< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 65 OF 101 ·
|Nov-09-12|| ||Patriot: Hi <morf>! Don't be discouraged. You're a good analyst and we all have bad days. The best thing to do is try to understand what happened but don't spend too much time on it--figure out what happened and move forward. After reading your post, I got the feeling you fell in love with a certain line and tried to prove it worked (rather than trying to refute it). That has happened to me many times.|
I didn't calculate the whole thing out to a win although I did see some ways to achieve it. The interesting thing is that 18.Qh5+ Ke7 19.Nd5+ DOES win, although after 19...Kd8 20.Rh8 Rg8 I didn't see a way through right away so I backed up and explored a different venue--19.Rh8! If that didn't work out I really wonder what I would've done! I probably would have examined it at least once more but am not so sure I would have found 19.Nd5+ Kd8 20.Rh8 Rg8 21.Rxg8 Qxg8 22.Rh1, which is winning according to Houdini. The point I guess is that whenever something doesn't click it's probably a good idea to try to find something easier that does and explore that. Even though the other line worked eventually, I went ahead with something else that seemed to make more sense.
|Nov-10-12|| ||Patriot: <morf> <What was frustrating is (1) I felt I had refuted it, and thus moving on, (2) I missed the tactic <19.Rh8>> Ok, I understand now what you mean. It happens sometimes. Like today's problem, I actually considered 23.Qf4 but didn't see where the compensation was, which is why I said there didn't appear to be any moves where I can freely give up the knight and be winning. So my candidates were restricted to g4, Bf3, or Qe2. So in my mind, 23.Qf4 was refuted by 23...Kxh5--probably because material compensation wasn't there. But if the f7 pawn were a higher value piece I could take it's likely I would have calculated the line correctly! It explains a lot. It's not that I didn't see Qf4--I ruled it out! It would take further calculation to prove white isn't just down 2 pieces for nothing, but that requires time and Qe2 seemed a more obvious choice.|
Knowing which candidates to consider and which one's to spend more time on depends mostly on where our experience directs us. We can't calculate like machines so we must rely partly on intuition. And this has much to do with why Chess is fun! Although I would truly enjoy having the ability to calculate like Houdini and beat every human player I cross! :-)
I was kind of amazed I even found 19.Rh8 because it isn't obvious. I only came across this idea after looking at 18.Qh5+ Ke7 19.Nd5+ Kd8 20.Rh8 Rg8 and wondered "What have I gained??" So my failure to see why that wins prompted me to go back and force an earlier 19.Rh8 to see what happens. I had also considered 18.Nd5 at the beginning to make 19.Qh5+ even more devastating. But after noticing 19...Rxh7 20.Qxh7+ Qg7 I had serious doubt. The only problem is, that wins as well :-) 21.Rh1 again gives white an advantage.
|Nov-11-12|| ||Patriot: <morf> Good job yourself!! I felt pretty good about finding 27.Bf4 because it is so sneaky and logical. But maybe you misread my post because I never said anything about 27.Bxa6. It's something I thought about very briefly but killed it before it had a chance to mutate into a potential candidate.|
I just have to say though, 27.Bf4! is such a pretty move. I love those "take the bait" kind of moves that a lot of players can't resist. They make you feel like a master or at least someone in complete control. The beauty lies in the fact that it not only stops the mate threat, but sets up mate of his own with just the right tempos if it is accepted. And it really challenges black to come up with something very good in light of white's material edge. I thought 27...Rb7 might be black's best chance, followed by 28...b3 but white's bishop conveniently guards that square. I didn't see anything that refuted 27.Bf4 so end of story. Otherwise it is hard to predict what black will do, so white should relax and sit back and wait for him to either resign or defend in some way. Either way there is nothing to be concerned about.
<One thing I need to do, as you mentioned, is simply forge ahead with what I think looks good.> That is one of those things no one has taught me--not even Dan. The problem I often had in analyzing Saturday or Sunday problems, is I kept confusing myself. I wanted to find the best moves along the way without going into what might be a lengthy line only to find it doesn't work. Sometimes ideas are obvious and sometimes they aren't. Whenever a candidate looks very reasonable, it's easy--you can just start analyzing it. But when there is no obviously better choice, you just have to pick a move and go with it likes it's the only one. This prevents wasting time and makes sure you're not running in circles (like I've done many times) trying to figure out which move is better. Sometimes there is no way of knowing which is better until you roll up your sleeves and do the work.
|Nov-11-12|| ||Fusilli: Hi <morf>. That A Riazantsev vs V Nevostrujev, 2002 game is stunning!|
|Nov-12-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <morf> Thanks for the note! I most definitely remember that curious case that GM Short posited to the media.|
Hard to say if it was WC Fischer.
|Nov-13-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: I did go through the games, morf. Pretty phenomenal stuff!|
PS. In a way, it makes historical sense that it may have been WC Fischer. Did you ever hear the story of how GM Browne was bugging Fischer to play with him, and Fischer was constantly saying no, until he finally relented?
