< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Dec-12-06|| ||avidfan: In the final position
57.Kf1 Rh1+ 58.Kxf2 (or Kg2) R8h2#
|Dec-12-06|| ||dakgootje: Ladies and gentlemen, whats the problem with this puzzle? Why is it that hard? What does this puzzle make inappropriate? Too many possibilities? Too deep calculation necessities? Twas the latter i suppose.|
Fairly obvious is the battering-ram of blacks pieces all fixed on that little poor h2-pawn. What do we see besides that? White's heavy pieces defending the same pawn, but whats that? a knight! The defensive structure seems to be broken by white's knight. So what to look for in this puzzle? An attack at the king of course.
Now, both the rooks cant do that much of a thing yet, so probably no candidate moves for them. In lieu of that, the bishop and queen seem to be in quite attacking positions. What to do with them? Candidate moves following out of that: Bxh2, Bxf2, Qxh2 and Qxg2.
<Bxh2> Quite a silent move which loses the queen to Nxh3, cant be a good move eh?
<Bxf2> The knight is of no good at all to white's defences on that place, why trade it of and thereby saving white's defence? So no good either.
<Qxg2> One of the harder things you have to see for the puzzle, as it might look good and really forcing, but it fails to the line which has been written by Zb2cr.
<Qxh2> Only move left. A queen sac, for many hard to play, far easier to calculate. The forced response is ...Kxh2 followed by the obvious Rxh2 and 56. Kg1. But now?
Rh1 looks promesing, but whats that? Nxh1, the pesky knight is able to do something at all afterall. The simply trade it off with check, Bxf2+. white has 2 possibilities: Kf1 and Rxf2. Both end with mate:
57. Kf1 Rh1 58. Kxf2 R8h2# (note the f4-pawn)
57. Rxf2 Rh1 58. Kg2 R8h2# (help from same pawn again).
What was the problem with this puzzle? I think people simply didnt want to or werent able to calculate that deep, for most moves were fairly obvious.
|Dec-12-06|| ||Stonewaller2: Honestly, I saw 54. ... ♕xh2+ and calculated out to the mate without noticing there was a White ♕ on d2. That'd be kinda hard to ignore OTB though . . . ;)|
|Dec-12-06|| ||Grampmaster: Artemis your advice is good. Too often I have tried an attack without the necessary support in the vicinity to sustain the onslaught.
Bronstein has played some great games in the past.|
|Dec-12-06|| ||blair45: I agree with greensfield. I missed the puzzle because I didn't see that the f pawn guarded the escape square.|
|Dec-12-06|| ||Cannon Fodder: <Ladies and gentlemen, whats the problem with this puzzle? Why is it that hard? What does this puzzle make inappropriate? Too many possibilities? Too deep calculation necessities? Twas the latter i suppose.>|
Right. I just saw the knight as a defender, and gave up before I looked to see how easily the defender can be eliminated. I am making some progress, however, since a couple of months ago I was missing the Monday Queen sacs.
Can anybody recommend a book with mating puzzles similar to this? The reason I ask is that there are a lot of puzzles that say "find mate in two" when a perfectly simple mate in three or four is readily apparent. I'm sure these sorts of puzzles are helpful for more advanced players, but I think what I need to concentrate on is seeing when there is a forced mate, period, without worrying about finding a really complicated way to do it in the least possible number of moves.
I've been going through Laszlo Polgar's Chess puzzle book, but I am finding it a little frustrating that the basic and advanced puzzles all seem to be jumbled together. I'm not criticizing the book, but a lot of it is just over my head right now.
