< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-24-02
 | | Honza Cervenka: Anthony's classic - bishops sacrificed on h7 and g7... Very nice game! |
|
Dec-10-02 | | pawntificator: Excellent example of the formula Sneaky described. |
|
Apr-10-03
 | | Sneaky: A few years back I wouldn't have seen this if I looked at it for an hour. Now I looked and in 5 seconds I said "Hey! A double-bishop sac w/ rook lift!" Just like Reti said, you really don't need to see a single move ahead! You just check all of the criteria, like a shopping list: (A) Weakly defended king with no escape on f7/f8. (B) The "Horowitz bishops" pointing at g7/h7. (C) A rook ready to lift in for the fatal check. (D) No good way to block the check. Everything's in your shopping cart, so it's time to ring the register! ca-ching! |
|
Apr-10-03 | | GregorMendel: Is 22. Qf6+ necessary? Can't the rook be pushed just then? |
|
Apr-10-03 | | mrvertigo: well, not really. f5 saves white, allowing Qh7. |
|
Apr-10-03 | | mrvertigo: whoops, I mean saves black |
|
Sep-18-03
 | | Honza Cervenka: Tragedy of black is that 20...f6 doesn't work for 21.Qh8+ Kf7 22.Bxf8 Rxf8 23.Qh7+ and 24.Qxc7. |
|
Jan-27-04 | | S4NKT: Are there any chess books with formulae like the one Sneaky posted? |
|
Mar-26-04 | | Ed Caruthers: I know Lasker-Bauer, Amsterdam, 1889, but not a Horowitz game. Any other examples of the double bishop sacrifice? |
|
Jul-03-04 | | rochade18: Oh there's this wonderful game collection by AdrianP with many bishop sacrifices |
|
Aug-22-04 | | me to play: After seeing Browne's 17th move, Miles played 18.Bxh7+ got up and walked away from the board and commented "one of us is blind!"...clearly it was Browne on this occasion. |
|
Sep-04-04
 | | offramp: I bet this is a puzzle this week! |
|
Apr-08-05 | | aw1988: This suprises me; Browne's play is far too audacious. |
|
Sep-13-05 | | chessnewbie: can someone show me the win? after
23...Re8 24. Rg4+ Ke8, i don't see the win. I'm new to chess so please be kind to me. |
|
Sep-13-05 | | crafty: 23...♖fe8 24. ♖h4 ♕xh2+ 25. ♖xh2 ♔f8 26. ♖h8# (eval Mat03; depth 6 ply; 5M nodes) |
|
Nov-12-05 | | JohnBoy: Regarding the double bishop sac, Tarrasch played one as black against Nimzo, and Koltanowski played one from a Colle system against ??? Is the hanging pawn on b7 after black's 13 poisoned? How might white get punished for grabbing it - I am a pawn snatcher from way back. |
|
Mar-01-06 | | LivBlockade: <JohnBoy> If White tries to grab the b pawn Black might consider the line 14. ♕xb7 ♗xc5; 15. bxc5 ♖b8; 16. ♕xa6 (still trying to come out a pawn ahead) 16...♖xb2. While White is a pawn up, he has not completed his development and must now avoid lines like 17. c6? ♗xc6; 18. ♕xc6?? ♕d2 mate. |
|
Mar-02-06 | | MorphyMatt: <JohnBoy>Nimzowitsch vs Tarrasch, 1914 |
|
Jul-28-06 | | Knight13: 17. Bxh7+ Kxh7 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Bxg7 f6 is unclear since after 20. Qh8+ Kf7 21. Bxf8 Black can throw in the check 21... Qe5+ before capturing the bishop. --- Tactics and Strategy by G. Burgess |
|
Oct-02-06
 | | Eggman: <<Just like Reti said, you really don't need to see a single move ahead! You just check all of the criteria, like a shopping list: (A) Weakly defended king with no escape on g7/h7. (B) The "Horowitz bishops" pointing at g7/h7. (C) A rook ready to lift in for the fatal check. (D) No good way to block the check. Everything's in your shopping cart, so it's time to ring the register! ca-ching!> >This isn't quite correct, because in the line pointed out by Honza Cervenka, namely <<20...f6 21.Qh8+ Kf7 22.Bxf8 Rxf8 23.Qh7+ and 24.Qxc7>>, it's clear that Black's undefended Queen on c7 is also crucial to the win. |
|
Jul-15-08 | | chocobonbon: "Horowitz bishops" is incorrect unless you want to randomly insert any name with "bishops". It is the "Horwitz bishops" after the German problem composer & member of the "Berlin Pleades". |
|
Jul-15-08
 | | keypusher: By the way, how did they come to be named for Horwitz? Wouldn't Lasker bishops or Tarrasch bishops make more sense? |
|
Jul-26-08 | | chocobonbon: <keypusher> I don't recall but I believe someone on these posts qoted Nimzowitsch in one of his works referring to them as such. I read the term in the early '60s when I was reading a lot of the two Laskers (sorry), Chernev, Fine, Reinfeld. Napier, Reti, P.W. Sergeant & even Staunton. I didn't read Nimzo for another 12 years or so but of course those guys could have been quoting him. I just remembered that my first Chess discovery was "The Fireside Book of Chess" & the awe with which the authors spoke of Lasker, Capablanca & Pillsbury struck me & began to permeate my fancy. I think there was a section on problems so it might have been there I saw the term. Sorry for the length of my reply. |
|
May-02-09 | | WhiteRook48: how about 22 Rc4 immediately? |
|
Nov-20-09 | | grasser: This was a nice surprize. I just played a similar double bishop sac at a tournament last month. I just can't figure how to convert the game I entered into Fritz to upload to a pgn so I can upload the game here. |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |