< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Mar-25-09|| ||Andy77: Great commentary again. Didn't see the 27. Qe8+ et seq. in the sequence given above. That's great calculation, and precisely the sort of thing I would be too lazy to calculate out in an actual game. I didn't bother looking past 26. Bf4 Bxf4; the queen sac just didn't light up for me. |
Did the folks who did see the 27. Qe8+ et seq. clue in to sequence after first seeing the conceptual possibility of opening the e-file, playing a delaying check, and moving the f1 rook, or did you simply "play through" in your head, coming upon the idea of the sequence as you "moved" the pieces?
|Mar-25-09|| ||tivrfoa: 24. gxf3 Bxf3+
25. Kg1 Ng4
26. Bf4 Bxf4
27. Qe5 Bxe5
like <kevin86> said, white is down 2 pieces. better resign.
|Mar-25-09|| ||SpoiltVictorianChild: Very easy for a Wednesday. First thing I looked at.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||YouRang: Got it. :-)
Black scoops up a free piece with 23...Qxf3, since after 24.gxf3? Bxf3+ 25.Kg2 Ng4, then white can't do much to stop ...Bh2#
|Mar-25-09|| ||Patriot: <Andy77> I didn't calculate the Qe8+ or Qe5 idea, because they aren't exactly a counterattack that saves white's game. I calculated the forced sequence because of just that--it's forcing. My instructor teaches that you should always look at forcing moves (checks, captures, and threats) first. But here, Qe8+ clearly doesn't do enough to save white except stop immediate mate so I don't think it's lazy to stop analyzing with Bf4 and Bxf4. If Qe8+ allowed other pieces to enter the attack, it would be worth considering, but white has nothing.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||johnlspouge: < <Andy77> wrote: [snip] Did the folks who did see the 27. Qe8+ et seq. clue in to sequence [snip] >|
My approach was to look at moves to delay mate, until I realized that White could clear Qe1 and then Rf1 to give the Kg1 space to breathe.
< <Patriot> wrote: <Andy77> I didn't calculate the Qe8+ or Qe5 idea, because they aren't exactly a counterattack that saves white's game. [snip] But here, Qe8+ clearly doesn't do enough to save white except stop immediate mate >
Hi, <Patriot>. I find your comments about limiting calculation cogent and very practical. Throughout the week, e.g., I rarely worry about refusal of a sacrifice if a P must be surrendered without material compensation (although a Monday or Tuesday might provide a pleasant etude to calculate to mate.) When a full Q is invested, however, the defender can surrender huge amounts of material to avoid mate and still win. I suspect so many kibitzers calculated the mate, because they recognized the danger in a Q sacrifice not ending in mate.
Intuitively, however, the possibility today of White's winning after returning material was very remote indeed. Only perfectionists like <agb2002> or <JG27Pyth> would feel the need to flagellate themselves in public after omitting the exhaustive analysis.
Loosen up, guys :)
|Mar-25-09|| ||agb2002: <johnlspouge: ... Intuitively, however, the possibility today of White's winning after returning material was very remote indeed. Only perfectionists like <agb2002> or <JG27Pyth> would feel the need to flagellate themselves in public after omitting the exhaustive analysis. |
Loosen up, guys :) > I think I'll patent my approach, that is to say, trial, error and self flagellation... XD
|Mar-25-09|| ||Eggman: Simple but unusual - I can understand White overlooking it. Most of the pieces are in familiar positions, but it's not all that often that a Rook on f1 is blocked by a Queen on e1, a fact crucial to the combo's success.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||Andy77: I'm sensing an incipient patent infringement suit by the Catholic Church... ;)|
|Mar-25-09|| ||Patriot: Thanks <johnlspouge>. I'm a player that typically gets in time trouble OTB so for one thing I'm having to prune my calculations by necessity. Usually my goal is to analyze until quiescence but at some point when additional checks, captures, and threats, become insufficient to stop mate or fail to recover lost material or stave off a strong attack it's likely that there is no need to look deeper. Doing so is a waste of precious (clock) time. I agree with you that it's a good idea to usually consider accepting a sacrifice because that is the most critical variation. I think this site, your comments, and others' has really helped me to look one step further just to make sure there isn't more to analyze. Your comments are always insightful as to the positional plusses that are behind the key move.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||WhiteRook48: got 23...Qxf3!! 24 gxf3 Bxf3+ 25 Kg1 Ng4! with 26...Bh2# to follow- in 3 seconds.
