|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-15-12
 | | Check It Out: Thanks galdur, it's so much clearer now :) |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | WinKing: <chrisowen> is to chess like Andy Warhol was to art. It's all in the way you wish to express yourself. :) |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | bachbeet: Like some others I saw the first few moves. I guess I could get half credit. |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | BOSTER: This is the original position with black to play move 14...
click for larger view
Certainly, c3 with d4 support looks very nice ,but maybe something is wrong here?
What is wrong with Qxd4+? |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | CHESSTTCAMPS: <<VincentL> <I tried this against Crafty, and having declined the rook, the machine soon gave up Q for R + B and not long after offered up an exchange. There is clearly no realistic defence after 17....Kb8.> I disagree - there are several traps and pitfalls for white even a rook up. Did you play it to the end? |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | JohnBoy: <sevenseaman> - regarding your puzzle, it looks like the position could easily come from a game - a Winawer French would be my guess. The solution is pretty easy: 1.Rh8+ Ke7 2.Qf6+ gf6 3.gf6#. |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | JohnBoy: And now I read the next post to see that <Patriot> got it hours ago... HAHA |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | VincentL: <CHESSTTCAMPS>I played it out to mate. I quickly got down to a position where I had Q + at least 3 pawns against lone K. Perhaps I just found the strongest moves today, but normally I run into some difficulties against Crafty, either misjudging a counteroffensive or else making careless moves once in a position from which there is a simple win. |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | WinKing: <BOSTER: This is the original position with black to play move 14...
click for larger viewCertainly, c3 with d4 support looks very nice ,but maybe something is wrong here? What is wrong with Qxd4+?> After 14...Qxd4+ 15.Be3 Qxa4 16.Ra1 Qc6 17.Rxa7 & whites attack looks irresistible. 
click for larger viewIf 14...Qxd4+ 15.Be3 Qxe5 16.Ba6! Rd7(16....bxa6 17.Qxa6 Kd7 18.Qb5+ Ke7 19.Bxc5+ winning) 17.Bxb7+ Rxb7 18.Rxb7 Kxb7 19.Qb5+(Diagram below)
& black is in trouble(19...Kc7 20.Bf4 winning 19...Kc8 20.Qe8+ Kc7 21.Rxf7+ Bxf7 22.Qxe5+ looks good for white). 
click for larger viewThere are a ton of tactics in your line <BOSTER> all seeming to favor white. I'm sure I may have missed a few but black looks to be struggling to stay alive if 14...Qxd4+. Your questioning black's 14th move is surely justified. Pfleger's mind had to be overloaded trying to sort through all of this. |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | WinKing: Well I missed at least one line <Boster>
After 14...Qxd4+ 15.Be3 Qxe5 16.Ba6 <Rd2!?> black seems to hold. I missed this move(maybe others too).
click for larger view17.Qf3 Kd8 18.Bxd2 cxd2 19.Qxb7 Bd6 & it's game on.
click for larger viewLike I said lots of tactics...by both sides. :) |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | 1stboard: I think black had a better move on move # 15 , I would have played Bd5 ( instead of Bc5 ) .... force the exchange of bishops and black is still two ( threatening )pawns up ..... |
|
Mar-15-12
 | | chrisowen: <WinKing> <galdur> Yes, essay it was above an improve isnt it? baggages in forlorn (c5 e6) minimum gain heeding bishop... in sick it spurious in rookb5+ amongst plus for
languid rook chill bishop in try a6 nab hind
deliver majesty it swindle for castle b1 hale it
her fridge in buy it a6 f4 lake in
bf4 really a time culpa editio faci dominus ergo.
rave it hope in low mind bf4 b1 hark
it each in ever it almost in ance good! |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | BOSTER: <WinKing> Your analysis is very interesting.
But 14...Qxd4+ 15.Be3 Qxe5 16.Ba6 black can play Bd5. |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | WinKing: <BOSTER: <WinKing> Your analysis is very interesting. But 14...Qxd4+ 15.Be3 Qxe5 16.Ba6 black can play Bd5.> Actually if black plays 16...Bd5 in the line If 14...Qxd4+ 15.Be3 Qxe5 16.Ba6! black has problems. Position below is after 16...Bd5: 
click for larger view17.Rxb7! Bxb7 18.Bxb7+ Kxb7 19.Qb5+ Kc7 20.Bf4 (or 20.Qa5+ might even be better & lead to more for white) Position below is after 20.Bf4: 
click for larger viewIn any event there are a lot of tactics for both sides during this game which leads to lively play. Thanks for bringing this to our attention <BOSTER>. Dissecting the POTD games is a good way of learning how to avoid problems in our own games. |
|
| Mar-15-12 | | sevenseaman: <JohnBoy> Good that you found the solution easy. I missed it in a time format. My idea was the same but I put up the Q before the R check; Black is not forced to take it. Yes, the position is from an actual game. Toga, the computer TC use, touches up the actual positions very little and most of the time not at all. Which opening/defense? I cannot honestly say, it could be Winawer French. TC release this information to 'Gold Members' only; I am a gleeful commoner. Thanks for the curiosity. <LTJ> Good if you relish these; my pleasure. <viking78> 1. Qxf8 is right. I only meant it looks like a wild shot and hoped if some more knowledgeable solver could provide the motives. <Patriot> Nice insight. (apologies to all for a tardy response, came back to the forum after a lot of time elapse) |
|
Mar-15-12
 | | Jimfromprovidence: <bwarnock> and <seth> Yes, You got exactly what I thought was noteworthy, that even with keeping the b file closed black was still lost. 17 Rxc5+ Kb8 18 Qa6 d3 19 Bf3 d2 20 Rb5 is unstoppable.
