|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-09-17 | | ChessHigherCat: I forgot to cover this variant, if you're wondering why black couldn't play 27...Ke8 instead of Qxe7: 27....Ke8 28. Nc6+ Kd7 29. Nxd8 Kxd8 30. Qxf7 Bd7 31. Qf8+ Kc7 32. Rxc4+ Kb7 33. Rb4+ Kc6 34. Qxb8 |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | scholes: <phony benoni> Black will defend h7 by Qg8 after 27 Kxe2. So another rook on g file is required to protect g file. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | NBZ: Okay so I think I have a forced line that looks pretty good. Let's start with: 1. Nf6+! gxf6 (not Qxf6 Rxe8#).
2. Rg4+ Kh8 (again forced, if Kf8 Qh6#)
3. Rg1!
The threat is Qxh7+ and Rh4#. How does Black defend? He can try Bxf5 but Qxf5 Rb5 Qxh7+ still leads to mate. Black could play 3. ... Re1+ 4. Rxe1 Rb5 but now White has Qh6 Qg8 Re8! winning. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | Walter Glattke: 1.-Kf8 2.Qxh7 |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | patzer2: There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one winning move available to solve today's Saturday puzzle (23. ?) I had forgotten I had analyzed this neat demolition of pawn structure combination with 23. Nf6+!! back in March, 2004. So while awaiting news of Cat 5 Hurricane Irma's landfall in Florida today, I found what appears to be an alternative winning solution with 23.Rde4 Rxe4 24.Rxe4 Bb7 25.Ne7+ Kf8 26.Re3 h6 27.f6! +- (+14.15 @ 28 depth, Stockfish 8.) Also winning is 23. Rg1 Bxf5 24. Qxf5 +- (+7.11 @ 31 depth, Stockfish 8.) However, best is the game continuation 23. Nf6+ +- (mate-in-10, Stockfish 8.) P.S.: Black's game starts to go down hill after the unforced capture of a poisoned piece with 15...exf5? 16. Nd5 ± to +- (+1.56 @ 28 depth, Stockfish 8.) Instead, Stockfish 8 indicates 15...b4 = (0.00 @ 28 depth) or 15...Nxe3 = (0.00 @ 28 depth) hold it level. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | stacase: 23. Nf6+ demolishes Black.
If Black takes the Knight with the Queen, White says Checkmate on the next move. If Black moves his King he loses the Rook.
If Black takes with the Pawn, White's Rooks move in for the kill on the newly opened g file. I don't think <Phony Benoni> is missing anything. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | malt: Start off with
23.Nf6+ gf6 24.Rg4+ Kh8 25.Reg1 Re1+
(Threat of 26.Q:h7+ )
26.R:e1 Bf5 27.Q:f5 Rc8
(if 27...Rb5 28.Q:f6+ and 29.Re8#)
28.Re8+ and Qf6# |
|
Sep-09-17
 | | Richard Taylor: I found this and the defence of Bxf5 I knew didn't work. I have to admit the only thing I missed was the b5 rook lift (which fails for the same reason as the e5 lift would have). I saw Re5 and then the Q sac etc... At first I thought the other rook should check on g1 but the King can escape to f8 in one variation. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | malt: Did not cover
<23.Nf6+> ...Kf8
24.N:h7+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ gf6
(25...Q:f6 26.R:e8#)
26.Rg4+ Kf8 27.Qh6# |
|
Sep-09-17
| | Richard Taylor: This was easier than last weeks very difficult game from a game by Tarrasch. In that I knew there was a Q sac and then a discovered check etc but there were two and the fist line had met trying to make mate for ages. Re solving and doing tactics. Sure some people can do these fairly quickly. But most of us struggle, and in my case I have spent hours going through combinations and tactics. Thus I am sure I have seen this them.
What made it easier was that all the lines except for one were winning after Nf6+ So the moves were forced bar one line where a "quiet" move was required. I found it but I think I had seen that idea in other tactics problems. If someone can solve this in "10 seconds" well and good but it isn't a competition. I "fail" to calculate accurately many lines or even very simple ones. If these were all easy there would be no point. However we solve this it doesn't matter or whether we can or not. Imagine the inverse, that you could solve and work out everything instantly. That you were like God (or some omnisicient omnipotent omnipresent Being) and knew everything. Knowing a lot and solving problems is not what is important really. It is being happy in most situations in life that we can all define as our intelligence. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | thegoodanarchist: <It is being happy in most situations in life that we can all define as our intelligence.> Actually, being happy all the time is associated with *lack* of intelligence. Thus the old saying "Fat, Dumb & Happy". |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | thegoodanarchist: Also, don't forget, "Ignorance is Bliss" |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | gofer: Hmmm, a simple mating combination. Is this really <Saturday> stuff? More like <Wednesday>! <23 Nf3+ ...>
23 ... Qxf3 24 Rxe8#
23 ... Kh8 24 Qxh7#
23 ... Kf8
24 Nxh7+ Kg8
25 Nf6+ gxf6 (Kf8 Qh8#)
26 Rg4+ Kf8
27 Qh8#/Qh6#
<23 ... gxf6>
<24 Rg4+ ...>
I was tempted by Rg1+, but this seems stronger.
24 ... Kf8
25 Qh6#
<24 ... Kh8>
<25 Reg1 ...>
White sets up the wonderful queen sacrifice on h7 - which is very very
difficult to deal with. It can't be played immediately due to
(25 Qxh7+ Kxh7 26 Reg1 Re1+! 27 Rxe1 Bxf5) and sacrificing the bishop
doesn't work (25 ... Bxf5 26 Qxf5 mating) . Instead Re8 must fall
on his sword...
<25 ... Re1+>
<26 Rxe1 ...>
Okay, we are an exchange up, but have lost tempo. What can
black do to defend this position? Especially, as white
threatens Qxf7 and Reg1 setting up the queen sacrifice again! 26 ... Qb6
27 b5 +- black has lost any chance of attack and misplaced its
queen - not a good idea!
26 ... Qf8
27 Rh4 h6 (Qg8 28 Re8 mating)
28 Re8! ??? (Qxe8 29 Qxh6+ Kg8 30 Rg4# or Bxf5 Qxh6+ mating) Okay, at this point I am guessing. I am going to have to check
what really happened...
~~~
Okay, so Prichett made life very easy for Nunn. <25 ... Re1+>
looks to put up more of a fight. But <Patzer2> says it mate in
ten after 23 Nf6+, so I am pretty close... |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | RandomVisitor: A deeper look at the position after 15.Nf5, as suggested by patzer2:
click for larger viewStockfish_17081107_x64_modern: <1.3 hours computer time, 8 cores> <-0.10/43 15...Nxe3 16.Qxe3 Qc5 17.f4 Qxe3+ 18.Rxe3 Bf8> 19.Nd4 e5 20.fxe5 Nxe5 21.Nd5 h6 22.h4 hxg5 23.hxg5 Bb7 24.c3 g6 25.Nf6+ Ke7 26.Nf3 Rh3 27.Rf1 Bg7 28.Kd2 Rxf3 29.Rfxf3 Nxf3+ 30.Rxf3 Rh8 31.Bc2 Rh2+ 32.Kc1 Bxf6 33.Rxf6 Rg2 34.Bb3 Bxe4 35.Rxf7+ Kd8 36.Ra7 Rxg5 37.Be6 Rg2 38.Rd7+ Ke8 39.Rxd6 Rc2+ 40.Kd1 Rxb2 +0.44/43 15...b4 16.Bxc4 bxc3 17.Nxe7 cxb2+ 18.Kb1 Kxe7 19.f4 a5 20.Bd4 Bb7 21.Bxg7 Rhc8 22.Qd2 Ke8 23.Bb3 Nc5 24.Qxd6 Qxd6 25.Rxd6 Ba8 26.Re3 a4 27.Bd5 exd5 28.exd5+ Ne6 29.Bxb2 Ke7 30.Ra6 Bxd5 31.f5 Rc5 32.Rxa4 Rcb5 33.Rb4 Rxb4 34.axb4 Rxb4 35.Kc1 Rf4 36.Bf6+ Kd7 37.fxe6+ Bxe6 38.Kd2 Rh4 39.Re2 Rh3 40.Be5 Rh4 41.Rf2 Rg4 42.Bf6 Kd6 43.Ke3 Rh4 44.Rd2+ Bd5 45.Rd4 Rh3+ 46.Kf4 |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | morfishine: An "only mover", but what a move! :)
***** |
|
Sep-09-17
 | | Jimfromprovidence: <Phony Benoni> had the game line but diverged with 25 Qh6, below (seeing 26 Qg7#).