To be more precise, it took
|Mar-25-09|| ||CHESSTTCAMPS: < <Andy77> wrote: [snip] Did the folks who did see the 27. Qe8+ et seq. clue in to sequence [snip] > I'd like to claim a systematic, analytical approach. What actually happened in my case was that I was planning to close my solution post with the commentary "From the puzzle position, black has a forced mate in three." Double-checking the diagram for accuracy of this statement, I noticed that black could delay mate with Bf4. Then I noticed that white had a "spite check" with the queen after which I realized that white could then create a luft for the king with Rf1-any and actually avoid the checkmate. Not quite the way a computer would do it, but such delay tactics might have a practical value if black's flag is hanging.|
However, trial, error and self flagellation - interesting alternative.
|Mar-25-09|| ||YouRang: <Andy77><Didn't see the 27. Qe8+ et seq. in the sequence given above. That's great calculation, and precisely the sort of thing I would be too lazy to calculate out in an actual game. I didn't bother looking past 26. Bf4 Bxf4; the queen sac just didn't light up for me. >|
I did notice 26.Bf4 Bxf4 27.Qe8+ Rxe8, but dismissed them as "jettison material to delay mate" moves, and didn't notice that it did allow black to escape quick mate by vacating e1.
However, at that point, I wouldn't care. I'm up by two pieces in the endgame. In fact, I'd be thrilled if white chose to play on. I like sadistic chess. :-)
|Mar-25-09|| ||thebuilder05: White should have done Rg1.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||Once: All this talk of self-flagellation reminds me of a very old joke. Did you hear about the masochist who liked a cold shower in the morning? So he took a warm bath instead ...|
Okay, I thought it was funny.
The crux of today's discussion is that the move 25... Ng4 is not check or a capture. It sets up a mate threat of 26... Bh2#, But white has the move and black has given up his queen.
click for larger view
White to move. Are you 100% sure that he cannot stave off the mate?
I have a personal rule that I must double, triple and quadruple check any sequence which involves a "quiet" move like 25. Ng4. If I had a penny for every time that a quiet move like this has bitten me in the bottom, I would have a lot of pennies.
|Mar-25-09|| ||CHESSTTCAMPS: <Once> wrote <[snip]White to move. Are you 100% sure that he cannot stave off the mate?[snip]>
A very key question to ask. Indeed, if black's king were on h7 instead of g8, the possibility of Qb1+ would render black's queen sacrifice unsound - the kind of defensive resource that is very easy to overlook.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||ruzon: "Stop! Just stop! You had me at Ng4."
You guys have been implicitly prodding me to work harder, and I still rely too much on intuition and hope. Bleah!
|Mar-25-09|| ||zb2cr: Saw this one quickly, but I must say that I stopped after 26. Bf4, Bxf4. I did not see how the sacrifice of the White Queen at either e5 or e8 on move 27 would allow White to make room with his Rook on move 28. |
|Mar-25-09|| ||TheaN: Wednesday 25 March 2009
Material: /+2♙\ w: ♕ + 2♖ + 2♗ + ♘ + 6♙ b: ♕ + 2♖ + 2♗ + ♘ + 4♙
The first move was a no-brainer, really. There are no other puzzle moves that work as the Black Queen is attacked.
<23....Qxf3!> capturing is futile, but so is defending against mate.
<24.Rg1 Qh5‡ 0-1>
<24.gxf3 Bxf3† 25.Kg1> now here the player has to visualize there is a Black Bishop on f3, not a White one, and that might be tricky. Black can continue with the unstoppable:
<25....Ng4> White may now interpose and/or sacrifice material, but Bh2‡ will come within at most three moves.
<26.Bf4 Bxf4 27.Qe5>
-27.Qe8† Rxe8 28.Nd4 Bh2‡ 0-1
<27....Bxe5 28.Nd4 Bh2‡ 0-1> and the curtains fall.
Time available: 19 minutes and 5 seconds.
Time taken: 0 minutes and 57 seconds.
Time remaining for <4> puzzles: 18 minutes and 8 seconds.
Time to check.
|Mar-25-09|| ||zb2cr: To <thebuilder05>:
You wrote: "White should have done Rg1."
Is this for White's 23rd instead of 23. Bf3, as played in the game? If so, how did you plan to deal with Black's 23. ... Qe4? The threat is mate by ... Qh4#, and it's not so easy to stop without loss of significant material. The only move I can see then is 24. f3, which Black can meet with the obvious 24. ... Qxe3 and he's up by B vs. 2P.
|Mar-25-09|| ||TheaN: 3/3... heh, of course, mate is not there yet. But lets just assume White is unwilling to continue a two Bishop deficit.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||akapovsky: Reminds me somewhat of Paulsen vs Morphy.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||outplayer: I have thought this puzzle to be as sweet and easy as a Monday one.|
|Mar-25-09|| ||outplayer: I like to play this variation as white and I do not like white's set up here.|
|Mar-27-09|| ||patzer2: For the Wednesday, March 25, 2009 puzzle solution, Black springs a mating attack with 23...Qxf3!|
White can avoid a quick mate after 23... Qxf3! 24. gxf3 Bxf3+ 25. Kg1 Ng4 , but only by giving up clearly decisive material after 26. Bf4 Bxf4 27. Qe8+ Rxe8 .
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·