click for larger viewAnd, as you stated, for example, 20...d1Q 21 Rxb6+ is a forced mate.
click for larger view |
|
| Mar-16-12 | | sevenseaman: <bwarnock> Sharp analysis! Your visits to the forum are rather sporadic? |
|
| Mar-16-12 | | bwarnock: <<sevenseaman> bwarnock - Sharp analysis! Your visits to the forum are rather sporadic?> Thanks - I read a lot but don't post that much. There seems to be a lot of noise and axe-grinding in some of the forums, but also some very interesting stuff. I got drawn in when I found one of my games was a POTD (Hertan-Warnock) and that a user (perfidious) was someone I knew from my active playing days. (I haven't played much since the 90s). BW |
|
| Mar-16-12 | | King Death: <bwarnock> You got drawn into this vortex when there are hundreds of others out there? This <perfidious> must have super powers. Seriously, he seems to be a strong player (probably master strength)judging from his comments that I've read. |
|
| Mar-17-12 | | bwarnock: Very strong - I think he was the highest-rated player from Vermont for awhile maybe #2. When I knew him his USCF rating was low 2200s. Also had a reputation as a nice guy as opposed to some of the strong players in New England who were or could be kind of a pain. We played 5 or 6 games - he had trouble with me because we're similar styles (sharp, positionally sound) but I was a little older and slightly better - the toughest opponents (For me anyway) are the ones who play in the same/similar style you do but a little better. <> |
|
| Mar-20-12 | | King Death: < bwarnock: ...<perfidious> had trouble with me because we're similar styles (sharp, positionally sound) but I was a little older and slightly better - the toughest opponents (For me anyway) are the ones who play in the same/similar style you do but a little better.> This is an interesting subject, in my playing career I saw the same thing. |
|
| Mar-22-12 | | bwarnock: <King Death: ... This is an interesting subject, in my playing career I saw the same thing.> I think this goes some way to explaining some of the great matchups that were particularly one-sided - I'm thinking Tal-Korchnoi (K. had a big plus score) and also Polugaevsky-Tal (same thing) and Geller-Fischer (less so but still advantage to Geller). Polugaevsky and Korchnoi were both known for being able to calculate long complex variations accurately which was also Tal's strong suit. Geller had a 5-3 mark against Fischer and one of Fischer's wins isn't very convincing (Palma de Mallorca 1970). One of Fischer's great strengths was to enter sharp tactical complications that would suddenly change the positional elements of the position - he did this repeatedly against Spassky in the '72 match. Geller was also very good at this and in most of their games was able to match him blow for blow... Other such matchups: Karpov-Spassky (big advantage to K.) and Spassky-Larsen (also rather one-sided in Spassky's favor). |
|
| Mar-22-12 | | King Death: <bwarnock> It's funny that you mention it, today I posted about some of this here: Fischer vs Geller, 1967. |
|
Nov-25-13
 | | perfidious: <bwarnock....Polugaevsky and Korchnoi were both known for being able to calculate long complex variations accurately which was also Tal's strong suit....> This capability of Polu and Korchnoi nullified Tal's superiority in that respect to the vast majority of even top players. It is most unfortunate that Tal and Fischer never met in a serious game after Curacao, particularly when Tal enjoyed his twin renaissance in the 1970s. <....One of Fischer's great strengths was to enter sharp tactical complications that would suddenly change the positional elements of the position - he did this repeatedly against Spassky in the '72 match. Geller was also very good at this and in most of their games was able to match him blow for blow...> Indeed it was, but Fischer was at his best in clear strategic positions, whereas Geller managed to create an irrational element, and when that came about, Fischer could be out of his depth, as in the game cited by <KingDeath> in his last kibitz. Fischer's loss to Larsen at Palma is another example of his getting caught in the maelstrom of obscure complications which is the Velimirovic Attack. |
|
| Jan-08-17 | | whiteshark: Pflegerstufe 3 (highest level of care) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 17.Rxc5+