|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-05-07 | | YouRang: After taking a few moments to dispense with the idea of a king attack, I worked my way down to looking for stray pieces. At that point, black's dreadful immobile bishop on b2 looked like a blinking red light. Rd2 was the first move I considered, and I saw no way out. :-) |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <blair45: 35. Rb1 also works, doesn't it?> < Udit Narayan: ... it does work but it is more complicated > Nope, it does not, and you'd know it if you read comments of earlier kibitzers, e.g., this: <dzechiel: 35 Rb1 is refuted by 35...Ne4.> and a couple of others. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | newton296: after 35) rc2 or rd2 and I expected white to resign and he did! Good puzzle to break up the sac, check ,mate patterns as of late. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | Kleve: Drat. Rb1 leapt out at me... I didn't even think about Ne4... And that's how I lose OTB games!!! |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | melv: "Whoever sees no other aim in the game than that of giving checkmate to ones opponent will never become a good chess player."
-Max Euwe |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | newton296: uggg! I missed ne4 also so I guess Rd2 doesnt work for the same reason rb1 doesn't. |
|
Jun-05-07
 | | Phony Benoni: 34...Rb6 was an interesting kind of blunder. I imagine Piket saw 35...Ne4 after either 35.Rb1 or 35.Rd2, but didn't consider 35.Rc2 because it was a retreating move. We've used to seeing moves that use forward or sideways motion to trap pieces, but winning by moving backwards is unusual. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | tatarch: This feels like a problem from the "Bishops vs. Knights" chapter of a chess book--glad to see something different from the usual pedestrian king hunt. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | Halfpricemidge: <Melv> Thank you! Granted, check mate is the ULTIMATE goal but there are many sub goals to attain as well. These are the tactics, forks, discovery checks, the dreaded double-check, windmills, creating a passed pawn, achieving a better position, removing a guard, deflection, winning material--all goals to accomplish if one is to become a good player. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | kevin86: This is a weird one! At first,I was looking for some complex combinations when I stumbled on the immovable bishop. I then thought that 35 Rb1 was a slam dunk-horrors! I missed the intermezzo of 35...Ne4. At least I didn't fall for 35 Rd2 met by Ne4-forking both elephants. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | YouRang: Eek! After reading <kevin86>'s post, I noticed that I typo'ed in my post when I said Rd2 when I meant of Rc2. Rd2 obviously doesn't work. Really! It was just a typo! :-p |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | mr.chips: there are sooo many ways to win.....sooo many ways to gain an advantage in material or position. From trapping to forcing an opponent into an overload position or simply simplifing for an endgame win....thats what makes this game so wonderful.And of course tactics..... |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | RookFile: With computers in play now (especially in correspondence chess where computer use is explicitly permitted), it really takes very little to win a game of chess. For example, if your opponent merely has a passive game, without chances of counterplay, and you can slowly build up, your odds of winning are upwards of 90 percent. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | NakoSonorense: <GufeldStudent><Nako, I think not getting checkmated yourself is also a goal> Yes, but that's a rather easy goal to achieve. You could simply offer a draw at move 10 when the position is more or less equal. Or better yet, you could not play chess at all - that guarantees that you don't get checkmated, at least in chess. :) With that said, I think I agree with ahmadov's assessment: Checkmate is the ultimate goal and hence the only thing that really matters. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | WarmasterKron: The only thing that really matters? What about a +0.50 Fritz analysis? |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | schnarre: Subtle, but effective! |
|
Jun-05-07
 | | fm avari viraf: Since, Black is in a precarious position, Dreev's hawk-eyed immediately spotted the stranded Bishop & played 35.Rc2  & so my pun is"Piket Pricked". |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | MostlyAverageJoe: I am depressed. My 7-year old came home from school and found Rc2 faster than I did yesterday. It pays to have no preconceived notions about the sarifice-check-mate/obliterate solutions on Mon/Tue. But it took him much longer to find black's Ne4 defense to Rb1. Ha, ha. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | soberknight: Gah! I had Rb1, but I see that the move played was a little better. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | Fezzik: I found 35.Rc2 after checking to make sure all the other ways of attacking the Bishop didn't work as well. I liked this puzzle because it's a game between two strong GMs. They're much more likely to make a blunder that loses a piece (or an exchange as someone else pointed out) than by allowing a mate. It was a refreshing Tuesday puzzle.
|
|
| Jun-05-07 | | Werewolf: I liked this puzzle, in fact I got it. I also enjoyed kibitzer´s comments, but on chess what simply has to be said is that it´s a neverending game, therefore with so many possibilities and motifs. |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | TrueBlue: MostlyAverageJoe, you should be happy, I spent 10 minutes and didn't find it, first Tuesday I missed in a long, long, time ... |
|
| Jun-05-07 | | Skylark: Although I didn't say so earlier, I did not get it either - with mondays and tuesdays especially, I'm looking for a mate in three, not the win of a piece >< |
|
| Jun-06-07 | | Halfpricemidge: Remember, Skylark, the words of Max Euwe...especially on Tuesdays. :-) |
|
| Jun-07-07 | | ruinme: very cute. .. got confused, looking for something more threatening. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