From what I read, Fischer took off one of his Knights and proceeded to trounce Browne, man!
Maybe just maybe it was Fischer. I say this with great humility and hope that it does: Genius lives forever!
|Nov-13-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <morf> I believe the recounting of this can be found within here somewhere:|
PS. I recognize that you seriously doubt that a super, in-form Fischer could have beaten GM Browne at Knight-odds. This does surprise me a bit, however, as you are somewhat optimistic about the idea that a middle-aged Fischer could defeat GM Short at bullet chess after having given him serious positional advantages - like giving up the right to castle and a somewhat artificial pawn structure.
|Nov-14-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <morf> If it isn't there in the Acers interview, then I know it is located somewhere else; as I do remember reading about it.|
At this point in time however, I can't quite place where I read it.
|Nov-14-12|| ||Patriot: Hello <morf>! I haven't looked at the Fischer games just yet but I'll let you know when I do!|
<I however, persisted in trying to force the White King to the back rank with a view to <Qa1+> & <Qxh1> (namely starting with <26...Qc3+> instead of 26...Qb4+).> 26...Qc3+ is certainly an idea and perhaps I was too dismissive in that line without looking at other forcing candidates. Just because my line fails, it doesn't mean there isn't something different that could have been tried along the way. I would imagine that 26...Qc3+ 27.Kd1 and now it seems that 27...Bxb4+ is the next forcing candidate (I'm not sure what else). I think black is losing steam in this line.
<Meanwhile, you quickly sifted through the new candidates arriving at <25...Bc8>> I wish I could say I was that efficient. I'm certain I went in circles and then wrote what I thought was the PV. I was starting to feel a "cold" coming on and just couldn't focus. Now I'm hoping the vitamin C will take care of it! Anyhow, I was a bit sloppy on those candidates.
Good job on finding ...Bc8 and as usual, a very good post!
|Nov-14-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <morf> I sincerly hope that regarding the issues that have come up lately, that things go well for you, man!|
One of the best words I've heard uttered in the past ten years: The night is darkest, just before the dawn.
Don't forget the goodness in life!
PS. Thanks for the kind words regarding my work on the daily puzzle lately. I sincerely appreciative, morf.
|Nov-15-12|| ||Patriot: Great post today <morf>! I was baffled after 39...Nd5 and couldn't see the simple 40.e4 idea. But I like the way you simplified into an easily winning endgame with 40.Ra6! first. Not seeing e4 caused me to consider again, the flawed 39.Qe3+ Kf6 40.Ra6? Nxh3+! .|
And I thought declining the bishop sacrifice was a strong consideration since black has powerful threats lingering. I was correct, according to Houdini, that 37.Bxf7+ Kf8, 38.Bc4! is the move. White loses the attack after 38.Qh8+ Kxf7 and both 39.Ra7+ Ke6 and 39.Qxh7+ Ke6 are either slightly in black's favor or drawish.
I feel horrible today...
|Nov-16-12|| ||Patriot: Thanks for the encouragement <morf>! <Especially good was when you noted that the Black King could decline the sac, a point I completely missed> Yeah I normally don't consider anything but accepting the sacrifice because usually the other player is down a pawn for nothing. But as noted, when the opponent has lingering threats then declining the sac becomes a viable option to consider.|
By the way, good job on the Friday problem! You must be sadistic though because in the first line you wrote <(1) <21.Nxd6> If Black accepts 21...Nxd6 22.Bb6+ Kc8 23.Nb5+ Kb8 24.Bc7+ Kc8 25.Bxd6+ Kd8 26.Bc7+ Kc8 27.Nd6 mate>. That's pouring salt in the wound to win the piece back just before mating, since 25.Nxd6 is mate. Also possible though is 25.Bxd6+ Bc6, escaping. I toyed with a similar idea before I eventually thought "Oh! 25.Nxd6 is mate!" For some reason I didn't see it at first either.
<(1a) <21...Rxe3> 22.Nxb7+ Kc7 23.Na4+ Bc3 24.Rxe3 Bxa4 25.R3xc3+ Kxb7 26.Rc7+ Kb6 27.Rxc8 winning:> What's your idea if 23...Kxb7? (I peeked with Houdini and white still wins)
Did you get caught up the way I did with 21.Nxd6 Rxe3 22.Nxb7+ Kc7 23.Nb5++? I spent a long time on this wild goose before finally dismissing it and going with the simple 23.Rxe3. One major problem I had was counting! Otherwise, simplification shows white is better (no need to seek out a mate or anything). I really had to focus as to who had what. Once I noticed white is up 2 pawns and a rook for 2 pieces, I was happy.
|Nov-18-12|| ||Patriot: Thanks, <morf>!
<Solving by pure visualization can get tricky. If no pattern presents itself, I'll end up having to plod along one move at a time. In that case, I'm constantly reminding myself "That pawn isn't there anymore or The Knight has moved in this variation or silly, the king is on <g8> or something like that".> Excellent point! I have that problem as well. Sometimes it's apparent that I missed some variation because a pawn is no longer there. I guess that improves with practice, hopefully.
<For example, you saw straight off that 21...Rxe3 <22.Rxe3> was best.> I went in circles before concluding this because it seemed so hard to count the pieces and there were so many options that made visualization difficult. One thing I've really been working on is learning to focus on one thing at a time. When there are multiple options and none are clearly better, pick one and treat it like the only move! In the past I am convinced that I somehow tried to "multi-solve" and find the best candidate. This caused the position to become murky and impossible.
<*I thought after <23...Kxb7 24.Nc5+> followed by 25.Rxe3 white is winning> You figured right! :-)
<All in all, a valuable exercise. These complicated ones are great benefit.> Indeed they are!
Good luck on the Sunday problem. There are some really complicated lines which seem nearly impossible to work out--including the game variation. I would be surprised if anyone figured that out.
|Nov-19-12|| ||sevenseaman: #91238
A very special tactic that perhaps only a master would see otb. Nonetheless I give it because its worth learning, and a bit of chess entertainment too.
Problem currently rated at 2044.7.
click for larger view
|Nov-19-12|| ||sevenseaman: Hi <morf>, good morning. Masterly work on #91238. Love it; you could well run a school on how to think.|
BTW I am unable to load the PGN of any of the Fischer games. The viewer keeps reporting 'Parsing error on 0-0'. Best if you sent me the link rather than the score.
|Nov-20-12|| ||Patriot: Hey <morf>! Those are some crazy games, no doubt! I'm going to bet they aren't Fischer's though. It seems that 9 times out of 10 claims are false. I "snope" everything someone emails (usually political stuff) and the stories are usually blended with fact and fiction in just the right amount to make the whole thing seem believable. You know the saying "If it sounds too good to be true...".|
<Are you interested in the WT vs GMVA? Things are heating up and your input may be of value.> I'm of no value here. I assume those are teams? :-P
By the way, good job on the Tuesday problem. I really botched that one. I looked intently to see if anything was guarding f7 and I could swear nothing was! Maybe it's just one of those days.
|Nov-20-12|| ||sevenseaman: #72359
An impossible proposal!
The more I mulled it the more I felt I should share it with you. (No pretensions that I got it; so no sweat if you too do not get it though you might).
click for larger view
|Nov-20-12|| ||Fusilli: <sevenseaman> On # 91238.|
I am seeing a theme of mate with a possible Rf8 and the bishop on h6, and an accompanying theme of the black queen being stuck protecting the N on e8 to avoid that mate.
1.Bh6+ Ne8 and now if 2.R1c7 black has 2...Qxa4. White cannot go for 3.Qxd5 because of 3...Qd1+ and Black has at least perpetual check.
But then I realized White can play 2.Qxd5 straight. Black again has to play 2...Qxa4, and here I don't see a defense against 3.Re1.
Did I get this right?
|Nov-20-12|| ||sevenseaman: Good morning <Fusilli>. You have correctly homed in on <1. Qxd5>. This is the optimal line that the CT computer gives as solution;|
1. Qxd5 Ne8 2. Qxd7 Rxd7 3. Rxe8
The line that was played otb;
( 1. Qxd5 Ne8 2. Qxd7 Rxd7 3. Rxe8 Kf7 4. Rcc8 Nxd4 5. Re4 Nf5 6. Bb4 a5 7. Ba3 h6 8. Re2 Rd1+ 9. Kg2 )
Welcome, and enjoy.
|Nov-21-12|| ||Fusilli: <savenseaman> Ha! First I thought of Qxd5 as the third move after the check and R1c7. Then I thought of it as the second move after the check. I should have kept looking to find it as the first move! :)|
|Nov-22-12|| ||Patriot: Hi <morf>! This cold has apparently zapped any chess skill from me! My visualization has been way off since then. The other day I played 3 "friendly" G/15 games (unrated) OTB, and I lost all three to silly stuff--mostly counting errors. I need to get back on track soon since next week our club is travelling to Indiana to challenge another club.|
|Nov-22-12|| ||benjinathan: Happy thanksgiving to you too!|
|Nov-22-12|| ||Patriot: <morf> You're right about misplacing the knight. But it does explain the errors made OTB the other day. For instance, I wanted to trade rooks. I had a bishop and two rooks aimed at b1--the b-file was open and my opponent had both rooks on it. He attacked my bishop with a pawn so I had to move it to d5. On the next move, I moved a rook to b1 thinking the bishop was still guarding that square when it wasn't. So I hung a rook. It's very unusual for me to make that kind of mistake.|
<Lately, I've been trying to go over the moves repeatedly plus reminding myself of exactly where the pieces are, over and over. > I think it is normal to "rebuild" the position by playing over a line in our minds. Dan does this sometimes as well.
|Nov-22-12|| ||sevenseaman: #74490 Useless riches!
click for larger view
|Nov-22-12|| ||sevenseaman: #91827 Beckitt was only a Bishop, he poleaxed a King!|
click for larger view
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 65 OF 101 ·