|May-26-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
This one is funny. There was a weekly blitz tournament in the Edinburgh Club and a visitor got roped in. (all I can remember about him was he had these huge dancing eyebrows....never saw him again.)
Watch how I win both Bishops with the same tactical trick within the space of 4 moves. I call it a cross pin check. (anybody got a better name for it?)
The bad mistake (apart from choosing the wrong night to visit the club) was taking the e-pawn, but at the time he must have thought he playing a duffer.
His instructive mistake was 11...Qe8, plausible as the better 11...Qe7 looked clumsy. (he cannot take the Knight 11...dxe4 12.Bc4+) But on e8 the Queen is undefended and the fun started from there.
Cochrane Gambit. 4.Nxf7 Great move. Two centre pawns and a King that cannot castle. Won more than I lost with it OTB.
Just found this game on here Soderstrom vs Tzannetakis, 1981 Black played Qe7 but still lost a Bishop to my cross pin check...then resigned. This was played before my game but I'd never seen it before. (their header has the Cochrane Gambit, I'm just a Petrov.)
A poster there says: ' i am amused.' and why not have the occasional wee fun game on here. Hope you too get amused. (GOTD material that one!)
|May-27-19|| ||jith1207: Yes, amusing but very instructive game.|
|May-27-19|| ||jith1207: I was wondering why Black didn't play 18...Nd7, but yeah there's no point in playing two pawns down and we would not have seen these nice tactics at play in quick succession.|
|May-27-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
Yup 18...Nd7 and it's just another game. Cannot be too harsh, it was probably the lad's first ever 5 minute game.
I only remembered it because me and another lad I had not seen for a while were catching up and he reminded me of this game.
I was also reminded of 'The Blue Capped Pawn'.
I sat down at the board at an Allegro and on one of my White Pawns someone had taken a felt tipped pen to it and coloured in the top of it blue!
So I tried to swap it with George Coutts who was sitting next to me. He refused, then I tried to swap it another board but they too refused.
George said just put it on e4 and sac it.
So I did and my opponent Hassain Choudharu walked into a wonderful trap. The lead up to the trap has appeared in here but nobody has fallen for the trap.
G.Chandler - H.Choudary, Edinburgh Allegro 1984
1.e5 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Nd5!?
click for larger view
Offering the blue capped pawn as here Opening Explorer but nobody here has taken the e4 pawn.
6..Knight took the blue capped pawn on e4. (job done!)
click for larger view
Black moves the e4 Knight and Nf6 is mate.
click for larger view
9...gxf5 10 Qh5 mate. Now Nf6 mate is no longer on the board Black move the e4 Knight.
9...Nc5. Nxd6 mate!
click for larger view
Shall I submit it - we already have the pun ('The Blue Capped Pawn') and the background story.
|May-27-19|| ||fredthebear: <Sally Simpson> Thank you for sharing your games, and the stories! Instructive use of the knights and bishops developing w/a threat without pausing to castle.|
FTB thinks of a cross pin as having one helpless unit at a crossroads pinned twice to two different units behind it (meaning two attackers have two different targets through/behind the helpless pinned unit). It's 2 vs. 2 through a bottlenecked unit caught between all.
FTB uses a general phrase "rob the pin" for taking advantage of any pinned unit that can no longer move to defend it's normal coverage squares. FTB cannot recall where the phrase "rob the pin" (in this case w/check, but it could be a capture, or just permanent penetration, etc.) came from. It's not seen in books (particularly from the 1950's-1980's that FTB read back when). FTB thinks he might have made up "rob the pin" to serve his purpose, just as cross pin check serves Sally's purpose.
Most readers probably would say 15.Qf5+ and 18.Qd6+ is a form of piling on/up the pin, but those terms seem to imply the intent is to capture the pinned unit. The above game does that (capture), but in the wake of a king hunt as the priority.
Given Mr. Chandler's status as a renowned and beloved chess author for many years (previous websites included), maybe we should call this maneuver heretofore "the Chandler Pin and Check" or "Chandler's Pile Up Check".
Or, just stop splitting hairs and leave it at cross pin check. If the names of checkmating patterns can have variables from the original, then so can tactical terms.
|May-28-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
"The Chandler Pin and Check" No, Murray will take the credit and anyway it's not original, just comical that it appears twice, if not for that I would not have subbed it.