Then again, maybe my thinking is totally misguided and I do need to work on solving complex puzzles to get a better understanding of mating patterns. Any advice from experienced players would be appreciated.
|Dec-12-06|| ||who: <cannon fodder> I like Reinfeld's "One Thousand and One Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations" (http://www.amazon.com/Thousand-Winn...)|
|Dec-12-06|| ||kevin86: This puzzle was too easy! so i missed it !? I saw that supposedly that white could reply ♔f1 or ♖xf2 to the final move-but it doesn't matter-the king is still trapped and condemned to mate with rooks at h1 and h2.♗xf2 of course was necessary to remove the annoying knight.|
The Battering Ram of rooks was adequate for the job as white's forces look in awe.
|Dec-12-06|| ||diemjay: <Cannon Fodder>
<Can anybody recommend a book with mating puzzles similar to this? The reason I ask is that there are a lot of puzzles that say "find mate in two" when a perfectly simple mate in three or four is readily apparent. I'm sure these sorts of puzzles are helpful for more advanced players, but I think what I need to concentrate on is seeing when there is a forced mate, period, without worrying about finding a really complicated way to do it in the least possible number of moves.>
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess
Bantam Books, May 1972,
|Dec-12-06|| ||Stonewaller2: Does anyone here think that, without looking it up, Deep Fritz 10 would have played 11. ... b5 - ?|
|Dec-12-06|| ||WarmasterKron: It seemed fairly obvious to me. Qxh2 struck me as the only move and whilst the calculation was quite long, it was almost all forced.|
|Dec-12-06|| ||TrueBlue: got it in a second. Hoever, I have to admit I didn't get the Monday's puzle (white was already a piece up and had way to many winning moves).|
|Dec-12-06|| ||playground player: Hah! Got it! I must be getting smarter.|
|Dec-12-06|| ||WarmasterKron: <TrueBlue> Actually, White was a pawn down at the beginning of yesterday's puzzle.|
|Dec-12-06|| ||dzechiel: <Cannon Fodder> diemjay's recommendation of "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess" is exactly what you seem to be looking for.|
However, another book that had a great effect on my game is "Chess Traps, Pitfalls and Swindles" by Horowitz and Reinfeld. I read that book cover to cover back in the early '70's and never looked at the board the same afterwards.
|Dec-12-06|| ||Luckyicekiller: yea, I gotta say, that was the first time I noticed chessgames had a puzzle of the day thing, so yeah. But I did get it--took like a second to see the position COMPLETELY called for that queen sac, and the calculation after was pretty easy, but I looked back and saw some of the other puzzles can be QUITE hard so I can't wait for tomorrows!|
|Dec-12-06|| ||Cannon Fodder: dzechiel, diemjay, and who:
Thanks for the book suggestions. It's good to hear what other people have used.
|Oct-03-08|| ||parisattack: Wonderful game! Too bad Bronstein didn't get his year or two or three as WC; he certainly deserved it. But then, so did several others - Rubinstein, Flohr, Fine, Reshevsky, Keres...|
|Oct-03-08|| ||parisattack: I would amend my last post to include Pillsbury. One could also build a large 'on a good day' list including Tarrasch, Nimzovitch, Kashdan, Gligoric, Stein ...|
|Jan-26-09|| ||Garech: Fantastic game; nothing more skilfull that a well played closed game in my opinion.|
|Feb-12-09|| ||Brown: <parisattack> Bronstein is the ultimate trickster figure of chess, showing everyone where the boundaries are. Tricksters don't make good kings.|
|May-25-09|| ||Brown: I think white had to play 12.cxb5 c4 13.Qb4 or 13.Qd1. The text allows black to lock the Q-side and start taking shots at the white K.|
Bronstein mentioned this is the only time he castled Q-side in the KID. Well, the reason for it is because of white's response to 11..b5!?
|Jul-06-10|| ||Damianx: doesn,t 54 knight take bishop save it king + 5 pawns each ending|
|Feb-16-12|| ||screwdriver: Yea, I was surprised white didn't take on b5 too. But since white did that, I concur that castling queenside for black becomes quite attractive. It sure took alot of jostling around to get the victory afterwards though.|
|Feb-16-12|| ||waustad: I'd been waiting for the B sac on g3 for many moves. He had the ability to know when the time was right.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·