|Jul-18-03|| ||caseyclyde: This is one of those positions, after 11. f3, where it is easy to see the win when it is posed as a problem, but in a game, most people would probably just retreat the knight or play Qxc3. |
|Jul-18-03|| ||mdorothy: Stating a position as a problem, rather than it occuring in a game is a huge difference. It took me no more than 15 sec to find the win and be sure of it when it was posed as a problem, but I would probably never think of it if it was a natural occurance in a game. |
|Jul-18-03|| ||jaime gallegos: sometimes situations like this occurs on blitz very often... i agree with mdorothy 11.... Rb8 can be found easily. |
|Jul-18-03|| ||patzer2: <caseyclyde/mdorothy> Seeing opportunites like 11...Rb8 becomes easy when you recognize the tactical patterns. In this case the tactical pattern with the winning 11...Rb8 is "deflection" or "removing the guard." If white's queen is not guarding c3, black realizes he can mate. So, 11...Rb8 is the quick and easy answer.|
May I suggest a copy of Fred Reinfeld's "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations," with 71 examples devoted to the "removing the guard" tactic. The book has it's faults, but was on the active study list of at least one former US Chess Champion. I bought it as a 1300 rated player and within three years of studying this book, along with Rheinfeld's book of 1001 Checkmates, improved to over an 1850 USCF rating. The book, on the down side, has outdated descriptive notation, and some of the solutions are not always accurate, but I can assure you that study of its 1001 examples will quickly improve your ability to rapidly see tactical opportunities such as this in your own games.
|Jul-18-03|| ||KnightBlade: I agree with caseyclyde and mdorothy...thats why i dont find problem books very useful. Just out of curiosity though, it seems like White could be able to play on with a small material deficit after 12. fxe4 Rxb3 13. Rxb3 |
|Jul-18-03|| ||crafty: 12. ♕c2 ♖xb1 13. fxe4 ♖b6 14. e3 ♗a6 (eval -2.70; depth 16 ply; 250M nodes)|
|Jul-18-03|| ||KnightBlade: Patzer, deflection and removing the guard are two separate motifs...and 11...Rb8! isnt an example of either one! Black's 11th in this game is an example of Diversion, which means that a piece is forced to surrender control of a certain square, in this case the c3 square. Deflection means that a piece is forced to surrender control of a LINE (a common example is with backrank mate, you force a rook or queen to move off the back rank so that you can give checkmate.) "Removing the guard", also known as Elimination, is, as far as I know, defined by the capture of an enemy piece which controls either a line or square. It is similar to deflection and diversion, except that instead of luring the "guard" away from control of a square or line, you capture the piece, often via a sacrifice, with the idea that the piece that recaptures will not control the important square that was controlled by the "guard" that you "removed" or "eliminated". I am getting this information from David Lemoir's book "How to Become a Deadly Chess Tactician", so I believe that everything I have said is correct, but if I didn't explain something correctly, please let me know. |
|Jul-18-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: <Patzer, deflection and removing the guard are two separate motifs...and 11...Rb8! isnt an example of either one! >
Patzer isn't necessarily wrong. We've all learned different definitions. According to Lev Alburt and Larry Parr, deflection (aka overloading) is defined as "forcing an enemy man from its position so as to leave another man or square undefended." So 11... Rb8! is indeed deflection, at least according to them. I think Lev Alburt groups removing the guard under deflection. 11... Rb8! is also an example of a decoy because if 12. Qxb8??, black can't recapture (but gets checkmate as compensation). Anyway though, it doesn't matter what words we use, as long as we all can figure out the puzzle. |
|Jul-19-03|| ||caseyclyde: Patzer, thank you for your book recommendation. It's nice when chess player support each other, as opposed to the normally adversarial postion we are usually put in. |
|Sep-06-03|| ||KnightBlade: 11...Rb8 is a Diversion sacrifice. It is NOT a decoy sacrifice, or a "removing the guard" sacrifice, or a "deflection" sacrifice. A decoy sacrifice is luring a piece onto a certain square from where it can be targeted. This term is generally used when relating to a piece other than the king. A good example is allow a capture like Qd5xBc4, only to respond with Nb5-d6+, forking a king on c8 and the queen on c4. |
|Dec-07-12|| ||Compound Error: After 12.Qc2 I can't see this checkmate? I can see an exchange favouring black (rook for a knight)and doubling of white's pawns, but nothing else.|
|Feb-22-19|| ||fredthebear: <Compound Error> I agree w/you. To clarify, after 12.Qc2 RxRb1 is met by 13.fxNe4. The White queen is tied to the defense of the c3 pawn and dare not take the Black rook.|
|Feb-22-19|| ||fredthebear: FTB believes the difference in a Decoy and a DeFlection sacrifice is to-and-Fro.|
A Decoy-to Sacrifice lures a unit to a new square where it will be attacked on it's new square. Fischer-Myagmarsuren, Sousse Interzonal 1967 finishes w/a barrier breakthrough Queen sacrifice that is a Decoy to lure the Black King to h7, where he will be hit w/a discovered double check w/mate to follow.
Fischer vs Myagmarsuren, 1967
A DeFlection-From Sacrifice causes the unit to abort it's defensive coverage (for one reason or another) of a square/unit that is then taken over. The Adams-Torre, New Orleans 1920 queen chase is a good example of DeFlection. The Black queen must maintain protection of her rook to prevent a back rank mate.