Seem to have more than my fair share of 'kooky' games. But my way of playing is bound to produce a funny game or two. Have a lot more disasters shooting for the stars than wins, quite a lot more, but they are all quickly forgotten (it's called having a selective memory.)
"..renowned and beloved chess author."
You are very kind, I do my best and try to keep humour as the main issue. but "beloved". Sometimes people don't get the joke, other times I've mistimed the joke and sometimes there was no joke (I was being serious but they thought I was joking!) You just cannot win.
|May-28-19|| ||fredthebear: <Sally Simpson> So true. The written word is easily mistaken without the tone of voice. "It's not always what we say, but how we say it."|
FTB enjoyed many hours reading "Chandler Cornered" on the internet. Chandler is a funny fellow, but very wise indeed! http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/cha...
The last publication was in 2010. It's probably time for FTB re-runs. Not sure why some folks think chess games and related info get outdated so quickly. After all, it's still an army of 16 vs 16 played on 64 squares. Human beings are creatures of habit, and most of us return to our old repertoires at some point, if only briefly. Much of that information is probably still useful, even if the names have been changed to protect the innocent.
BTW, it seems that post responses have dramatically slowed down at this sight during weekdays. One wonders if the trash-talking trollers that get verbally abusive with little or no chess commentary have taken their toll and chased off the once regular high-class bloggers. We'll see if it's a short or long term trend. In the meanwhile, there are re-runs to be re-read.
|May-28-19|| ||fredthebear: Unsuspecting readers should be aware that Geoff Chandler of Scotland and Murray Chandler of New Zealand/England, both authors, are two different people (with two different parents they say). FTB has been known to confuse the two at times. It's rumored (tug on your leg) that Sally Simpson dates one or the other, but that is unconfirmed.|
Here's a Chandler game (video link) w/more pins in the king hunt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am6...
|May-29-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
I did 400 Corners. (that was enough) and I had all but retired. Red Hot Pawn tempted me out of retirement and I do the same thing - except in this case I have access to their unique 5 million games database. (getting games for the Corner was always a problem. Winners did not want to upset the loser and the losers often refused to give me a score sheet.)
I 'm close to 300 columns on there. https://www.redhotpawn.com/chess-bl...
Not too fond of the term 'Blog', though I use it. The word is close to 'bog' and many blogs are flushing the notion of free speech down the toilet.
Incredible amount of people thought I was Murray's Dad. (some still do) Actually thought of writing 'How to Beat your Son at Chess.'...In fact I think I will!
|May-30-19|| ||fredthebear: <Sally Simpson> 400 + 300 = Holy Cow!
Does that have a place in Ripley's record book?
Truth be known, freedom of speech MUST protect rude, disrespectful, divisive and/or hate speech as long as it is not disruptive of the venue. Intrusion for the purpose of interruption should not be tolerated. (Nice speech does not need protection; we all pretty much agree with it already.) Otherwise, we have the word police deciding that others must conform to what they approve of. We have far too much government restriction as it is. Still, good manners, basic human kindness, is not asking too much. Unfortunately, full-blown indecency and harshness is becoming a way of life for many. That's just no good way to live.
"How to Beat Your Kids at Chess" by David MacEnulty (Russell Enterprises) is in it's second edition. It seems to stay on level for it's intended audience; the diagrams outlined w/notation are easy to follow. FTB is not aware of any chess parent that has actually read the book, but it is a top recommendation of instructor Richard James. FTB has recommended reading it's "endgame chapter" (40 pages). The out-of-print "Chess in 30 Minutes" by E.S. Lowe has good features, as does "Picture Guide" by Al Horowitz. FTB cannot decide how useful and appealing "Teach Yourself Visually Chess" by Jon Edwards is. Most folks won't take the time to read big, thick books. FTB's wife (a low-level computer chess player who has no interest in training for improvement) actually read "Chess For Kids" by Michael Basman, and liked it. "Chess For the Gifted and Busy" by Lev Alburt is on the up-scale side.
FTB's complaint of most beginner books is that they don't contain nearly enough miniature game examples, not enough basic tactical puzzles with answers on the same page, more "outnumbering" examples 2 vs 1 and 3 vs 2, and the combinations are far too difficult. Beginners need spoon feeding w/just a few pieces; they're just not ready for Adolph Anderssen's busy masterpieces!
