< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-11-09|| ||Gilmoy: <onesax: ... black tries Albin Countergambit ... never plays e6 ... classified as a French ...>|
The pawn structure ends up as a French Exchange / Russian Panov by transposition. Black avoids typical Petroff lines (Bg4 Bd6 Nbd7 zzz) for the clever Nc6-b4-d5 tour, with a deep positional grip from the shelter of White's isolated Queen pawn. White loses a couple of tempi on his KB, lets Black centralize Rooks unopposed, gives him a free Rook lift, and then sends his only K-side defender to grub a pawn. Tsk.
|Feb-11-09|| ||al wazir: <Terry McCracken: 28..Rxg2+ 29. Kxg2..Nf4+ 30. Kh2..Rd3 31. Qxd3..Nxd3 32. Re8+..Kh7 33. Rf1.. Nxf2 34. Kg2..Qd7 35. Re3..Ne4 > Rfe1. (I don't see why white would take the ♖.)|
|Feb-11-09|| ||percyblakeney: Tough for a Wednesday, after a while I got it up until 30. ... Rd3 and stopped there thinking the rest had to work out, but black's material advantage won't be that big after all and it should be possible to blunder away the win somehow.|
|Feb-11-09|| ||percyblakeney: Maybe white's best line is 30. Kg1 Rd3 31. Qxd3 Nxd3 32. Re8+ Kh7 33. Rf1 Qxh3 34. Re3:|
click for larger view
Even though black must be winning it isn't that easy to see that a dozen ply ahead, before playing 28. ... Rxg2+.
|Feb-11-09|| ||KingG: This reminded me vaguely of Saint Amant / M.F. de B vs Morphy, 1858.|
|Feb-11-09|| ||johnlspouge: Wednesday (Medium/Easy)
Zhao Xue vs Bu Xiangzhi, 2005 (28…?)
Black to play and win.
Material: N for B. The White Kg1 has 3 legal moves. The Black Rg6 pins Pg2 to Kg1, and Rd6 is ready to reload. The Black Qf5 threatens the entire White K-position, particularly Ph3, which is defended laterally by Qb3. The White Bb8 attacks Rd6, which blocks its defense of the K-side. Both Rd6 and Nd5 require activation. Checks, captures, and threats provide candidates. Note that in the variations below, White can interpose Re1-e8+ Kg8-h7 to no effect.
Candidates (28…): Rxg2+, Qxf2+, Nf4
28…Rxg2 29.Kxg2 [else, drop a critical P]
Candidates (29...): Nf4+, Rg6+
The Kg2 has 6 flight squares:
(1) 30.Kf3 [or Kg3] Rd3+ 31.Qxd3 Nxd3
(2) 30.Kh2 [or Kh1] Rd3 (threatening 31.Rxb3 or 31.Rxh3+ 32.Qg4+ 33.Rh1#)
(3) 30.Kg1 Rd3 (threatening 31.Rxb3 and 32.Qg4+ 33.Qg7#)
(4) 30.Kf1 Rd3 (threatening 31.Rxb3 and 32.Qxh3+ 33.Qg7#)
In Variations (1-4), White loses Q for 2R+P and then Pf2 will fall, leaving Black with Q+2Ps for 2Rs, with an open White K.
|Feb-11-09|| ||PinnedPiece: Wasn't able to see 30...Rd3, fixated on making Rg6 work somehow...|
I failed. Bu hoo.
|Feb-11-09|| ||johnlspouge: < <percyblakeney> wrote: Tough for a Wednesday >|
Yes. Specifically, I find it hard to evaluate Q vs. 2Rs, because the positional context very much determines the value of the pieces. Maybe someone would like to comment on this point.
|Feb-11-09|| ||agb2002: The white bishop threatens the rook on d6 so one is tempted to use violent methods like 28... Rxg2+:|
A) 29.Kxg2 Nf4+
A.1) 30.Kf3 (or 30.Kg3) Qxh3+ 31.Kxf4 Rf6+ 32.Ke4 Qxb3 with Q+2P vs. R+B.
A.2) 30.Kh2 Rd3
A.2.a) 31.Qxd3 Nxd3 32.Re8+ Kh7 33.Rf1 Nxf2 34.Re3 Ng4+ 35.Kg1 Qxf1+ 36.Kxf1 Nxe3+ 37.Ke2 Nc2 with N+3P vs. B.
A.2.b) 31.Bxf4 Qxh3+ 32.Kg1 Rxb3 with Q+2P vs. R+B.
A.2.c) 31.Qc2 Qxh3+ 32.Kg1 Qg2#.
A.3) 30.Kh1 Rd3 31.Qxd3 (31.Bxf4 or 31.Qc2 is like A.2) Nxd3 32.Re8+ Kh7 33.Rf1 Qxh3+ 34.Kg1 Qg4+ followed by Nf4 or f5, with Q+2P vs. R+B.
A.4) 30.Kg1 Rd3
A.4.a) 31.Qxd3 Nxd3 32.Re8+ Kh7 33.Rf1 Qxh3 34.Re3 Qg4+ 35.Rg3 Qf5 with Q+2P vs. R+B.
A.4.b) 31.Bxf4 Rxb3 followed by Qxh3 or Rxa3.
A.4.c) 31.Qc2 Qg5+ and mate next.
A.5) 30.Kf1 Rd3
A.5.a) 31.Qxd3 Qxd3+ 33.Re2 (33.Kg1 Qg6+ and mate next) Qxe2+ with Q+N+P vs. R+B.
