[what is this?]

[what is this?]

<< previous | page 3 of 46 | next >>

AVERBAKH RULE: I'm threatening *you*, not vice v The <AVERBAKH RULE>. You are not threatening me because it is -NOT(!)- your move! -I- am threatening -YOU- precisely because it -IS- -MY- move! Missed it ---------- notyetagm vs Caranci SBCC 2009: 25 ♖c3x♘c6+! notyetagm vs Rossi MCC 2009: 22 ♗b5-c6! Saw it ---------- Vigorito(!) vs notyetagm MCC: 22 ... ♘b6xc4! Vigorito,D - Hall,J [E94] MCC October (4), 27.10.2009 [Vigorito,D] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nh5 8.g3 Bg4?! 9.d5² Nd7 10.Be3 Qe7 11.Ne1 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 f6 13.Nd3 Qf7!? 14.f3 [14.g4 Nf4 15.Bxf4 (15.Nxf4 exf4 16.Bxf4 f5") 15...exf4 16.Nxf4 Nc5 17.b4 f5 18.bxc5 Bxc3 19.Rac1 Be5 20.Ne6±] 14...f5 15.Kg2 [15.Bd2!? …f4 16.g4 Nhf6 17.Kg2±] 15...Qe7 16.b4 f4 17.Bd2 fxg3 18.hxg3 Bf6 19.Qe3 Nb6 20.Nb2 a5 21.bxa5?! [21.a3±] 21...Rxa5 22.Nb5?! [22.a4 Rc5 23.Rfb1! …Nxc4 24.Nxc4 Rxc4 25.Rxb7] 22...Nxc4 23.Nxc4 Rxb5 24.a4 Rc5 25.Rfc1 [25.Qb3 Bg5] 25...b5 [25...b6; 25...Nf4+!? 26.gxf4 exf4 27.Qd3 Bxa1 28.Rxa1 Qg5+ 29.Kf1 Qh4"] 26.axb5 Rxb5 27.Na5 [27.Ra7] 27...Qf7 28.Ra2?! [28.Ra3] 28...Rfb8 [28...Bg5! 29.Qxg5 Qxf3+ 30.Kh3 Nf4+ (30...Qxe4!ⓒ) 31.Bxf4 exf4 32.Nc6! Qxe4 (32...Rb3 33.Nd4) 33.Ra4! Qxa4? (33...Qf3 34.Ne7+ Kh8 35.Rxf4 Rxf4 36.Qxf4 Qxf4 37.gxf4±) 34.Ne7+ Kf7 (34...Kg7 35.Rxc7+-; 34...Kh8 35.Nxg6+ hxg6 36.Qh6+ Kg8 37.Rxc7) 35.Nxg6!+-] 29.Rac2 Bd8 [¹29...Rc8] 30.Nc6 Rb3 [30...Ra8 31.Nxd8 Rxd8 32.Rxc7 Qf8 33.R1c2± (33.Qh6 Qxh6 34.Bxh6±) ] 31.Nxd8 Rxe3 32.Nxf7 Re2+ 33.Kh3 Kxf7 34.Rxc7+ Kg8 35.Bg5 [35.Rc8+ Rxc8 36.Rxc8+ Kf7 37.Bb4+-] 35...Rf8 [35...Rf2 36.R1c3 Rf8 37.Bh6±] 36.Rc8 [36.Bh6] 36...Rf2 37.Be7 Rxc8? [37...R2xf3 38.Bxf8 Rxf8 39.Rxf8+ Kxf8 40.Rc8+ Kf7 41.Rc7+ Ke8 42.Kg4 Nf6+ 43.Kf3 Nd7 44.g4 h5 45.g5+-] 38.Rxc8+ Kf7 39.Bxd6 Rxf3 40.Rf8+ 1-0 --- Game Collection: AVERBAKH RULE: I'm threatening *you*, not vice v <OVERLOADED: TAIP^2> White g7-♕ vs Black g8-♖ <OVERLOADED: THREATS AGAINST INFERIOR PIECES, PAWNS> Sharma vs Shirov Ottawa Simul 2010 15 ... Rh8-g8?? <OVERLOADED> the Black e7-knight. 16 Bg2xNc6+ <overloaded: c6,g8> The Black e7-knight is now <OVERLOADED>, having to <PROTECT> both the Black c6-knight from the White g2-bishop *and* the Black g8-rook from the White g7-queen. A *great* example of the <AVERBAKH RULE: YOU'RE NOT ATTACKING ME, I'M ATTACKING YOU BECAUSE IT'S MY TURN!!> --- 5 games, 1931-2010 B01 Scandinavian with 3 ... Qd6 2 games, 2006-2007 BACKWARD PIN: APPLIED BALEFUL INFLUENCE (ESS) <ESS>: <EVERY> <SINGLE> <SQUARE> on the line of an *unobstructed* line piece is threatened. 2 games, 2007-2011 BALEFUL INFLUENCE + TEMPO IS HOW YOU USE YOUR LI BALEFUL INFLUENCE + TEMPO IS HOW YOU USE YOUR LINE PIECES! <*B A L E F U L I N F L U E N C E *> <GC: BALEFUL INFLUENCE + TEMPO IS HOW YOU USE YOUR LINE PIECES!