E Z Adams vs Carlos Torre, 1920
"Remove the Guard/Defender" is a much broader term that can occur various ways. The phrase may or may not include the terms Decoy and DeFlection.
It is FTB's opinion that Remove the Guard does not necessarily involve a capture, but could be the threat of capture or a check that causes the defender to take flight. For examples, a pawn advance that "puts the question to the bishop" causing the bishop to retreat could result in Removal of the Guard if the bishop leaves the diagonal and can no longer maintain a protective obligation. By comparison, pinning the defender is a fine tactic, but it does not qualify as Removing the Defender.
In this brevity, Black quickly Removes the Defenders of the White queen -- one from each side! One removal is a simple trade on the queenside, and the other removal is a check (or two) on the kingside. It's not an earth shaking sacrifice; Black has invested the f2-pawn to uncouple White's royalty! Trattner vs P C Gibbs, 1955
"Elimination" is another type of removal, such as an Exchange Sacrifice getting rid of the Nf6 to allow a battery support of Qxh7#. Here is a quick example of the key White c-pawn being eliminated by the bishop sacrifice:
NN vs E Canal, 1935
Here, the White bishop is defending against checkmate on the diagonal, so the Black queen eliminates the bishop.
Didier vs Marshall, 1900
FTB regards the game shattering Qh8+ in Petrosian-Spassky, Moscow 1966, Round 10 as a queen sacrifice that is a Decoy-to, DeFlection-from, and Remove the Guard all-in-one move, but not Elimination as the defending King still remains on board after the resulting knight raid.
Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966
|Feb-22-19|| ||fredthebear: Here's another famous combination:
Capablanca vs M Fonaroff, 1918
21.QxB QxQ is a Decoy sacrifice. 22.Nxf7+ 1-0. Continuing, if Black leaves the back rank to play 22...RxNf7 it becomes a Deflection sacrifice which allows a back rank mate in three by the White rook, the last attacker available.
Other terms that can involve sacrifices include: Annihilate, Attraction, Clearance, Giving up the Exchange, Undermine, Overwork/Overload, Displace, Distract, Divert, Destroy, Desperado, Sham, Simplification, etc. Most assuredly FTB has absent mindedly omitted additional sacrificial terms at this hour. Different authors and different languages use all kinds of terms that have been described differently elsewhere. Checkmate handles can vary widely from country to country. Additionally, there are TACTICAL chess terms that do not involve a sacrificial capture.
Here's Undermining: Capture the Defender (sacrifice if necessary), then take what is no longer defended. It's a form of Removing the Guard. This queen trap is fairly common. D Levy vs G Martinez Vaca, 1972
V Bui vs H Frey Perez, 2002
This finish takes advantage of an Overloaded White rook that has two jobs in different directions. It's a form of Removing the Guard. If White responds 33.RxRc1 it's a Deflection sacrifice allowing 33...QxQb4.
It's not necessary to think about such sacrificial terms during a game, so long as one considers ALL possible Checks and Captures -- no matter how ridiculous the move appears on the surface -- and what happens immediately thereafter. Slow down and nalyze ALL possible Checks and Captures to see which side benefits afterwards and the various types of sacrifices will turn up in the wash. However, reminding thyself to seek forks, pins, and skewers ("aim 1 of mine at/through 2 of his") is a good idea.
Here's a Decoy Rook sacrifice with check that picks up a pawn and the opposing rook with check. A final king walk ensues. The key to any sacrifice is the follow-up action! Romanishin vs Marjanovic, 1972
Another king walk for a Box mate. Just keep checkin'! J Penrose vs L Popov, 1963
In this simultaneous exhibition, Black plays actively and takes down the champ! Follow sound chess principles looking to seize the initiative against master opponents.
Alekhine vs O Rocas, 1939
Know the checkmate patterns like an old timer. Mayet's Mate is coming on the long diagonal: Blackburne vs J Schwarz, 1881
A Double Bishop Sacrifice for a prompt Corridor Mate: G Kuzmin vs Sveshnikov, 1973
A pair of Exchange Sacrifices and Double Check too!!
Rubinstein vs Vidmar, 1918
We had a request for another Double Roook Sacrifice!!
Maroczy vs Tartakower, 1922
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Remove the Guard and the Attacker! Kasparov vs Huebner, 1986
Great Royal foolery!! Schlechter vs Meitner, 1899
This is a bold break through!! R Beyen vs Filip, 1971
One last shot, shades of Petrosian!! Morozevich vs Bologan, 2004
Crushing moves on the board are what matter, not the categorical terminology. Yet, the understanding of terminology could be considered a limited measure of chess enlightenment. Here's Mark Lowery's 50-page lesson on chess sacrifices:
FTB's brief book References include:
- "Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom" by Eric Schiller.
- "A to Z Chess Tactics" by George Huczek.
FTB's preferred chess bibles "The Art of Attack in Chess" by Vladimir Vukovic and "A Chess Omnibus" by Edward Winter contain players and games indexes, but no defined terminology list, which is typical of advanced books. FTB did not wish to wake up the rest of the house at this hour to access his chess book cases for other shelved sources.
|Feb-24-19|| ||fredthebear: FTB just had to include an encore Decoy Sacrifice!|
V Mikenas vs S F Lebedev, 1941