A.5.b) 31.Re8+ Kh7 32.Qxd3 Qxd3+ 33.Kg1 (33.Ke1 Ng2#) Ne2+ with Q+2P vs. R+B.
A.5.c) 31.Bxf4 Qxh3+ followed by 32... Rxb3.
A.5.d) 31.Qc2 Qxh3+ and mate next.
B) 29.Kh1 (29.Kf1 Qxf2#) Rdg6 (threatening Qxf2, Rxf2, Nf4)
B.1) 30.Bg3 Qxh3+ and mate next.
B.2) 30.Rf1 Rxf2 .
B.3) 30.Ba7 b6 or perhaps 30... R7g6 31.fxg3 Qxh3+ 32.Kg1 Rxg3+ 33.Qxg3 Qxg3+ 34.Kf1 Qf3+ 35.Kg1 Nf4 etc.
|Feb-11-09|| ||agb2002: I wonder why I didn't see 31.Re3. In any case, its follow-up is fairly straightforward.|
<johnlspouge: < <percyblakeney> wrote: Tough for a Wednesday >
Yes. Specifically, I find it hard to evaluate Q vs. 2Rs, because the positional context very much determines the value of the pieces. Maybe someone would like to comment on this point.> It reminds me of yesterday's puzzle. After some preparation Black would launch a pawn roll against the white king. I suspect that the most difficult problem is where to place the knight. Probably I'd try to use it to eliminate the bishop in order to diminish White's counterplay chances (in particular against the black king). Then, the three pawn roll would probably be easier.
|Feb-11-09|| ||playground player: Once Black plays Rxg2+, I can't find any credible defense for White. There's no way to get the King out of the crosshairs.|
|Feb-11-09|| ||kevin86: Since this was a puzzle,I was able to come up with the key move 28...♖xg2+ . Frankly,over the board,I wouldn't ever come up with a sac like that.|
The second crucial move is 30...♖d3!!,forcing white to give up the queen or be mated. The final rook sac was a pleasant finale.
|Feb-11-09|| ||Jimfromprovidence: The simple 28 Rcd1 blows up the combination, eliminating the possibility of black playing Rd3.|
click for larger view
|Feb-11-09|| ||agb2002: <chessgames.com> I tried to use the figurine notation in my first post today but I received an error message saying that the message was too long. However, as you can see, it fits perfectly well with the standard pgn notation.|
It would be useful to be able to use that notation with more or less long posts because they become much clearer to read IMHO.
|Feb-11-09|| ||Knight101: At 33.Bxf4 that would have stop Black's mating attact and given White the advantage, and most likey a won game. I don't think 28...Rxg2+ is the way to go in this position.|
|Feb-11-09|| ||MaczynskiPratten: <Knight101>: After 33 Bxf4 you may have missed Qxb3 - Black has a clear advantage as White's R and B are uncoordinated and the a3 pawn will soon fall. That's the clever point of Qd5 - hitting both g2 and b3. So White has to reply Rg3 and allow a "self-fork" of his Rooks :-)|
|Feb-11-09|| ||onesax: On move 32 black threatens both Qg2 mate, AND Qxb3, winning a whole rook. That was the purpose behind 33. Rg3, in order to try to save both. If 33. Bxf4, black then has 33. ... Qxb3 leading to a won game with queen + pawn vs rook + bishop. It's hard to be critical on 33. Rg3 when 33. Bxf4 as suggested is as bad or worse, and of course by this time white may have just been low on time and thought Rg3 could cover both black threats at once, and overlooked the new threat of the N fork that was created :(|
|Feb-11-09|| ||onesax: Ah, Maczynski got it in before me - his comment wasn't there before I hit post :) And he is spot on.|
|Feb-11-09|| ||beenthere240: What happens if white plays 34. Rc5?|
|Feb-11-09|| ||beenthere240: Never mind. 34...Qd8 and white still has 2 pieces hanging.|
|Feb-11-09|| ||moi: <TheBish:> You forgot something in the analysis of 30 Kf1:
after 30 ... Rd3, white can try
31 ... Rxb3
32 Rxb3 and white has two rooks for the queen, but...
32 ... Qb5+ !
33 Kg1 (Ke1 would be mate immediately) Ne2+ captures a rook.
|Feb-11-09|| ||akapovsky: I took a week rest from chess and all ready I'am playing and solving chess puzzles like a complete patzer and when it came to todays puzzle I didn'thave a clue of what I was doing.|
|Feb-11-09|| ||WhiteRook48: I found the first move, but not the rest|
|Feb-13-09|| ||patzer2: For the Wednesday, Feb 11, 2008 puzzle solution, Black's demolition sacrifice combination 28...Rxg2+! undermines White's weak King-side castled position to win decisive material.|
|Oct-02-14|| ||Domdaniel: <onesax> - < Funny that black tries to play an Albin Countergambit, plays the move e5 and never plays e6, and this gets classified as a French ... >|
Funny peculiar rather than funny haha. As Gilmoy pointed out, this transposes directly into a French - the Monte Carlo Variation of the Exchange French, usually reached via 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6.
It's similar to the Panov Attack in the Caro-Kann, though there are important differences - and, for some reason, it's much less popular (the CG database has over 2000 Panov games, but just a few hundred in the Monte Carlo.)
It's quite dangerous, however -- I lost twice to it last year as Black.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·