click for larger viewIt looks hopeless but black saves himself with 25...Rxe1+ 26 Kd2 Qa5+! 
click for larger viewNext comes 27 b4 Qd5+ 28 Kxe1 Qe5+ and a perpetual 
click for larger view |
|
Sep-09-17
| | Jimfromprovidence: FYI... You can click on the green bar that says "A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE. [CLICK HERE]" to see a Stockfish 8 analysis of the game.
That is a very nice feature. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | RandomVisitor: <Jimfromprovidence>What is interesting to note for that computer annotated score is that the machine can spend as little as 1 minute per move in analysis - this is good enough to catch tactical errors but generally not good enough, IMHO, to suggest good positional moves, which can take several hours, in some cases, to determine. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | leRevenant: Elementary my dear Pritchett: Saturday Queensac. |
|
| Sep-09-17 | | mel gibson: My computer says mate in 10 - nice moves. |
|
Sep-09-17
 | | Phony Benoni: <Jimfromprovidence> That's diabolical in my book. |
|
Sep-09-17
 | | PawnSac: < patzer2: There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one
winning move available to solve today's Saturday puzzle (23. ?) > As is often the case. It's one of those little chess ironies.
Like when you play a game and see a move that mates in 5 (in all
variations). So you play it! Then in post game analysis, it is
discovered you could have mated in 4 with a different move. Well, we all know the maxim "when you see a good move, sit on your
hands and look for a better one". And I generally do this during
play (at classical time controls anyway). BUT (and here's the irony part)..
When we see a move that either mates, or wins by a landslide in
all variations, we RARELY look for a better plan. After all..
How do you improve on a mate? AND, you can't win unless you MAKE A MOVE
(especially in rapid or blitz).
Either way the game is over. Your opponent will resign, unless he
doesn't see it clearly, in which case you get to savor the combo
one move longer! O how delicious.
I mean, who gives a flyin flip if stockfish would have mated 1 move sooner. I had a guy one time cynically glare at me and say..
"You missed the mate in 4" to which i answered...
"Yea, but it was still YOU who got checkmated! LOL" That's the fun and irony of chess.
We play the winning moves that we SEE. |
|
Sep-10-17
| | Richard Taylor: <thegoodanarchist: <It is being happy in most situations in life that we can all define as our intelligence.>
Actually, being happy all the time is associated with *lack* of intelligence. Thus the old saying "Fat, Dumb & Happy".> You misunderstand. You are choosing to buy into others' definition of what you are. Read what Dr. Wayne Dyer said in his book: Happiness and Your Own I.Q.
Taking charge of yourself involves putting to rest some very prevalent myths.
