< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Nov-13-07|| ||newzild: A really embarrassing blunder for a 2100 player. I wish they'd hand me points this easily.|
|Nov-13-07|| ||Chris Stratford: I prefer the harder puzzles because then I don't get so concerned when I can't find the solution in an instant...
Eventually found the right move because f4 looks such a natural space-gaining move and immediately you see the Black Knight has nowhere useful to go.|
|Nov-13-07|| ||znprdx: <dzechiel:I wonder why this game is in the database.> I'd like to go a bit further than <MostlyAverageJoe:> but without you taking it personally - because I have a great respect for your approach to style of analysis, and was disappointed by your commentary. |
You wrote: "neither opponent is a name player". This smacks of the kind of elitism more often found in Classical Music circles. Thank the Stars above for all the great music that has been created/produced and continues to be played by those who may not be known - given the mediocrity/ inconsequential self-actualization of a great deal of music produced by those who are.
Recall Tarrasch's more gentle reflection: that "Chess, like love, like music has the power to make 'us' (sic) happy." There is an instrinic objective value to this position that merits its inclusion for the following reasons:
1. without the clue that it is a >puzzle< / problem position one might overlook it as moves are so often played mechanically.
2. it is a gentle reminder that this kind of piece loss probably occurs world-wide millions of times a year, and that even strong players are not necessarily immune.
3. Furthermore who is to say if some great player could one day find a way to convert this very position into a kind of trap where winning the piece leads to a dead lost position only a few moves later? BTW if I were such a genius- I'd make it my mission to do so:)
3. Also millions of times a year brilliant combinations are conceived (although perhaps not always perfectly executed) by club players or in Swiss weekend tournaments. There are many variables which determine whether one becomes "known" or not.
4. <newzild: A really embarrassing blunder for a 2100 player> But how sweet it is to be reminded that in fact Chess is a game wherein error is the deciding factor - and just as often part of its inherent synergy.
PS.I hope <CG> will leave my reply to your comment intact - here within the context of this game....and perhaps have it is also copied to <Kibitzer's Cafe>
|Nov-13-07|| ||zb2cr: <Dzechiel> has pretty much captured my thought process on this one. The restricted mobility of the Black Knight is a "tactical marker"--one of those things that should trigger your chess tactical vision, to look and see if it can be exploited.|
|Nov-13-07|| ||cn1ght: Used a good 20 secs before realizing nothing that would make a 1400 resign would happen before finding the move.
znprdx-very well said.|
|Nov-13-07|| ||greensfield: Considered Nf5 and Bxe5 first, both swiftly discarded. Then considered pawn advance f4. Bingo|
|Nov-13-07|| ||TheaN: 2/2
Pretty much it.
|Nov-13-07|| ||gawain: Oh so simple. But I did not get it. However I would have played f4 anyway--without seeing that it was the way to win a piece outright. After B retreats his knight I will surely see that I am about to win a piece! Won't I?|
|Nov-13-07|| ||micartouse: Like others, it took me too long (a couple minutes I think) trying to look for something scorching hot. Once you give that up and say, "Can I just trap a piece?" you solve it in about 3 seconds.|
|Nov-13-07|| ||dzechiel: <znprdx: <dzechiel:I wonder why this game is in the database.> You wrote: "neither opponent is a name player". This smacks of the kind of elitism>|
I guess I should have made myself more clear. We all know that the games of certain player (Fischer, Morphy, etc) are all collectible (even those against weak players in simuls) because of the "name" of the famous player.
I wasn't trying to disparage either of the players of this game, only to point out that their games were not to be automatically included because of their name.
It seems to me that if you are going to put together a collection of chess games (like this database), there should be some criteria other than one player had a master's rating.
I think the game should introduce a novelty, display an interesting sacrifice or combination, some sort of inspired endgame play or have some notable historic attribute (it was played in a world championship, etc). Otherwise your collection could quickly fill up with mediocre games that dilute the value of the collection overall.
