|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-22-04 | | karlzen: <patzer2>, I think that can be of great help when solving combinations. For example, I believe that the "Silman technique" uses the same idea, perhaps that's where you got it? |
|
| Mar-22-04 | | CapAnson: I think I have chess burnout, I just couldn't see this one, even after a couple minutes.. |
|
| Mar-22-04 | | karlzen: <capanson>, It will get better, I promise! Just eep on working with it! :) |
|
| Mar-24-04 | | patzer2: <Karlzen> My post that combinations result from "inadequately protected pieces or a weakened King position" is a paraphrase from Jeremy Silman's "Reassess Your Chess" Chapter Two. Silman argues that three things must be present for a combination to work: 1) Open or weakened King (including the stalemated King) 2) Undefended pieces (not including pawns)
3) Inadequately defended pieces.
Hence, Silman's rule is "if you see these items in a position, then and only then do you look for a possible combination." While I am no where near Silman in playing strength, and I think his rule is good over 99% of the time, the play of Tal and other former and current super GMs in finding apparently forced wins against very well defended positions leads me to believe that there are probably some exceptions to this rule. However, as a practical matter, I find Silman's rule to be extremely practical and useful. If nothing else, it is a good rule for keeping your santity in practical play by not wasting time calculating overly complicated variations in positions with little or no potential benefit. It is also a good rule for deciding when to play for positional advantage and when to look for mate or material advantage from a "pseudo sacrifice" in a "combination." |
|
| Mar-24-04 | | karlzen: I agree with Silman. This is the kind of rules that all GMs use intuitively, they don't need to think about them, they just check for undefended pieces, etc. |
|
| Mar-24-04 | | ruylopez900: I think its good that, once in a while, a GM (or IM) breaks down an essential concept (like factors that produce combinations) that seems second nature to them. |
|
| Apr-02-05 | | peanut: This guy has a really good appetite for wooden horse meat. :) |
|
| May-27-09 | | WhiteRook48: 8 Qc1 lol |
|
| Jul-19-09 | | whiteshark: A small step for a queen ... |
|
Mar-07-11
 | | Phony Benoni: The Queen of the Double Attack. |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | Formula7: 8.Qc1 attacks the c8 bishop and the h6 knight, winning a piece. |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | zb2cr: Well, for those who complain that Mondays are always the same--a Queen sacrifice--here is something different. 8. Qc1! initiates a double attack--threatening both 9. Qxc8+ and 9. Bxh6, Bxh6; 10. Qxh6. A tricky defense is 8. ... Qe6, protecting the Queen Bishop and pinning White's Bishop against his King. But then 9. d5! again renews the double attack. White will win a piece. |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | lost in space: As last Monday it took a while to see 8. Qc1, winning a piece. |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | estrick: Glad for the change of pace! |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | lost in space: Plachetka vs Ftacnik, 2002 This is how I would have been playing OTB or in blitz-mode, not knowing it is a puzzle, I am sure. By the way, this link/game was found first by <sneaky> |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | lost in space: ....and wouldn't it be even more fun if <CG> would have taken Plachetka vs. Ftacnik as puzzle? |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | sevenseaman: As soon as the the Q steps out of its silo and into its battle emplacement, it starts emitting multi-directional threats and the ambience reeks of hostilities that are imminent. Some skin off Black's nose for sure, and in chess that's usually more than one can live with. Its a premium Monday puzzle that bodes a great week! |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | Whitehat1963: Didn't see this one at all. So embarrassed! |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | dzechiel: White to move (8?). Material even. "Very Easy."
Wow. This must have been hyper-embarrassing for black. After 8 Qc1
white is winning a piece. Black can try
8...Qa5+
hoping that white will block the check with a knight, but after 9 Bd2
there's no way to stop either 10 Qxc8+ or 10 Bxa5 or 10 Bxh6. Time to check and see if black tried to hang on.
=====
I'm sure he will be more careful in the future. |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | dzechiel: I like <zb2cr>'s try of 8...Qe6, but, as he points out, it's inadequate. |
|
Mar-07-11
 | | al wazir: 8. Qc1 wins a piece immediately and it's simple once you see it, but I spent a couple minutes looking before finding it. Much of what we do when we analyze a position looking for combinations is no more than pattern recognition. See an opponent's ♔ and ♕ close together and our ♘ nearby? Then look for a ♘ fork. See an opposing ♖ or ♕ on the same diagonal as the ♔? Then look for a skewer with our ♕ or ♗ of the same color. But not only is the ♕ a long way from the two pieces it threatens, 8. Qc1 is an unusual way to create a fork. Because the double threat here was so unusual, it wasn't "very easy." |
|
Mar-07-11
 | | OBIT: Ugh... I found the move finally, but OTB I'd have undoubtedly played the automatic Nc3. (It's only move 8 - sure don't want to take a long think this early in the game.) How many guys here think they have the board sight to see 8. Qc1 in a real game? |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | sevenseaman: <lost in space> and in turn<Sneaky> This Plachetka vs Ftacnik, 2002 game sure puts today's puzzle into proper perspective; instructive! A week of intrigue looks to be on the cards! |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | rilkefan: Ooh, I didn't consider ...Qe6.
As a KID devotee, the Pirc/modern complex is my usual reply to 1.e4, but I find it very easy to get in trouble. I guess I'll switch to 1...c5 if I ever get back to tournament play. Anybody have the same complaint about the accelerated dragon? |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | Once: It's just a jump to the left...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ff0... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