> <GC: PINS AGAINST UNDEFENDED PIECES> Kasparov vs NN (Board 8) Zurich Jubilee simul 2009 39 Ra8-h8+ Aronian vs Kotronias World Teams Championship 2009 48 Qd8-d3+, 49 Nf4-d5?? Ivanchuk vs Van Wely Corus A 2010 Qc7+ 2 games, 2010 BALEFUL INFLUENCE combined with tempo 9 games, 1914-2010 BALEFUL INFLUENCE: EVERY SINGLE SQUARE ATTACKED Game Collection: BALEFUL INFLUENCE: EVERY SINGLE SQUARE ATTACKED <ESS>: <LINE PIECES> ♗♖♕♕♖♗ become *unbelievably* dangerous if there is even a single, solitary square of significance somewhere on their lines. S Li vs H Wang, 2009 35 ... Bd5-c4! Black d6-rook threatens d1-mating square thru the White d4-rook --- <<<<<BALEFUL INFLUENCE>: Every single square <(ESS)> on the line of a line piece is attacked/defended/threatened/controlled by the line piece.>>>> See Rybka 3 Aquarium's 42 ♖e7xf7+! in Topalov vs Aronian, 2008 for an excellent example of this principle applied to the discovered attack tactic. In that game, the White a7-rook controls the f7-,g7-,h7-squares through the White d7-pawn as this line-blocking pawn is not really on the d7-square blocking the 7th rank as it threatens to move with a gain of time (d7-d8=♕). Line pieces threaten <Every Single Square (ESS)> on their lines. This penetrating property of line pieces is what Reinfeld called their <"BALEFUL INFLUENCE">. Every sinlge time you are attacked by an enemy line piece, you are <PINNED> or <SKEWERED> against the <LMS-TARGETS> on <Every Single Square (ESS)> behind you. And if you are not prepared to meet the threat to each <LMS-TARGET> on <Every Single Square (ESS)> behind you -explicitly- by <DEFENDING> or some other method, then you are -implicitly- <DEPENDING> upon -your- pieces to meet those threats by <BLOCKING THE CORRDIOR> of the dangerous enemy line piece. Ans since one of your pieces is meeting a threat by <BLOCKING A CORRIDOR>, then that piece cannot also <DEFEND> a square or <BLOCKADE> a pawn (<OVERWORKED>). --- White to play: 30 ? click for larger view 30 ♗d2-a5! wins the Exchange click for larger view since after 30 ... ♘c6x♗a5 31 ♖c1x♖c7 click for larger view the Black d8-queen cannot recapture the White c7-rook due to mate on e8 (<WEAK BACK RANK>: 31 ... ♕d8x♖c7?? 32 ♕a4-e8# click for larger view Black (Svidler) thus loses ♖ for ♗ and later the game. Even 2700-rated super-GMs sometimes lose material to the <WEAK BACK RANK> tactic. <<<<<A better example of the <BALEFUL INFLUENCE (EVERY(!) SINGLE(!) SQUARE(!) IS THREATENED)> of line pieces you could not ask for: The White a4-queen threatens the e8-mating square on Black's weak back rank through the Black c6-knight.