Your own short, aggressive game examples on this page are what beginners need to see. (Yes, DO bring out the queen early to check and fork a loose piece -- just don't go pawn grabbing.) Do point out the losing move, and a better move to make instead. The chess world could use a follow-up or reprint of A.J. "Tony" Gillam's books, particularly "Your First Games of Chess." Provide a list of tips in BOLD to shape their thought process.
Perhaps a shorter cover title -- not already taken -- for your next book is something like "How to Beat Your Son" or "How to Spank Your Daughter" or "How to Check Your Wife." Maybe it should start as an e-book, as that venue appreciates startling chess titles. (Now PETA is mad at FTB for trying to be funny!)
How about printing a "best hits" collection of your on-line articles in book form? "Chandler's Chess Chuckles and Fairytales for Big Kids" would go over big if it included the pictures. At least some of us would buy a book w/a picture of Pritchett hugging a skinny tree!
|May-30-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
A lot of them are just chess posts with pictures and kooky games, like the one here. Some are good, (I soon know when I've done a good one....I know even sooner when I've gone too far!). The Corner has been up quite a while, it is slowly being taken down by the site hosting it.
Always amazed me how 32 pieces of carved wood on a chequered board could bring so much pleasure to so many and at the same time be used to demonstrate silliness (like here) or sheer artistry (cue Greco to Carlsen) not to mention the creativity that goes into making up chess studies and problems.
Currently trying to find out who composed this.
click for larger view
White to play and mate in 15. It's just beautiful. (and instructive.)
Could do a tongue in cheek 'How to Beat Your Son at Chess." Fill it with opening 19th century traps!
|May-31-19|| ||fredthebear: <Sally Simpson> Yes, we definitely need that "Beat Your Son" chess book. Probably should be in ECO order like Hodgson's "Quick Chess Knockouts". Maybe a few more gambits? Come to think of it, a 20th century edition could be your sequel "How to Knockout Your Son Quickly" or the like. Of course, that would have to include a handful of Fred Reinfeld repeats for old times sake.|
Still working on this study answer. To pin, or no? (Yes, if it were a "real game" to save think time by simplification, but it seems No for the study.) To block, or no? Must avoid stalemate. Hmmm. Checkmate with two minor pieces often takes about 25 moves against a lone king, but 15 moves here?! What is the role of the Black knight? Knights... chess would not be the same game without knights. FTB is convinced it's the sneaky knights that give chess it's special appeal.
FTB recently purchased "1234 Modern End-Game Studies" compiled by M.A. Sutherland and H.M. Lommer (Dover, 1968 but originally printed in 1938) at the used book store. Andre Cheron did the original introduction. Some of the composers are Behting, Dedrle, Duras, Grigoriev, Kotow, Krejick, Lazard, Moller, Prokop, Reti, Rinck, Traxler, Troitski, etc. etc. Man, is it loaded!! It contains an excellent index by name, classification by piece(s), and errata. (It even smells old, dusty; what a treasure.) Most of the studies were created in the 1920s and 1930s, some go back to the 1890s. The real SHOCKER is that it is printed in ALGEBRAIC notation w/a table for French and German notation conversion!! It would take FTB two desert islands and two lifetimes to solve all those:) FTB would rather stick to Reinfeld, Lasker, Tartakower, Euwe, etc. and keep what's left of my hair.
Well, no it caint be that bad. One study per week, 52 studies per year, would take a mere 23+ years cover to cover!? That's more like the Count of Monte Cristo time frame. (But that poor fella didn't have a chess set!)
FTB has seen a lot of chess books come and go, but this is the first time catching up with 1234 Modern EG studies. FTB will try to share the last portion of this post over in the book section for other book lovers who may have an interest in securing a copy. No, FTB is not going to commit 23+ years to this one. Too many others have priority.
|Jun-01-19|| ||fredthebear: The endgame study posted above is NOT in "1234 Modern End-Game Studies" compiled by M.A. Sutherland and H.M. Lommer (originally published in 1938). The book's classification of various pieces and the fact the position has a Black K & N in the corner made it fairly easy to check the diagrams. However, the book does contain several minor piece w/pawns studies that are somewhat similar.|
|Jun-01-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
I'll be posting it soon on Red Hot Pawn, there are a bunch of solvers there who will be able to tell me who composed it. For some reason Chernev is popping into my head - possibly 'Chess Companion' or 'Wonder and Curiosities .' I have both (somewhere) I check them out.