess both players missed it partly because it wasn't a standard pattern. After all, OTB, Q sacrifices are usually the last moves we look at :-) Whereas for a puzzle, my first thought was, Q sac, 2 move mate, why isn't this a Monday? |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | Operation Mindcrime: <MaczynskiPratten> I agree, this is rather an unusual and intriguing semi -smothered mate pattern, though the principle is similar to that of Philidor's Legacy - sacrificing the queen on a square where the King cannot capture, thereby forcing a self-block by the Rook. The bishop at h7 is also essential, as it cuts off the King's escape to g8. I remember a similar smothered mate (knight + bishop at h7) in one of Najdorf's games - it's in one of my game collections. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | areknames: Got it almost immediately. I think it's fairly incomprehensible that Plaskett would overlook the mate after having purposely manoeuvred his queen to h5, thus targeting the traditional soft spot f7. I guess that's part of the beauty of our game, not even the strongest Grandmaster is immune to outrageous blunders. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | withingrace: i completely missed it today, i was looking through varations of 23. f5... |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | ILikeFruits: interesting...
game...
indeed... |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | amaurobius: This took me 3 or 4 minutes and I'd have been tempted to give up if I hadn't had it on good authority that it was easy. Quite missable over the board IMHO, though it must have been galling for Plaskett when he realised the lost opportunity. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | Patriot: I found 23.Qxf7+ Rxf7 24.Ng6# without much trouble and also thought I missed something when white played 23.Bd3. "Is the knight pinned?" "Is white in check?" This is something I get frustrated with on the Chess Tactics Server. I go for a nice win of material or mate and get frustrated to find that I'm in check and must deal with that first! Anyway I had to play over the moves just to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. Apparently white quickly ruled out Qxf7+ because the rook just takes the queen. Having missed that, I suppose he wanted to deal with the potential threat of his bishop becoming trapped? I'm not sure. Perhaps time was the reason he missed it. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | JG27Pyth: They both missed it? Appalling! I actually find it harder to forgive Emms this oversight. Plaskett made a direct, reasonable attacking move threatening mate in 1, and missed the sacrificial combination... ok, at his level its rather embarassing. But at least it's somewhat understandable... One doesn't look for this kind of threat within one's own moves very carefully, because one doesn't expect to just stumble into <accidentally creating> a winning Queen sac. Generally such things come about with some planning and preparation. But that excuse doesn't apply to Emms!
After Qh5, the burden is on Emms to understand Plaskett's threats and defend. Upon seeing Qh5 how can you NOT check for tactics, including all manner of sac's. Still, I suppose either one could beat me giving N odds, blindfold. *sighs*
|
|
| Jan-06-09 | | ZUGZWANG67: I had to check twice. Because when I got to the actual game, I saw that my solution wasn' t what was played ! But, I mean, 23.Qxf7+ Rxf7 24.Ng6+ is mate, isn' t it ? WOW !
And then, I decided to see how were the players rated. More than 2400 ! No small fish ! We' re all humans, after all !
And the most incredible is that the game continued for another 18 moves ! Can you imagine White' s raction after the game was played, when post morteming lol ? I' m wondering if Black saw the mate before it was(n't) played... |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | Patriot: <JG27Pyth: But that excuse doesn't apply to Emms!
After Qh5, the burden is on Emms to understand Plaskett's threats and defend. Upon seeing Qh5 how can you NOT check for tactics, including all manner of sac's. Still, I suppose either one could beat me giving N odds, blindfold.> A major factor we don't see is how much time they had on the clock or if they were blindfolded. It's even possible that this game was incorrectly entered as being played by these GM's! This has happened before as I was told by the player himself. Or...it could be that they just made these mistakes with plenty of time, with no excuses except human error. But it's the many times they "get it right" that makes them GM's. |
|
| Jan-06-09 | | agb2002: If the pawn on f7 were a rook or a knight 23.Ng6 would win at once. Therefore, 23.Qxf7+ Rxf7 24.Ng6 mate. This game will be difficult to forget: I often meet Plaskett at quick chess tournaments (but played him only once) and Emms is the name of a British engineer I have collaborated with since 1996. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