>>>>> Since the Black c6-knight <DEFENDS> the a5-pinning square, it cannot also meet this threat to the e8-square by <BLOCKING> the diagonal a4-e8. So the Black d8-queen is actually badly <OVERWORKED>, having to <DEFEND> the Black c7-rook and also meet the threat of ♕a4-e8# by <DEFENDING> the e8-square. With the White a4-queen lined up with the e8-square, <<<<<some Black piece must meet the threat of ♕a4-e8# <(BALEFUL INFLUENCE)!!!>>>>>>. Thus White has three threats (♗d2-a5 <PINNING>, ♖c1x♖c7, and ♕a4-e8#) to the a5-, c7-, and e8-squares but Black has only two defenders (Black c6-knight and d8-queen) to these three threats. Two defenders almost certainly cannot meet three threats. In this particular position, the <OVERWORKED> nature of the Black c6-knight and d8-queen costs Black a full Exchange. [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2007.12.26"] [Round "?"] [White "GM_Tomashevsky"] [Black "GM_Svidler"] [Result "1-0"] [Opening "English: four knights, kingside fianchetto"] [ECO "A29"] [NIC "EO.02"] [Time "06:44:59"] [TimeControl "7200+0"] 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Nd5 Bc5 6. Bg2 O-O 7. O-O d6 8. e3 a6 9. d3 Ba7 10. Bd2 Nxd5 11. cxd5 Ne7 12. Qb3 c6 13. dxc6 Nxc6 14. Bc3 Rb8 15. d4 e4 16. Nd2 d5 17. f3 exf3 18. Nxf3 Be6 19. Kh1 Re8 20. Rf2 b5 21. Bd2 Bf5 22. Raf1 Be4 23. Ne1 Rb7 24. Bxe4 Rxe4 25. Nd3 Rd7 26. a4 bxa4 27. Qxa4 Re6 28. Rc1 Rc7 29. Nf4 Rd6 30. Ba5 Nxa5 31. Rxc7 Bb6 32. Rc3 h6 33. Qc2 Qe8 34. Qf5 g6 35. Qd3 Kg7 36. Kg2 Nc6 37. Qe2 a5 38. Qf3 Ne7 39. Qg4 Kh7 40. Qf3 a4 41. g4 Rf6 42. Qh3 Kg7 43. Qg3 Ba5 44. Rc1 Rb6 45. Nd3 1-0 --- White f1-rook controls the f4-square (<BALEFUL INFLUENCE>) since the masking White f2-bishop can move off of the f-file with a <GAIN OF TIME> by <EMBARASSING> the Black e5-queen. Because of this <TEMPO> gain on the <EXPOSED> Black e5-queen, White actually has -three- pieces attacking the f4-square not -two-: White d2-knight, White f3-pawn, -and- the White f1-rook since the masking White f2-bishop does not -really- <BLOCK> it because it can move off of the f-file with a <GAIN OF TIME>. click for larger view click for larger view click for larger view [Event "ICC 3 0"] [Site "Internet Chess Club"] [Date "2008.01.08"] [Round "-"] [White "youngheart"] [Black "Klinch88"] [Result "0-1"] [ICCResult "White forfeits on time"] [WhiteElo "2533"] [BlackElo "2583"] [Opening "Sicilian: Kan, 5.Nc3"] [ECO "B43"] [NIC "SI.41"] [Time "03:51:50"] [TimeControl "180+0"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. O-O Ne5 9. f3 Bd6 10. Rc1 Nxd3 11. cxd3 Bxh2+ 12. Kh1 Qg3 13. Bf2 Qe5 14. g4 Bf4 15. Rc2 h5 16. g5 Bxg5 17. Nde2 d6 18. f4 Bxf4 19. Bd4 Qg5 20. Bxf6 gxf6 21. Nxf4 Bd7 22. Rg2 Qh4+ 23. Rh2 Qg5 24. Qf3 O-O-O 25. Rg1 Qe5 26. Qe3 Kb8 27. d4 Qa5 28. b4 Qa3 29. Rb1 