|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-31-14 | | BOSTER: <FSR: Looks pretty easy 23...Rxf2 24.Kxf2>. This is <easy> because you see the name <Morphy>, and you shouldn't be disillusioned. This is <easy> for you because this is the puzzle. And when you combine <Morphy> and puzzle, you begin to look for something brilliant. But in the real game most of us will never consider move 24...Re2 to sacr. the rook. Many of us are very materialistic.
Even <patzer2>, who plays in <CG> more than 10 years, didn't find the correct solution. <Easy?>. This is of course ,only my <jealous> opinion, but you can prove in the real games that you think like Morphy. BTW. Yes I saw the solution, but I saw other moves too. After 23...Rxf2 white can play 24.Qg5 and so on. |
|
May-31-14
 | | perfidious: <BOSTER> Things may not be quite so clearcut as you make them out to be. Different players see things differently at the board, a function of knowledge and experience. From my own experience, some puzzles come very easily to me, because I am familiar with the pattern; others, not so. For this reason, I want to laugh when posters proclaim that they saw the solution in a nanosecond. <FSR> is a strong player and, unless you know him better than most anyone here could likely claim they do, it is presumptuous of you to make such claims as you have regarding what he did--or did not--see, and why. Never saw <FSR> proclaim that he <can> think as Morphy did, anywhere in his statement, and I rather doubt he would make such a foolish claim. |
|
May-31-14
 | | FSR: <BOSTER> You're getting awfully worked up about this. For me, at least on this particular day, this problem was easy. Note that <Once>, <An Englishman>, <ajile>, <TheBish>, <al wazir> and others also found the problem easy, especially for a Saturday. That is no reflection on you. On another day I might not have seen the solution. Certainly there are plenty of problems that "should have been" easy that I've failed to solve. And I've probably seen a similar situation in the past, which made this one easy for me. Chess is all about pattern recognition. I've seen tactical ideas before that you may not have, and vice versa. I'm a decent tactician in real life, though no Tal. (For the genuine article: Tal vs F Rhine, 1988.) Some of my games with nice tactics include K Thompson vs F Rhine, 1992; F Rhine vs D Sprenkle, 1981; F Rhine vs A Boerkoel, 1996; D Fleetwood vs F Rhine, 1997; F Rhine vs G Bungo, 2013; F Rhine vs S Nagle, 1997; and E Sollano vs F Rhine, 1977. Some of those were correspondence games, which obviously makes it easier to be a "tactical genius." |
|
| May-31-14 | | BOSTER: < FSR: I'm a decent tactician in real life>.
Nice to know.
Maybe < Abdel Irada > was right . <You must be famous>. |
|
| May-31-14 | | john barleycorn: <BOSTER:
Maybe < Abdel Irada > was right . >maybe??? that is blasphemy. |
|
| May-31-14 | | marcwordsmith: Wow, that was easy for a Saturday puzzle, wasn't it? All forced moves and checks. |
|
May-31-14
 | | Richard Taylor: This problem was so easy I solved it even before I saw it. |
|
May-31-14
| | perfidious: <Richard> beats the previous record of one-fiftieth of a nanosecond. |
|
| May-31-14 | | MostlyWatch: At the start of the game, white has a pawn at e4 and black is missing the f pawn. I've heard of players taking a handicap such as starting the game minus a rook or whatever, but does one side get to make some moves before the game starts? Or has my browser just gone crazy? |
|
May-31-14
| | perfidious: <MostlyWatch> One of the parameters used was odds of pawn and move and sometimes, odds of pawn and two moves, meaning the stronger player would play Black and start without a pawn at f7, plus White would receive an extra move at the start in the latter case. |
|
| May-31-14 | | MostlyWatch: OK. This did not fry my brain, because it already got fried when I looked up the term "Chess variants" on Wikipedia |
|
| May-31-14 | | chesssalamander: <Richard Taylor> This problem was so easy I solved it even before I saw it. This problem was so easy I solved it even before the game was played. |
|
| May-31-14 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: I didn't know the game and didn't see the combination at all. Total whiff. |
|
Jun-01-14
| | perfidious: <Cheapo> Been there, done that. |
|
Jun-01-14
| | Richard Taylor: <chesssalamander: <Richard Taylor> This problem was so easy I solved it even before I saw it.
