< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-06-17|| ||YouRang: The Monday queen sac with quick-mate follow-up. |
In fact, it might have seemed harder if it weren't Monday.
|Feb-06-17|| ||AlicesKnight: Two quick and one slow win. 40.Rh4 Ph6; 41.Qxh6+ Bxh6; 42.Rxh6#. More forceful, 40.Qxh7+ Kxh7; 41.Rh4+ Bh6; 42.Rxh6#. If 40.Rh4 Qxf5, 41.Qxf5 grinds out a slower win.|
|Feb-06-17|| ||paavoh: A nice move to play at the time control:
40.Qxh7+ , followed by Kxh7 41.Rh4+ Bh6 42.Rxh6#.
|Feb-06-17|| ||Richard Taylor: I played a lot of games with Stanley Yee and overall our scores are about = Tony Dowden played in NZ (where I think he played in the NZ Championships etc) but now lives in Tasmania, Australia.|
|Feb-06-17|| ||coolknight: First I tried 40. NxBg7 RxNg7 41. RxRg7 KxRg7 42. Qg5# but since black's responses are not forced, found the game line|
|Feb-06-17|| ||morfishine: Simple enough: <40.Qxh7+> forces mate|
|Feb-06-17|| ||zb2cr: Forced mate in three. 40. Qxh7, Kxh7; 41. Rh4, Bh6; 42. Rxh6#.|
|Feb-06-17|| ||gawain: No surprises here, except maybe for how useless Black's rooks are. Worse than useless, really!|
|Feb-06-17|| ||YetAnotherAmateur: Wouldn't be Monday without a great queen sac, right? 40. Qxh7+ Kxh7 (forced) 41. Rh5+ Bh6 (also forced) 42. Rxh6#|
|Feb-06-17|| ||Bubo bubo: 40.Qxh7+ Kxh7 41.Rh4+ Bh6 42.Rxh6#
One single line, starting with a ♕-sac: canonical Monday!
|Feb-06-17|| ||kevin86: Queen sac is followed with mate by two rooks.|
|Feb-06-17|| ||stst: <starting with a ♕-sac: canonical Monday!>|
Maybe CG once in a while can give us some surprise - no sac, no nothing Mondays yet still an easy win -- but will that be really easy (to compose or search for such a gem?)
Or, even a better trap - looks like a Q/R-sac, but it actually is something else that would win...
|Feb-06-17|| ||poachedeggs: Why 39...Qd7?
Didn't he have a better square?
|Feb-06-17|| ||whiteshark: It's Monday - let there be Yee-haw !!!|
|Feb-06-17|| ||YouRang: <poachedeggs: Why 39...Qd7? >|
Good question. I can't see any motivation (other than it's one of the squares where his Q is not attacked by white's N)
<Didn't he have a better square?>
Best would have been <39...Qf6>
click for larger view
This guards against Rh4 (which is needed to make the Q-sac work). It even poses a little counter-threat on the f-file.
For example, suppose white tries the immediate <40.Rh4>, black can counter with <40...Bh6!>
click for larger view
- 41.Qxh6 is well-met by 41...Qxf5, and ensuing exchanges diminish white's winning chances.
- 41.Nxh6? Qf2+! with mate to follow.
Instead of 40.Rh4?, white should play 40...Rg2 (guarding Pb2). White is still better, but the win is still something that must be earned.
|Feb-06-17|| ||Annie K.: More like Yee-Huh?
|Feb-06-17|| ||Richard Taylor: Stanely Yee was born in NZ and defeated the Russian Master Aptekar. In defence it is an easy error to make. I have played a lot of games against Stanely Yee and he is a strong player despite this game so if <Annie K.> wants to ridicule a fellow chess player she can. But lets see her games. |
Its so bloody easy sitting on the sidelines commenting. Half those bastards taking the piss cant hardly remember how to make the moves. They are too scared to play or show their own games because they themselves wont risk things...They are usually quite useless at chess and everything else in life.
|Feb-06-17|| ||YouRang: <Richard Taylor> A bit harsh?|
A little word-play isn't necessarily ridicule. Especially since it's safe to says that we've have all shared the experience of making game-losing errors, so there's nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
|Feb-06-17|| ||Ron: Yay! I solved the puzzle.|
|Feb-07-17|| ||Richard Taylor: <YouRang> Probably, yes I got carried aaway as once she accused me of not using the M dash and I pointed out that neither did Emily Dickinson, they claimed Dickinson did but in fact she most definitely didn't....
...she was an incredible innovator....
...so that rankled all that and some things Fischer King etc said...about my copying from Wiki etc etc....
So I jumped in.
I thought she was denigrating the player's ability and hinting a his Chineseness. I talked to Stan tonight he said he didn't mind. I was probably a bit over the top.
He said what happened was he was in severe time trouble, saw the mate, but then looked at his clock which was going right down near zero and just played Qe7 suddenly.
I suppose knowing the player makes a difference.
|Feb-07-17|| ||Richard Taylor: Not just the M dash of course!! In fact in standard writing, if I can I now use it...but not always....|
Poetry and creative writing is different as rules can be broken...Should be....
|Feb-07-17|| ||Richard Taylor: Qd7 I mean. Of course with plenty of time Stan would have played Qf6 as would most of us as the sacrifice is quite obvious.|
I've sacrificed my Q in long and short combinations about 30 times or more.
|Feb-07-17|| ||YouRang: <Richard Taylor><I thought she was denigrating the player's ability and hinting a his Chineseness. I talked to Stan tonight he said he didn't mind>|
Glad to hear. I imagine that Stan is like most good players who are even able to handle their own blunders with self-effacing humor. :-)
|Feb-07-17|| ||Richard Taylor: Regardless. No one likes losing a game of chess, no matter how. |
But re blunders. Of course we all make them. GMs, regardless of their strength make them. It seems that part of players ability is not to eliminate them, but reduce the frequency. I notice I make more when I am tired or in time trouble or other factors are those impulsive moves. Some are almost incomprehensible as I'd told myself not to play the move in question.
|Feb-08-17|| ||Mrs Butterworth: "The ol' one-two ... three!"
True to Monday tradition, White mates in three:
40. Qxh7+!, Kxh7
41. Rh4+, Bh6
(5/7 last week; 1/1 so far this week)
I was delayed in posting this because I got a 48-hour suspension for "talking about politics on a player page."
Better late than never, right?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·