|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-24-11 | | BOSTER: <Once> <a version of the <chess inertia> that we saw in yesterday's POTD>.
<18.c4 is an attempt by white to bolster his knight on d5>.
Pawn c4 for protecting knight on d5 is illusion,because this pawn is PINNED. In fact this move created the condition for combo couple moves later, and this is the key to understand the combo,which was missed.
The real defender was pawn e4, and when this pawn disappeared the knight was in the air. |
|
Jun-24-11
 | | al wazir: <sevenseaman: 24...Qe5+ 25. Kh1 Bxf2 26. Qa8+ Qe8 27. Qd5> Qe1+ 28. Kh2 Qg1#. |
|
Jun-24-11
 | | doubledrooks: I saw the game continuation through 31...Rxd2.
I agree with <goodevans>. Somewhat easy for a Friday. |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | Once: <BOSTER> There you are, my friend! I've been wondering where you've been. I'm still waiting for that marvellous day when you say "I agree with Once." One day, one day.
In the meantime, let's keep on trying to pick fault, eh? A man's got to have a hobby. What I actually said was <18. c4 is an attempt by white to bolster his pawn on d5.> An attempt.
That means "trying to do something", as in "trying to criticise Once's posts whenever you can" The point about yesterday's game is that neither player spotted that the pawn's protection of d5 was illusory. 18. c4 did not bolster the knight on d5. It was an <attempt> to do so. That word again - "attempt". Tricky little word.
My posts yesterday and my post today are looking at why we miss things. Why did both black and white miss yesterday's tactic? Why did I miss today's solution? Why did several posters today miss the white defence Qa8+? And that gets us into a discussion of what players are trying to do in a given position or what they think is happening. Yes, the pawn on c4 was pinned in yesterday's POTD. If you read what I actually said you will see that I noticed that. Didn't need to have it written IN CAPITAL LETTERS, thank you. What might be a more interesting question is why you misunderstood what I had written and tried to find a way to pick a hole in it. But I think we both know the answer to that question, don't we? |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | SuperPatzer77: <al wazir: I'll stick with 24...Qe5+ 25. Kh1 Bxf2. If 26. Qa8+ Qe8 27. Qxe8+ Kxe8, black still wins easily. For example, 28. Ne2 (because of the threat of 28...Rg1+) Rxf6 29. Ne4 Rf4, and white is out of gas.> <al wazir> I'd rather use 25...Qe1+! instead of 25...Bxf2. For example, 25...Qe1+! (instead of 25...Bxf2), 26. Rf1 Rg1+!!, 27. Kh2 (only move) Qe5+!, 28. Qf4 Rxf1, 29. Qxe5 dxe5 (Staying on the first rank, Black Rook keeps attacking either one of two White minor pieces (knight or bishop) so, Black gains a tempo with 25...Qe1+! SuperPatzer77 |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | Quentinc: <Once>, are we now in a metaphorical cat fight? :) But, seriously, I agree with you. It's too bad that certain posters feel the need to be so "boster-ous" in their comments. |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | Once: <Quentinc> Metaphorical cat fight - like it! I think of BOSTER as my little echo. He loves to take a kick at me whenever he gets the chance. Not quite sure what I've done to offend him, but he seems to enjoy it. I guess everyone needs a hobby in life. |
|
Jun-24-11
 | | LIFE Master AJ: In what must be a record for me, I start (and finish!) a web page on the very next day. (I began this last night.) http://www.ajschess.com/lifemastera...
My annotations of this game. Mainly for 'average' players and below, if you feel you are stronger than this, please feel free to skip this page. |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | wals: Rybka 4 x 64
Looking good, 16...=-0.41.
17.Qxb5, -1.15. Best, Bd5, -=0.41.
20.fxe5, -4.72. Best, Qd5, -2.43.
21.exf6, -5.50. Best, Rf2, -4.72.
24.Qf3, -#15. Best, Qd5, -5.62.
28...Rxf1, -9.05. Best, Qe2+, -#12.
30.Nd2, -14.21. Best, Na3, -12.14.
32.Bxf7, -#8. Best, Kf3, -14.21.
33.b4, -#6. Best, c4, -#7.
White resigned after 33...Rf2, -#5, and was never in the game
from move 17 on, 7 major errors to Black's 1.