This problem was so easy I solved it even before the game was played.> But I solved it infinity times earlier than you hadn't yet seen it - so there! |
|
Jun-01-14
 | | Once: <BOSTER: But in the real game most of us will never consider move 24...Re2 to sacr. the rook.> Sorry, but I don't agree. 24...Re2+ is a simple little two move deflection to let the white queen take the pawn on g2 with check. Given the position of the white pawn on d3 and the black pawn on d4, it seems highly likely that the black queen and bishop will be able to trap the white king. Or we can follow the usual rule of "examine every check and capture", which will also lead us to 24...Re2+ and indeed the rest of the combination. The funny thing about tactical vision is that it isn't always consistent. A strong player can sometimes get a blind spot over a move that a weaker player spots instantly. And vice versa. There is also a large element of luck involved. If you start analysing the correct continuation straight away it can save time over someone who gets side-tracked into a line that doesn't work. That's how it was for me. I decided almost straight away that I wanted to get my queen to g2. The quickest way to do this is to deflect the white king. And the rest fell into place almost instantly. But if I had decided to look at something else the puzzle may have been quite a bit harder. If I may say so, it is part of your natural style to attack people and to pick fault. You often do it with me (or try to). It's a free world and it is up to you how you post here. But you might find that everything spins a little more smoothly if you don't automatically go into attack mode all the time. This was a relatively simple Saturday. I have absolutely no doubt that a player of FSR's strength would spot the solution to this one in a heartbeat. No need to go looking for excuses or mitigating circumstances or anything else. |
|
Jun-01-14
| | perfidious: <Once: The funny thing about tactical vision is that it isn't always consistent. A strong player can sometimes get a blind spot over a move that a weaker player spots instantly. And vice versa.> This is why it is pointless to work oneself into a frenzy over having solved this or that random puzzle, or failed to do so. |
|
| Jun-01-14 | | Sally Simpson: The other lad was right. We see the name Morphy and start looking to throw things at the King. Straight forward mating combo.
But then I remembered it was Saturday. Maybe there is something missing... A lot of Morphy's opponents failed to find the best defence and indeed Morphy too sometimes went the long way around. Double take, nothing - straight forward mating combo. Conclussion: The guy who picks these puzzles, his system date is all haywire. This was really a Monday puzzle. |
|
| Jun-01-14 | | BOSTER: <Once ; tactical vision it isn't always consistent>. This is absolute nonsence.
Prof. Chess requires a consistent approach, always acting
of the same quality.
If <Once> was right, he'd play for WC ,but Anand'd write funny story.
Sometimes. |
|
| Jun-01-14 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Boster,
Have to disagree here mate by agreeing that " tactical vision it isn't always consistent." You only have to look at all the missed tactical shots from Morphy to Magnus, Anderssen to Anand and Capa to Karpov. There are days when these shots just pass you by no matter who you are. |
|
| Jun-01-14 | | BOSTER: <Hi Sally Simpson: the missed tactical shots >
You are right, "mistakes ate always waiting for..."
But consistent doesn't mean
100% correct. |
|
Jun-01-14
| | perfidious: One may act consistently, yet have the results be anything but consistent, even in a game such as chess, in which all the information is available to both players. If <BOSTER>'s view is that tactical vision is not always consistent, maybe he should explain this to the GM who played an elegant queen sacrifice against me in a blitz game, then came up with an elementary blunder after achieving a winning position. |
|
Jun-02-14
| | Once: <BOSTER> So first you claim that most of us wouldn't spot a fairly simple combination that most of us did actually spot ... ... and then you say that professional chess means always acting of the same quality. When we are seeing game after game <on this very forum> where even world champions have an off day and make a mistake. Huh?
Do you see what I mean about it not being advisable to always be in attack mode? |
|
| Jun-02-14 | | BOSTER: < perfidious :all inf. is available to both players>.
On top chess level a lot of
theoretical novelty.
" Such inf. is normally revealed to world champions contenders, who hire top theoreticians for that purpose." L.ALBURT.
About second Q. ask< Once>. |
|
| Sep-09-21 | | Jean Defuse: ...
Paul Morphy giving Delannoy the odds of a pawn and two moves. The match score will be 4-0 for Morphy. <Lange says they were played in the autumn of 1858, and Loewenhal's report in the Era shows that they were played before the end of October 1858 (but possibly in September).> After winning all the 'pawn & two moves' games, Morphy offered Delannoy the odds of 'queen's knight'. Before commencing, Delannoy called to all witness, as recorded in the New Orleans Sunday Delta of March 13, 1859, "that Mr. Morphy would not win a game" at Knight odds. However after the two series in 1859 Morphy scored +20-10. see: http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m454...
... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 24...Re2+