Just my opinion.
|Nov-13-07|| ||patzer2: For today's puzzle solution, 16. f4! traps and wins a piece. If Black chooses to continue, his two most likely tries are 16...Nd7 or 16...Ng6.|
After 16...Nd7 17. f5 , the Black Bishop is trapped and lost. After 16...Ng6 17. f5 , the pawn fork forces Black to decide between losing his Bishop or his Knight.
|Nov-13-07|| ||YouRang: Nice puzzle. It took me a few moments to find the winning pawn march.|
I had to go down my list of tactical weaknesses, and when I got down to "restricted mobility", I noticed that black's knight had just one escape square (on d7) if attacked by the pawn (16. f4). A moment later, I noticed that if the knight DOES go to d7, the bishop has NO escape squares if attacked by that same pawn (17. f5).
We have a tactic based on one of the intriguing curiosities of chess: A pawn's greatest strength is its weakness (hence, low value relative to other pieces).
|Nov-13-07|| ||kevin86: I saw there was no mate or the win of a major piece. Then I remember about a few weeks ago when a pawn move trapped an exposed knight. |
Here is a variation of the theme after f4 the knight must retreat but to where? Ng6 allows a fork at f5,while Nd7 blocks the bishop's escape after f5.
Funny how littpawns can cause such havoc on big pieces-like elephants being bugged by mice!
|Nov-13-07|| ||zealouspawn: I thought this puzzle was too easy--much easier than yesterday. The position doesn't call for a peice sac or some way to get at the enemy king or queen, so f4 just jumped out. I saw it in about 5 seconds...|
|Nov-13-07|| ||znprdx: <dzechiel:> your explanation seems reasonable ...
(I wasn't trying to disparage either of the players of this game, only to point out that their games were not to be automatically included >because< of their name.)|
however you initially wrote: <"neither opponent is a name player">....and I would still protest your notion of <"mediocre games"> ...it is far too subjective. An argument could be made that almost all modern Chess is mediocre - particularly given the inordinate number of draws at the highest levels of play ....
Continuing my music analogy - how long will the world have to listen to Beethoven, Mozart or any of the masters - at the expense of the potential genius of each musician who plays their music?
A Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov would not have excelled were it not for their lesser successful contemporaries, Rubenstein, Lasker, Fine, Spassky, Larsen, Korchnoi etc. The snooze masters Nimzovitch, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Karpov, Krammik could easily be called mediocre - depending upon your criteria since mediocrity could be just as easily defined as being a lack of originality. Give me Morozevich or Carlsen anyday.
Furthermore is there really such a thing as an original check-mate? Maybe in Chess random:) which I look forward to trying some day, but I like the classical game - because I can abstract some degree of satisfaction from following the world class players..... for example Leko should have won yesterday and lost today - I didn't notice your commentary there....
|Nov-13-07|| ||playground player: Black must have been on a diet: he only accepted half of the Danish.|
|Nov-13-07|| ||MostlyAverageJoe: <znprdx: Continuing my music analogy - how long will the world have to listen to Beethoven, Mozart or any of the masters - at the expense of the potential genius of each musician who plays their music?>|
Indeed, once we're into musical analogies, why doesn't this performance get as much airplay as the original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy5K... ?
BTW, what is commonly considered the original of the above, was not really that original ...
MAJ, exercising obscure-point-making skills
|Nov-13-07|| ||zb2cr: <playground player> : " Black must have been on a diet: he only accepted half of the Danish."|
And promptly gave it back, too, with 3. ... d3.
|Nov-13-07|| ||znprdx: LOL707 the what-way to where OMG <MAJ> so what did LZ borrow from? Sorry I didn't mean to be obscure - I just thought <dzechiel> was a little off-base with his initial no-name comment- but I do admire how he soft-shoed around it - in his further clarification -|
|Nov-13-07|| ||MostlyAverageJoe: <znprdx: LOL707 the what-way to where OMG <MAJ> so what did LZ borrow from?>|
From an obscure band called 'Spirit'. For details, see
|Nov-13-07|| ||ChessCompFan: I was doubtful of my solution and I actually got it right. Cool.|
|Nov-13-07|| ||PinnedPiece: Says something about the game that we do this:
|Nov-13-07|| ||nateinstein: < newzild: A really embarrassing blunder for a 2100 player. I wish they'd hand me points this easily. > They do, you just don't realize it at the right time :).|
|Aug-09-17|| ||whiteshark: <newzild: A really embarrassing blunder for a 2100 player. I wish they'd hand me points this easily.> Me, too!|
|Aug-09-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: Crash in the kill lane.
He took away his only valid flight square with c6 to prevent Nd5, which wasn't much of a threat anyway, but it's easy to make that kind of blunder.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·