Ba4 30. Rh3 Rc8 31. Nxa4 Qxa4 32. Qb3 Qc6 33. d5 Qc4 34. b5 Qxe4+ 35. Kh2 Qxf4+ 36. Qg3 Rc2+ 37. Kh1 Qe4+ 38. Qf3 Rh2+ 39. Kxh2 Qc2+ 40. Qg2 Qxb1 41. bxa6 Rc8 42. Rb3 Qc2 43. Rxb7+ Ka8 44. dxe6 Qxg2+ 45. Kxg2 Rc2+ 46. Kf3 fxe6 47. Rf7 f5 48. Ke3 Rxa2 49. Rf8+ Ka7 50. Rf6 Kxa6 51. Rxe6 Kb5 52. Kf4 Kc5 53. Rh6 Rf2+ 54. Kg3 Re2 55. Rxh5 Re5 56. Kf4 Kd5 57. Rh6 Kd4 58. Rh1 Re4+ 59. Kxf5 Re3 60. Rd1+ Kc5 61. Rd2 Re8 62. Kg6 d5 0-1 47 games, 1900-2012 Bayonet Attack against the KID 2 games, 1997-2008 Be careful to which square you commit your queen Together with the status examination you should not only take a close look at the piece's current square, but also examine the other squares to which it may have to move. If the defender has to recapture on the square of a piece it was defending, you need to examine this square in advance. If you think you can do without, you may end up like Black in <Blau - Donner, Switzerland 1958>. After 1 ♖d1x♗d6! ♕a6x♖d6 2 f4xe5 Donner ran into a fork by the pawn. The Black queen has no retreat from the e5-square after 2 ... ♕d6xe5 3 ♗e3-f4. So if you take or recapture a piece you should know how to leave the square you took on (in case you are attacked there). -- Weteschnik, "Understanding Chess Tactics", page 204, chapter entitled "Status Examination" 2 games, 2002-2008 Be careful which squares you leave behind <WHAT SQUARES DID I JUST LEAVE BEHIND?> Squares against which my opponent can make threats and are signficant, especially squares on which <LOOSE PIECES> reside. 1) Morozevich vs Gelfand MC WCC 2007: 24 c4-e6! f7xe6 leaves behind the g6-square, leaving the Black g6-queen <UNDEFENDED> and lined up with the White b1-queen, thus creating a <PIN> that is <REINFORCED> with 25 d1-c1, regaining the piece. 2) Magill vs notyetagm CCC 2007: d3-b3 leaves behind the d4-square, making the White d4-knight <LOOSE> and its White e3-bishop defender is on the only square where it can <DEFEND>, so ... f5-f4! <REMOVES THE GUARD> by <DOMINATION (DRIVING OFF)>. <EVERY MOVE CREATES WEAKNESS BY LEAVING SQUARES BEHIND. IT IS A TACTICAL ERROR IF THOSE WEAKENED SQUARE ARE SIGNFICANT (LOOSE PIECES) AND CAN BE EXPLOITED.> 3 games, 1959-2007 Beat The KID by GM Jan Markos 6 games, 1970-2008 Benko Gambit 6 games, 1914-2007 Benoni: tricky as hell to face as White 2 games, 1970-2008 BEST TACTICAL SHOTS OF 2010 2 games, 2010 BEWARE: BLUNDER! 1 game, 2013 Bishop pair + passed pawns = winning equation 7 games, 1960-2008 BISHOP PAIR! 2 games, 2006-2011 BISHOP PAIR: worth only 1/2-pawn? 3 games, 2008-2009 BLACKBURNE'S OTHER MATE 1 game, 2011 BLOCK lines to meet threats from line pieces 2 games, 2008-2009 BLOCK THE GUARD LINE! BLOCK THE GUARD LINE! 4 games, 1992-2013

<< previous | page 3 of 46 | next >>