|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-30-12 | | Abdel Irada: <OhioChessFan: Theme is overburdened piece. The Black Queen must defend h6 and b5 and can't handle all her duties. There are a lot of games in this database where an unchallenged Rook on the 7th is a prelude to a piece sac.> This is what happens when your Uncle Oscar slips the sty and is allowed to run amok on the seventh rank. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Infohunter: <Abdel Irada> I knew someone would go the whole route. I was thinking of this kind of antiquated description as I wrote my last comment. One way in which your prose could be made just a taste *more* old-fashioned would be to replace the word "its" ("the Black king must then yield ground, moving to "its" original square...") with the word "his". This is because the word "his" served to mean both "of him" and "of it" until sometime in the seventeenth century. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | francis2012: ♕xb5!! Δ ♗h6+, ♖g8+# Black should give up his ♕ to stop the mate. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <Abdel Irada & Infohunter> Thanks for the kind comments, guys. What I'm going to do from now on is go descriptive for the easy puzzles - just to make it all that much more challenging! :) No, but seriously, it is kinda cool to write in descriptive if only because it reminds me of the very first chess book I ever read - which was during one of the five years when I lived in Latin America, in the '90s, when I was in my early teens. I'm pretty sure it was a Fred Reinfeld book - maybe an Edward Lasker. I would so love to have that book back in my possession as I remember how in awe I was while reading it by openings such as the "Nimzo-Indian" and "Queen's Indian" and stuff like that. It really made an impression on me. I remember I learned how to checkmate with K+R vs K with that book. Went to the national chess club and promptly got such an ending - the guy I was playing was young, just like me. The funny thing is that when the ending was reached, my opponent resigned and was quickly chastized by his friend who said to him, "Hey! Don't resign! Maybe he doesn't know it (referring to the K+R vs K ending)" - I tell you guys, I was so pumped that he said that because I was ready to show him I did know it; but my opponent still honoured his resignation. Those were some good days - as are these!
LTJ
PS. As for the "how old can we go with notation" conversation, check out this doozy: Luis Ramirez de Lucena. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Infohunter: <LoveThatJoker> The majority of books in my chess collection are in descriptive notation. That's how I learned it. What made algebraic less difficult for me to grasp than it otherwise might have been was the fact of my being somewhat familiar with foreign chess literature which, except for Spanish, was always written in algebraic. But I remember soon after the change-over in the early 1980s there were a lot of old-timers at the local club who couldn't record their games properly without the aid of a board with the grid coordinates printed on the margins. <Abdel Irada> You are of course referring to Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858. One thing: You have White's second move as 2. HH-BP3, when in fact it was 2. HH-OMP3. Of course I realize the error cancels itself out at 8. HH-P3, but still... |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Abdel Irada: <LTJ>: This reminds me of an old friend of mine named Dan Burkhard, who has his own (whimsical) names for the pieces. The king is the Old Man; the queen is the Bag; rooks are Turrets; bishops, Prelates; knights, Horse's Heads, and pawns are Little Round-Headed Dudes. This inspired me to invent Burkhard Descriptive Notation, which I will now demonstrate by reproducing a famous old game: 1. LRHD-OM4, LRHD-OM4
2. HH-OMP3, LRHD-B3
3. LRHD-B4, P-HH5
4. LRHDxLRHD, PxHH
5. BxP, LRHDxLRHD
6. P-BP4, HH-OMP3
7. B-BHH3, B-OM2
8. HH-P3, LRHD-P3
9. P-BHH5, LRHD-HH4
10. HHxLRHD!, LRHDxHH
11. PxLRHD ch, HH-B2
12. Castles Bagside, T-B1
13. TxHH!, TxT
14. T-B1, B-OM3
15. PxT ch, HHxP
16. B-HH8 ch!, HHxB
17. T-B8 mate. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Abdel Irada: <Infohunter>: Alert catch on my error and good job identifying the game. As you will see, I've repaired the mistake and re-posted. ---
On the subject of descriptive notation, I am reminded of an elderly retired firefighter who used to play regularly at Mechanics' Institute. When algebraic notation started to become common in 1984, he complained bitterly, vowing never to use "that alphabet soup." For me, on the other hand, algebraic came fairly readily, for I'd played against computer programs in high school, and at that time, the only way to input moves was to type them in long algebraic: "e2-e4," etc. (I also learned numeric notation — "5254," and so forth — but never actually had occasion to use it.) |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | dufferps: Looks like Burgess could have delayed the inevitable by a combination of ... Rxc2+ and ... Qf6. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Razgriz: Skipped the Queen Sacrifice..... |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <Infohunter> God bless those old-timers, man! It's cool that you have an extensive descriptive notation library, btw! Finally, you mentioned the notation with "K to K sq.", I actually enjoyed a book with that kind of notation: A book on WC Steinitz by Steinitz himself and a fellow named Davide. Terrfic book! <Abdel Irada> Little Round-Headed Dudes and Bag just got me laughing out loud, man! Thanks for that! Dan Burkhard sounds like quite the entertaining dude for sure! GM Seirawan also has some funny names for Chess pieces and motifs: 1) Pawns: Children
2) Promotion: Scoring a touchdown
3) Seventh Rank: The refreshment stalls (as in the rooks have reached the seventh rank, and now are going to down some refreshments)! LTJ |
|
Oct-30-12
 | | chrisowen: Lovely jubbly rotar quintessential one to 32.Qxb5 hacker mitigate in issue the stamp of approval edict um cinch for us tell tale sign rocks the boat for home straight out in 32..Qxb5 gun as on g1 sixpence turn it allow in ground hog ate 88.Bh6+ now ledge see ko in wall us kinge8 and daze 34.rg8# |
|
Oct-30-12
