|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-23-16 | | dfcx: If black could play either Bxf3 or Be5, white would be mated. But Be5 is refuted by f4, so taking out the defender is the move. 13...Bxf3+ 14.Bxf3 Be5 and there is no defense against Qxh2# next. |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: Seems Tuesdayish to me -- one clever move (remove a possible interposer with tempo), as part of short and totally forcing line. |
|
Mar-23-16
 | | agb2002: The material is identical.
White's weakest point is h2. However, 13... Be5 is met with 14.f4. Hence, 13... Bxf3+ 14.Bxf3 (14.Kg1 Qg4#) 14... Be5 and mate in four. |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | stst: One variation:
13.............Bxf3
14.Bxf3 (if not, Kg1 is forced, then 14......Qg4#)
.....Be5
15.Bf4 Qxf4
16.Kg1 Qxh2#
Mate is achieved only if f4 wont be blocked by the f3-pawn. |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | Cybe: 13. Kh1 is one of the few moves, that lose. White can: 13. Nb5, 13. f4, 13. Qd2, 13. ... |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | sfm: Cute, walking into a helpmate. The demobilization of the white f-pawn reminded me of that famous Fischer-Benko game
Fischer vs Benko, 1963
In this game, well, 13.f4 seems to be worth considering. |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | ndg2: Classical motive: interference of f pawn by the decoy sac on f3. Once the bishop blocks the f pawn, Be5 is deadly. |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | whiteshark: Add this to my many, too many, missed opportunities... :(( |
|
Mar-23-16
 | | Bubo bubo: Be5 would set up an unstoppable mate on h2 if the Pf3 was not there. Therefore we need the <vorplan> 13...Bxf3+, and after 14.Bxf3 (or 14.Kg1 Qg4#) Be5 White can only postpone mate by two moves (Bf4, h3). |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | paavoh: Sort of easy for Wednesday.
The mate-in-one after 13. -Be5 would be prevented by 14.f4, so eliminate the pawn on f3 by 13.-Bxf3+, with a check too and only then 14.-Be5. |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | saturn2: Nice and easy. |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | leRevenant: Well waddayaknow, I got it too. |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | morfishine: First <13.Bxf3+> eliminating the only defense for white, (namely <f4>), then follow this up with <14.Be5> and <h2> cannot be defended ***** |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | patzer2: Some positions or positional themes you've seen so often they retain in memory and you can see them at blitz speed, while others are seldom seen and completely forgotten. Even though it's been over 12 years since I last saw it, the solution 13...Bxf3+ 14. Bxf3 (14. Kg1 Qg4#) Be5  , with the decoy/deflection sacrifice initiating a quick mate, is one of those that stuck in memory. So I saw today's Wednesday solution at blitz speed. The computers often stretch out easy mating combinations with silly sacrifices, and today's solution is no exception. So Deep Fritz 15 calls it mate-in-six after 13... Bxf3+ 14. Bxf3 Be5 15. Qxd6+ cxd6 16. Bh6+ Ke8 17. Bf4 Qxf4 18. b3 Qxh2#. White's decisive mistake was 13. Kh1??, moving the King into a mating combination. Instead of 13. Kh1??, the computer alternative 13. Nb5 (diagram below) would have given White a level game. 
click for larger viewHere, after 13. Nb5 (diagram above), the sham sacrifice 13...Bxf3+?? doesn't work, as the White King escapes with decisive advantage after 14. Bxf3 Be5 15. Re1 Qxh2+ 16. Kf1  (+2.82 @ 20 depth, Deep Fritz 15). Following 13. Nb5 (diagram above), Black has nothing better than the Queen retreat 13...Qe7 which allows White a level game with either 14. Nxa7 = (+0.27 @ 22 depth, Deep Fritz 15) or 14. f4 = (0.19 @ 22 depth, Deep Fritz 15). |
|
Mar-23-16
 | | Richard Taylor: That's a similar theme to Fischer's f6 R sac against Benko to block the f7 pawn. Here it is the f2 pawn blocked. Very good one! |
|
Mar-23-16
| | Richard Taylor: Or f3 and f2 pawns.... |
|
Mar-23-16
 | | perfidious: Remove the blocker.... |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | notyetagm: I D Dorfman vs Romanishin, 1977 13 ... ?
click for larger view13 ... ♗h5xf3+! 0-1
click for larger view(CONTINUATON)
14 ♗e2x♗f3 ♗g7-e5
click for larger viewAnd the point of taking the White f3-pawn is now revealed: whereas the White f3-pawn could advance to f4 <SUPPORTED> by the White e3-bishop to <INTERPOSE> the h2-mating focal point, the White f3-*bishop* cannot do that, leaving White defenseless against the mate threat against h2. (VARIATION)
13 ... ♗g7-e5? 14 f3-f4
click for larger view |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | notyetagm: I D Dorfman vs Romanishin, 1977 Game Collection: ILLUSORY PROTECTION 13 ... Bh5xf3+! 0-1 f3-bishop cannot advance to f4 like f3-pawn |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | kevin86: I tries Be5, but that darn pawn gets in the way...so the solution is to sac the other bishop for said pawn. The key is that the bishop cannot change color (like the pawn can)by moving forward one square. Here, a pawn is worth more than a bishop! |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | notyetagm: I D Dorfman vs Romanishin, 1977 An excellent explanation of the 13 ... ♗h5xf3+! 0-1 tactic from <patzers2>, from page 1 of kibitzing back in 2003: ----
<patzer2: Using Chess Informant's "Encyclopedia of Middle Games," (Krogius, Taimanov, Parma, Livsic) as a reference, I would classify the winning theme with 13....Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Be5 (with ...Qxh2# to quickly follow) as <<<"Annihilation of Defense.">>> Fred Reinfeld, using his 1001 "Winning Chess Sacrifices" as a reference, would probably have classified it as <<<"Removing the Guard.">>>The idea is black sees after white's 13. Kh1 that if he immediately plays 13...Be5, then white will be able to defend by playing the pawn on f4 to f5. Then black asks himself a question. Can I remove the defender on the next move and then play 14...Be5 later? He then visualizes the position again with the pawn removed and realizes the answer is yes! He sees that if he removes the defending pawn with 13...Bxf3, then white has no more defense left to stop mate after 13....Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Be5. So, he "annihilates the defense" by "removing the guard" with 13...Bxf3!> I didn't change his quote but he clearly meant to write "then white will be able to defend by playing the pawn on f3 to f4". |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | notyetagm: I D Dorfman vs Romanishin, 1977 Game Collection: ILLUSORY PROTECTION 13 - Bh5xf3+! 0-1 f3-bishop cannot interpose on f4 like f3-pawn |
|
| Mar-23-16 | | patzer2: <notyetagm> Thanks! I forgot I'd posted that back in 2003. Also, I like <kevin86>'s concise explanation. I'll use both of them when I show the combination to my Grandsons. |
|
Mar-23-16
 | | scormus: rats :( after my success Monday and Tuesday I confess I missed W's reply .... 14 0-1 |
|
| Jan-02-21 | | Jambow: Not hard once you see it but easy to miss OTB. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
