|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-14-15 | | starry2013: I got this one quick, definitely much easier than last Tuesdays. Keeps you guessing I suppose as to how difficult a day will be. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | saturn2: @ al wazir: What was the point of 25. Re6?
White thought that he would gain a piece. Blacks queen and bishop are forked. He missed however black's counterblow 25 ..Ne4 which
1.attacks the white queen
2.protects its own bishop
3. last but not least creates the matethreat of the puzzle. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | jith1207: <AGB2002> Everyone here knows it's your template of addressing the puzzles. ;-) I thought about that too when I read <ChessTTCamps>'s post. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | paavoh: Same as everyone: 27... Ng3+ 28.hxg3 Qh6+ 29.Qh5 Qxh5#. On the easy side for Tuesday. |
|
Jul-14-15
 | | Oxspawn: Black has bishop for pawn and seems to be in a powerful position.
Although the obvious
27…………Nf2+
Is a trap because after
28. Rxf2 black cannot retake with the bishop because the black queen is en prise.
However,
27. Ng3+ seems to lead to mate
28. hxg3 Qh6+
and apart from interposing an undefended white queen on h5 white seems to have run out of options, so mate to follow.A lot of “seems to…”. That is because I “seem to” miss a lot in these positions and the more confident I feel about a solution the worse the disappointment when I look at other posts. However, today I am feeling confident! Over the board I would play it and wait for the crash of shattered optimism. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | morfishine: Control <g1> from the Black side (or <g8> from the White side), and lots of good things can happen: <27...Ng3+> and mate is forced: 28.hxg3 Qh6+ 29.Qh5 Qxh5# ***** |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | jith1207: <Oxspawn> I have shared that feeling often. Some Tuesdays make you feel getting better, Some Tuesdays make you feel that you are getting worse. I don't feel bad after Wednesdays for instance as I take it as success if I get some times but Tuesdays come with that pressure. Let's see if CG is in good mood like yesterday and today for the whole week so I could actually look forward on Saturday. |
|
Jul-14-15
 | | Willber G: <FSR: What <CHESSTTCAMPS> said.> That's a short post, FSR - surely you have enough energy left for a pun attempt? ;-) |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | Ceri: I played Dominic Foord when he was playing allcomers at his school fete, aged about 17. He was playing 10 boards at a time and was, I think, tiring. He spotted me as dangerous early in the game and lasted 18 moves before resigning as White vs a KID. Ceri |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | Ceri: It was the year after this game: September 2008.
Ceri |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | alphee: Nice and clean Ng3+. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | CHESSTTCAMPS: <<agb2002> Sometimes I can't help but being so original...> Well, there's not much to be done with a one-branch solution! Too bad, recent Tuesdays have been more interesting. No question, agb2002's solution posts are the gold standard for thoroughness, although several other regulars are very good indeed. Initially, in my posts, I didn't see great value in identifying the major threat(s) from the opposition, thinking that the main threat was usually pretty obvious. Then, one fine day I was about to post an elaborate solution that had taken a fair amount of time to put together, when I discovered a major hole that required a lot of time to repair. It would have been avoided if I had carefully considered the major threats. From then on, I included another good <agb2002> habit into my posts: identifying the opposition's principal threat. After all, more games are won by avoiding the gross blunder, than by finding the most brilliant finish. |
|
Jul-14-15
 | | Nightsurfer: Looks like as if I am just a Monday- and Tuesday-Man ... (and a <"Yesterday Man"> anyway ... < ... ;-) ... > ...) - since I've got the solution today at once, namely <27. ... Ng3+! 28.hxg3 Qh6+ 29.Qh5 ...> (the <GREEK> motive ... just buying time before the exitus that is sure to come!) <29. ... Qxh5#>! But on Wednesday things ususally start to get rougher for me! |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | DavidD: The chess-master I take lessons from has had me develop the habit of asking after each move I calculate, "What is the threat?" However, I'm going to modify the question to "What are the threats?" In the game, after 26... Ne4, White clearly saw the threat to his Queen, but missed the ... Ng3+ threat leading to mate. How easy to forget the opponent may have more than one threat in the position. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | kevin86: Easy: the knight sac opens white's position like a can opener- then the queen mates on the h-file. |
|
Jul-14-15
 | | Once: Now that is more interesting than it looks, but you need to rewind a couple of moves to find the juice. This is the position after white's initially baffling 25. Re6: 
click for larger viewThis is a case of a player been too clever by half. He sets up a tempting tactic which almost, nearly, 99%, give or take works. White figures that black has to capture the cheeky white rook or allow Rxf6 or Rxc6 or Rfe1 or Qg3. Indeed, Fritzie confirms that 25...Bxe6 is the only move to give black an advantage. Then white would have slammed down 26. Nxe6
click for larger viewWhite forks the black Qf8 and the Bc5. Not only that, but he threatens the cheeky Qg3+. If the Black queen wanders too far away we might even get to play Qxf6. And indeed Fritzie says that every black reply leads to a healthy white advantage ... apart from one. Unfortunately for white, 26...Ne4 protects everything. Qg3+ isn't available. The Bc5 is safe. If white exchanges or retreats queens, black will remain a piece up. And that is the irony and tragedy of chess. This little sequence was initiated by white. It works in every variation except the one where it loses. That's the risk we take with non forcing variations (GOOTS) - there is always the danger that we have overlooked one losing variation. White, shocked, misses the mate threat and dies in a hail of bullets. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | TheaN: I can post the solution like many others did before me, but more interesting... didn't I see this puzzle, or at least this exact pattern (Ng3 hxg Qh6 Qh5 Qxh5#, darn now I still posted it) before? I can swear I did, though I might just have a genuine deja vu. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | agb2002: <CHESSTTCAMPS: <<agb2002> Sometimes I can't help but being so original...> Well, there's not much to be done with a one-branch solution! Too bad, recent Tuesdays have been more interesting.> My first impression when I read your post was that I was posting twice! And couldn't resist the joke... <No question, agb2002's solution posts are the gold standard for thoroughness, although several other regulars are very good indeed.> Thank you, Phil. I've tried different approaches along the years but for some reason I ended up with that simple layout: -Material balance.