1.  (-#5): 34.Kg4 d2 35.Kg5 d1Q 36.c4 Qg1+ 37.Kh4 Rf4+ 38.Kh5 Qg6#
2. (-#5): 34.c4 Be3 35.c5 d2 36.Kg4 d1Q+ 37.Kg3 Qg1+ 38.Kh4 Qg5# |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | ColeTrane: I would put an exclamation mark on move 19 Qxe4, sacking the knight ... |
|
Jun-24-11
| | LIFE Master AJ: I put two, 19...QxP/e4!!
Black had a good, viable, and simple alternative. (19...Ng6!) |
|
Jun-24-11
| | LIFE Master AJ: <Once> You have <boster> ... I have a whole KREW of them ... (hee-hee) [Funny! I cannot see any of his comments!?) If you get the chance, check out my new web page.
Not engaging in any ___ has given me lots of time for more creative pursuits. |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | WhiteRook48: all I could find was 25...Bxf2 and attack with the passed pawn, trying to promote it. |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | stst: Late & Difficult.
Saw 24...Qe5+ showing some promise.
IF (A)25.Kh1 Bxf2, 26.Qxf2 Rxf6, 27.Qg1 Qe2, 28.Bd1 Qe4+ etc W has powerful attack.
IF (B)25.Qf4 Rxf6 and the pinned WQ is lost, so this is not playable by W.
Another line for Q sac doesn't seem strong for Bk:
24...Rxf6, 25.Qxe4 Rxf2+, 26.Kg3 Rxb2,27.Qxd3 Rxb3 would yield a long ending ...
Somehow the d3 P got to be useful? -- Bed time! |
|
| Jun-24-11 | | sevenseaman: <al wazir Qe1+ 28. Kh2 Qg1#.> You have it, I think. |
|
Jun-25-11
| | LIFE Master AJ: Did anyone look at my web page yet?
Anyone? |
|
Jun-25-11
| | LIFE Master AJ: <Jun-24-11 <wals: <Rybka 4 x 64 <24.Qf3, -#15. <Best, <Qd5, <-5.62.>>>>> >> How many here would willingly chunk a Rook ... in a TOURNAMENT game????? Don't most people resign before resorting to that? |
|
| Jun-25-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: <How many here would willingly chunk a Rook ... in a TOURNAMENT game????? Don't most people resign before resorting to that?> Nope
A J Goldsby vs Tkachiev, 1995 |
|
| Jun-25-11 | | Once: <Colonel Mortimer> For someone who doesn't like AJ you spend a long time looking at his games. And researching what he says about mating patterns. And reading what he says. And talking about him. It seems that, like BOSTER having a continual pop at me, you've got yourself a nice little hobby going there. I am sure it gives you a real sense of achievement and pride. Sorry, that last bit was meant to be ironic, which doesn't usually travel well in text. In other words - give it a rest, huh? It's getting very stale and boring. |
|
| Jun-25-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: And you tailing me? Rather absurd isn't it? |
|
| Jun-25-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: Of the last 4 above posts only the first 2 are chess related. <once> went off topic and I responded. I love how the righteous are so hypocritical without realising. |
|
| Jun-25-11 | | Once: I'm trying to keep the peace. What are you trying to do? The absurd thing here is hunting through AJ's games to try to pick fault. It smacks of desperation and pettiness. It's playground stuff lke chanting "liar, liar, pants on fire." And before AJ reacts angrily (and with some justification), I am going to react calmly. To help you see exactly who is being hypocritical here. Time to move on. |
|
| Jun-25-11 | | Bureaucrat: AJ, I liked your web page with analysis of the game. Thanks! |
|
| Jun-25-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: <once> <And before AJ reacts angrily (and with some justification), I am going to react calmly. To help you see exactly who is being hypocritical here.> I answered <AJ>'s question. I'm surprised you find this so offensive. |
|
Jun-26-11
| | LIFE Master AJ: <<Jun-25-11
Bureaucrat: AJ, I liked your web page with analysis of the game. Thanks!>> Thank you, thank you, very much!
(I would throw in a million exclams here, but then some <well-intentioned-person> would probably point out that I am always overdoing things.) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 19...Qxe4