At the top of the list is the notion that intelligence is measured by your ability to
solve complex problems; to read, write and compute at certain levels; and to resolve abstract equations quickly. This vision of intelligence predicates formal education and bookish excellence as the true measures of self-fulfillment. It encourages a kind of intellectual snobbery that has brought with it some demoralizing results. We have come to believe that someone who has more edu-cational merit badges, who is a whiz at some form of scholastic discipline (math, science, a huge vocabulary, a memory for superfluous facts, a fast reader) is “intelligent.” Yet mental hospitals are clogged with patients who have all of the properly lettered credentials - as well as many who don’t. A truer barometer of intelligence is an effective, happy life lived each day and each present moment of every day. If you are happy, if you live each moment for everything it’s worth, then you are an intelligent person. Problem solving is a useful adjunct to your happiness, but if you know that given your inability to resolve a particular concern you can still choose happiness for yourself, or at a minimum refuse to choose unhappiness, then you are intelligent. You are intelligent because you have the ultimate weapon against the big N.B.D. Yep - Nervous Break Down. Perhaps you will be surprised to learn that there is no such thing as a nervous breakdown. Nerves don’t break down. Cut someone open and look for the broken nerves. They never show up. “Intelligent” people do not have N.B.D.’s because they are in charge of themselves. They know how to choose happiness over depression, because they know how to deal with the problems of their lives. Notice I didn’t say solve the problems. Rather than measuring their intelligence on their ability to solve the problem, they measure it on their capacity for maintaining themselves as happy and worthy, whether the problem gets solved or not. You can begin to think of yourself as truly intelligent on the basis of how you choose to feel in the face of trying circumstances. The life struggles are pretty much the same for each of us. Everyone who is involved with other human beings in any social context has similar difficulties. Disagreements, conflicts and compromises are a part of what it means to be human. Similarly, money, growing old, sickness, deaths, natural disasters and accidents are all events which present problems to virtually all human beings. But some people are able to make it, to avoid immobilizing dejection and unhappiness despite such occurrences, while others collapse, become inert or have an N.B.D. Those who recognize problems as a human condition and don’t measure happiness by an absence of problems are the most intelligent kind of humans we know; also, the most rare. |
|
Sep-10-17
| | Richard Taylor: I've found this and in fact the lessons in the book very enhancing. But people buy into ideas of others being better etc because they can (in chess) win chess tournaments etc. If you ignore that stuff which leads to a sense that you are somehow a "failure" and think in a positive way you don't need to concern yourself about such things. Of course people tend to bring up extreme examples but this is not for such cases. Most people are average. But everyone, regardless of the "merit badges", or the gee whiz factor etc have much the same problems and issues in life. So you choose you own IQ. You refuse ever to take an IQ test, and you then decide to feel good about your self. This is important especially in modern Western schools where bullying takes place and one way to "get at" someone is to abuse their intelligence. It is especially important in New Zealand as we have the highest youth suicide rate in the "developed" world. There are also, per capita, a lot of big social problems in NZ. Many of the working class are involved in P use and other drugs and there is also a high rate of violent crime, child molestation etc and a lot of homelessness in the cities and poverty in Northland and other rural areas is high. Some of the issues are economic and political but they join to personal psychological issues. It is a world wide phenomena though and it is linked to over competitiveness also. And a general lack of compassion. A failure in some cases simply to love others. The pleasure then in chess becomes not winning but finding you have had an interesting game. This is hard for some people. But one of the great lessons is to learn how to fail. This is still a radical challenge. It sounds paradoxical but so are all "radical" ideas. |
|
Apr-28-24
 | | Sally Simpson: Opened 'Rocking the Ramparts' by Larry Christiansen for a quick browse before Sunday dinner and hit this game. Quick browse turned out to be a bit longer because here (Black to play) 
click for larger viewWhy not the 'obvious' 14...Nxe3 instead of 14...Nd7. Going 14...Nxe3 15.Qxe3 Ng4 or 14...Nxd3 15.gxf6 Nxd1 completely different game and spent a while trying beef up White's attack. Good game so guessing it might be in Nunn's best games. Yes No.5 - played in the Bundesliga - Larry (on page 83) has the game played in England. He may have misread John's note about both he and Craig lived in London at the time thinking they would not fly to Germany to play the game. When I think about it maybe that is what happened. The knew they were going to play each other in Germany so why bother flying to Germany. If that is case what venue do we use here.
The Bundesliga (played in John Nunn's sitting room.) I've digressed...
Alas John does not mention 14..Nxe3 but he does give a ?! to the previous move 13...Nc4 which sets up 14...Nxe3. By now wishing I had picked another book for a quick browse I went back to board to see what I am missing. An obvious move not mentioned and ?! leading up to it usually means a blunder from me. But it seems OK. It does get a bit messy after 15.gxf6 Nxd1 but no killer blow that I could see for White So Landed here to search the D.B. to see if 14...Nxe3 was played before or after this game. Yes, a few years later L Riemersma vs A Kosten, 1988 a draw on 22 moves. Ah well. None the wiser. All I was doing was killing 30 minutes till Sunday dinner (now getting cold.) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 15.Nf5