-Opponent's threats.
-A short comment on what I think the essentials of the position are, and, of course... -A mess of lines.
I usually try to produce a reasonably complete solution at breakfast time but this is not always possible. <Initially, in my posts, I didn't see great value in identifying the major threat(s) from the opposition, thinking that the main threat was usually pretty obvious. Then, one fine day I was about to post an elaborate solution that had taken a fair amount of time to put together, when I discovered a major hole that required a lot of time to repair. It would have been avoided if I had carefully considered the major threats. From then on, I included another good <agb2002> habit into my posts: identifying the opposition's principal threat. After all, more games are won by avoiding the gross blunder, than by finding the most brilliant finish.> I have experienced that countless times so I decided to incorporate some good old discipline. Another problem is not considering enough alternatives for both sides in the calculation process and I still don't have a convincing fix for this. The limited time I have for chess doesn't help either. I probably will try my own version of Kotov's candidate moves (when I was a teenager I had the impression that it was actually an elaborated soviet plot to mislead western players!) or perhaps I will try some kind of 'candidate weaknesses' approach. In any case, I'm a sure candidate for having dinner right now. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | BOSTER: <DavidD: What is the threat?>.
The amazing Knight's jumb Ng3+ when g1 square under control was the main motif in the game Karpov vs Taimanov.
Of course you have to see " rook-angle" Ra1-a8-h8.
click for larger view
White to play. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | jith1207: <Thean> You are correct, we have seen the exact sequence before with Knight on q3+ and queen coming to h-file. But I guess at that time, there was no annoying interpose delay. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | M.Hassan: Black has a Bishop for a pawn
27........Ng3+
28.hxg3(forced) Qh6+
Black Queen saves herself and checks White King!!
29.Qh5 Qxh5# |
|
Jul-14-15
 | | Bubo bubo: Like yesterday, a sac opens the edge file decisively: 27...Ng3+ 28.hxg3 Qh6+ and mate next move. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | CHESSTTCAMPS: <BOSTER:> An excellent example you illustrated - I remember that the combination caught me by surprise when I played out that game. <agb2002> I guess I need to inject a little of <Once> or <chrisowen> to give my posts a more distinctive character. |
|
Jul-14-15
 | | Penguincw: Ha, <cg> is almost ready to reveal the Wednesday puzzle when I finally solve this. :p When I first saw the puzzle, I thought 27...Nf2+ would be the answer, but it's apparently not. Not wanting to fail a Tuesday, I decided to come back to it later. However, I saw 27...Ng3+, and then mate. The theme of the week seems to be checkmating the king on the open rook files. :) Hopefully tomorrow's like that too. BTW: I see this game fits the definition of "Greco Mate" in Game Collection: Checkmate: Checkmate Patterns. |
|
| Jul-15-15 | | patzer2: As <Once> and <Saturn2> note, the decisive error was 25. Re6? which backfires and loses to 25...Bxe6! 26. Ne4 Ne5!  .Instead, 25. Ne6 = to  makes a fight of it as play might continue 25...Bxe6 26. Rxe6 Ne4 27. Rxe4 dxe4 28. Qc4+ Kg7 29. Qc3+ Kf7 30. Qc4+ Ke8
31. Qxe4+ Kd7 32. Qxh7+ Kc8 33. f5 Kb7 34. f6 Rd8 35. f7 Qe7 36. Qh5 Qe3 37. h3 Bd6 38. Qf3 Qe5 39. g3 Qxb2 40. Qb3+ Qxb3 41. axb3 Kc8 42. g4 Kd7 43. g5 Rh8 44. Kg2 Ke7 45. h4 Kf8 46. Kh3 Rh7 47. Ra1 Rxf7 48. Rxa6 (-0.80 @ 26 depth, Deep Fritz 14). Some earlier ideas and improvements for White:
Instead of 9. Be3 I prefer 9. dxe5 dxe5 10. Be3 = to  as in Foltys vs Hromadka, 1942. Better than 14. f4?! (-0.47 @ 21 depth, Deep Fritz 14) is 14. Nf3 = (+0.03 @ 23 depth, Deep Fritz 14). Instead of 16. Qd3? f5!  to (-1.23 @ 20 depth, Deep Fritz 14) White has 16. Na4 (-0.33 @ 24 depth, Deep Fritz 14). |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 19...Qxh6