|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-15-11 | | zb2cr: Life is good on Mondays. Puzzle solved in 2 seconds, effortlessly. Forced mate in 2 with 24. Qxh7+. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | dufferps: Reviewing any game, we are wont to say, "I would have done it differently," and when it is about a loser's move, "differently" might even mean "better." I seldom feel confident that my differently would really be better, but in this case, I do feel I might have done better - for instance, opening diagonals for my bishops (e5 instead of 4. ... Qb6 or instead of 6. ... e6)--
Okay, I probably would have lost the game anyway, but not that anemic way. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | PAWNTOEFOUR: just the way i like 'em!!..nice and easy |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | dufferps: Fascinating about the ratings of the players. The discrepancies noted in the comments (referring to the chessgames bios of the players) make it really puzzling. I now realize that chessgames has its own rating system for the players based on their games in the database. I expect, the players must have some given rating (FIDE?) when their first game is included in the database. I at least assume that the ratings shown (a difference of 203 points) are the ratings of the two players at the time of the game, so they may be different from current ratings or the highest ratings achieved by the two players. I was going to note that This game was the last year in the database for Peschardt and the first year for Johnsson, so maybe it was a matter of a player in his decline vs. a rising star. However, we see that Peschardt played 10 of his 24 database games in this 2009 Politiken Tournament, and (with 3 wins, 3 ties, and 4 losses) did better than his average in his earlier database games. in any case, the ratings are a puzzling matter. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | newshutz: <dead parrot> <anyone else notice the 200-point (!) rating difference?> I had a victory in June over a 2161 (I was 1843). He is still a rising star, and I am an old f*rt. Everyone blunders now and again. Though my opponent did not goof nearly this badly. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | Everyone: can neither negate nor affirm. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | kevin86: I took ZERO time to think on this one. I did bring the following ideas to the table: Monday+vunerable king+availability of queen sacrifice. In short,I could have seen Qxh7+ in my sleep... |
|
Aug-15-11
 | | playground player: Could this be the easiest Monday puzzle ever? |
|
Aug-15-11
 | | chrisowen: Soeren the loaf it is: butter fingered, dark and mated. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | patzer2: Black's clear losing move is 22...Qc7?, allowing the crushing 23. Qh4! Instead of 22...Qc7?, Black could have put up much more resistance with 22...Nb8! After 22...Nb8!, play might continue 23. Rg4! Nbd7 24. Qxh7+ Nxh7 (not 24...Kxh7?? Rh3+ 25. Nh5 Rxh5#) 25. Bxe7 d5 26. Rh3 g5!  to  when White has won a pawn but the class A player has a long way to go before scoring the full point against the expert. P.S.: White's 23. Qh4! might make for a good Thursday or Friday puzzle. |
|
Aug-15-11
 | | FSR: 24.Qxh7+! ends the game. But if White wants to be sadistic, 24.Rh3 Nf8 (24...h6 25.Bxh6) 25.Qxh7+! Nxh7 26.Rxh7+ Kxh7 27.Rh3# also works. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | standardwisdom: Took me too long to figure this one out because I kept looking for a knight or a bishop on the i or the j files. :-) Just not sure if this is really a puzzle, or CG's (successful) attempt to bring this otherwise interesting game into discussion forum. More interesting discussion points are in the opening and black's time (and perhaps ELO) wasting moves. How about after 22..Nd4. Is black fine after that? |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | turbo231: <playground player: Could this be the easiest Monday puzzle ever?> Could be, easiest one for me ( less than 10 seconds) |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | newton296: 3 seconds flat! |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | MountainMatt: Been gone a while, and I see that at least "queen sac Mondays" have not changed. 24. Qxh7 Kxh7 25. Rh3#. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | standardwisdom: I see that Peschardt plays this kind of opening a lot. (See some of the other games.) I think even in this game, although the end is not pretty at all (for Black), it seems the game was not lost even until the 20th move. <Once: Your analysis is pretty and insightful, but perhaps the situation was not as bad until the end of 20th move.> |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | estrick: CG bio on Soeren Peschardt shows that he was born in 1956, so he would have been 53 at the time this game was played. It also shows that his peak rating was in the 2300s and is currently 2050. So, it would appear that the guy is slipping rather rapidly in his premature old age. < dufferps: . . . I now realize that chessgames has its own rating system for the players based on their games in the database. I expect, the players must have some given rating (FIDE?) when their first game is included in the database.
I at least assume that the ratings shown (a difference of 203 points) are the ratings of the two players at the time of the game, so they may be different from current ratings or the highest ratings achieved by the two players.I was going to note that This game was the last year in the database for Peschardt and the first year for Johnsson, so maybe it was a matter of a player in his decline vs. a rising star. However, we see that Peschardt played 10 of his 24 database games in this 2009 Politiken Tournament, and (with 3 wins, 3 ties, and 4 losses) did better than his average in his earlier database games. in any case, the ratings are a puzzling matter.> |
|
Aug-15-11
| | FSR: <estrick: CG bio on Soeren Peschardt shows that he was born in 1956, so he would have been 53 at the time this game was played. It also shows that his peak rating was in the 2300s and is currently 2050. So, it would appear that the guy is slipping rather rapidly in his premature old age.> So his name is Soeren, but his rating isn't? |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | BOSTER: <sevenseaman> <If you can get into this kind of jam, you never deserve to come out>. I have another opinion.
If you studied yesterday's Game! (not POTD puzzle), ask himself what happened with Dutch King Donner, who in 1962 defeated R.Fischer.
Is it possible to lose game such way?
Does he deserve to come out? |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | stst: 24.QxP+ KxQ (forced)
25.Rh4#
Looks like there're no other feasible lines, nor any other sound defense available. Issue is: how could this situation actually come up?? |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | sevenseaman: <Boster> Nice to see you take note. The comments often relate to one particular game.
Have a good day, its pointless chasing the semantics. |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | PinnedPiece: Extremely valuable puzzle for all chess players introduced to the game yesterday! |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | PinnedPiece: <FSR: But if White wants to be sadistic, 24.Rh3 Nf8 (24...h6 25.Bxh6) 25.Qxh7+! Nxh7 26.Rxh7+ Kxh7 27.Rh3# also works.> lol! |
|
| Aug-15-11 | | The Fly: White didn't even need the bishop or second rook that were poised against the black king. Talk about overkill! |
|
| Aug-16-11 | | Once: <standardwisdom> Perhaps - but I would much rather have been white for much of this game. I guess the problem with these hedgehog type positions is that you do have to break out eventually. You might delay grabbing space and the centre for a while, but you can't neglect them forever. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 24.Qxh7+