 | | benveniste: This is one of those odd times where it might be easier to find the winning move over the board than in a puzzle format. Black had played e5 to guard against Bh6, so diverting the queen becomes obvious. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Memethecat: 1.Bh6+ Ke8 2.Rg8 is mate but the BQ can intercede, so 32.Qxb5 distracts her, unable to recapture, black must resign as all moves are futile. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | drnooo: occasionally a gm will show some real class such as resigning when the opponent sacs his queen, just smile
turn the king over and say oops, let's go have a beer |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Infohunter: <LoveThatJoker: Finally, you mentioned the notation with "K to K sq.", I actually enjoyed a book with that kind of notation: A book on WC Steinitz by Steinitz himself and a fellow named Davide. Terrfic book!> I can think of a couple of examples in my collection right off: *The Book of the American Chess Congress New York 1889* by William Steinitz and *The Hastings Chess Tournament 1895* by Horace B. Cheshire, the latter of which uses the word "to" instead of the dash "-". And I know there are others that are not coming readily to mind as I write. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | gars: First of all, this POTD seemed easier than yesterday's. Now, for old names and styles, see chapter three of Chernev's "Winning Chess", as he quotes Franklin K. Young(who the hell was him??):
"White's object is to form the en potence at once and afteward to establish the grand left oblique, while the minor crochet covers the right wing against the adverse major front echelon." |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Infohunter: <gars> And let's not forget the one for which Mr. Young is perhaps most (in)famous: "Given a geometric symbol positive or combination of geometric symbols positive that is coincident to the objective plane; then, if the prime tactical factor can be posted at the point of command, the adverse King may be checkmated." This appears in Chernev's *Chess Companion* in the "Quotes" section near the end. What is unfortunate is that this quote so well fits the stereotypical image that non-players have of chess, while in fact it is utterly unrepresentative of the reality of our thinking with respect to the game. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | stst: Even though h6 is guarded by R@h7, Bh6+ will lead to QxB and will not establish a mating net. So to allow h6 be useful, first have to drag away the Black Q:
32.Qxh5 QxQ
33.Bh6+ Ke8 (forced)
34.Rg8#
<< IF 32....Q-any but not QxQ, White got extra R and should have an easy win. >> |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | Patriot: 32.Qxb5
32...Qxb5 33.Bh6+ Ke8 34.Rg8#
32...Rxc2+ 33.Kxc2 Nb4+ 34.Qxb4+  |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | TheBish: DeFirmian vs G Burgess, 1995 White to play (32.?) "Easy"
It's nice to see Nick on the winning side for a change! It seems like the last couple puzzles featuring GM DeFirmian had him on the losing side. It would be tempting to play 32. Bh6+ (seeing 32...Ke8 33. Rg8#), but Black would answer 32...Qxh6+! (check) 33. Rxh6 Rxa4 and White is suddenly down a piece. But White has a big improvement. 32. Qxb5! Qxb5 33. Bh6+ Ke8 34. Rg8#. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | SimonWebbsTiger: A little trivia: both Nick and Graham lived in Denmark back in the 1990s. |
|
| Oct-30-12 | | SuperPatzer77: Hey, Chess folks! I had been using descriptive notation until the algebraic notation grew on me in the late 1980's. The descriptive notation is kind of confusing. As we know, Bobby Fischer had been using the descriptive notation a lot. Algebraic notation is my type.
SuperPatzer77 |
|
| Oct-31-12 | | SimonWebbsTiger: The "funny" thing is that loads of youths turn their noses up on books in descriptive. That is quite sad since it isn't that hard to learn and there is a whole treasure trove of out of print classics - e.g. the 1970s books published by Batsford by Keene, Bronstein, etc, etc - which can be bought quite cheaply from specialist second hand book shops. I grew up reading and using descriptive and only gave it up when FIDE made a rule against it with re. to keeping score. |
|
| Oct-31-12 | | Infohunter: <SimonWebbsTiger: The "funny" thing is that loads of youths turn their noses up on books in descriptive. That is quite sad since it isn't that hard to learn and there is a whole treasure trove of out of print classics - e.g. the 1970s books published by Batsford by Keene, Bronstein, etc, etc - which can be bought quite cheaply from specialist second hand book shops.> Exactly. As I mentioned above, the majority of the books in my chess library are in descriptive notation. Not knowing that system would mean not being able to read those books. Pity the younger players miss out. <I grew up reading and using descriptive and only gave it up when FIDE made a rule against it with re. to keeping score.> I remember when that was done: It was at the beginning of 1981. I really did resent the fact of having something rammed down my throat, irrespective of whether or not it might be better objectively. In fact, I still don't like the idea of that kind of arbitrary high-handedness. I know that by now, what with the advent of the Internet and all, the changeover would long since have been made, as it would be exponentially more difficult to make a computer understand descriptive as against algebraic notation, but it was to me a matter of principle at the time. |
|
| Oct-31-12 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<Infohunter>
<Exactly. As I mentioned above, the majority of the books in my chess library are in descriptive notation. Not knowing that system would mean not being able to read those books. Pity the younger players miss out.> One of the first books I read as a kid was Batsford's "200 Open Games" by David Bronstein. I loved that book and am rather amazed it has only ever been reprinted, years ago, by the Dover publishing house (and in descriptive, too). That book is perhaps the only thing I have in common with Garry Kasparov. It was one of his first chess books too and he loves it to this day. Bronstein, true to form, presented an original lay out to a games collection of his wins, draws and losses in the 1.e4 e5 openings. The score, without notes, follows a proceeding warm essay on people, events, theory, some analytical remarks on the game, etc. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 32.Qxb5