|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-08-08 | | YouRang: I found 11.Qb5 pinning the bishop and threatening 12.Bc4, which would win the queen (if black foolishly tries to save the bishop). Then I looked at the answer and saw that 11.Qc4 also wins the bishop. I sort of like Qb5 better, though. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | TheaN: <Please check again. the King is in check after 12. Qxd5+ and 11...Nd7 is an illegal move. So after the double attack created by 11.Qb5 Bxe3? 12.Qxd5+, either the King must move or the Rook or bishop must interpose (can't capture the Queen here), after which the capture 13. Qxe4 completes a double attack (the "Queen Fork" double attack 12. Qxd5+ threatened the pawn on e4 and checked the King).> Err, patzer, you are noticing that all those moves are '11....' I hope? I was pointing at any possible defense against Qb5. <Better is 11. Qb5 Be3 12. Nc3! a3 13. Qxc5 Qxc5 14. Bxc5> And this doesn't make sense at all 12....a3 is impossible, 13....Qxc5 is bizarre. Aren't you switching sides and/or squares here? |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | hovik2003: I only considered 11.Qb5 with winning 12.Bc4 or 12.Qxc5 next(depending on black's reply), but I didn't see 11.Qc4 at all, ofcourse that was my choice after brief look at the position. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | YouRang: <Prudov: Two dangling black pieces and an open diagonal to the black king. Reminds me of another 11-move game: Euwe-Cortlever, Beverwijk, 1940.> Welcome to the site, <Prudov> :-) BTW, a little tip: If you insert the URL for any game on this site, it comes out as a nicely formatted link, as follows: Euwe vs Cortlever, 1940 |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | johnlspouge: <YouRang and Prudov>: I am trying to decide whether I would prefer to be NN or Cortlever...and I have the sensation of choosing between death by hanging or death by guillotine. <Yecchhh!> |
|
Jan-08-08
 | | egilarne: <Prudov> Nice little combination trick by Euwe! Thanks! |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | patzer2: <TheaN> Good catch! Guess I did switch sides for a couple of moves. So thanks for the correction. I meant to post 11. Qb5! <Be6> 12. Nc3! <a6> 13. Qxc5 Qxc5 14. Bxc5 Rxf4 15. Be3 Rf8 16. Nxe4  as the best play line. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | patzer2: <TheaN> My apology. I did miss that <all those moves were 11...> So after 11...Nd7 12. Bc4 Black has simply succumbed to the worse of white's dual threats (i.e. double attack) by giving up the Queen instead of just a piece. Same thing applies to 11...Rd8 12. Bc4 . |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | TheaN: <So after 11...Nd7 12. Bc4 Black has simply succumbed to the worse of white's dual threats (i.e. double attack) by giving up the Queen instead of just a piece. Same thing applies to 11...Rd8 12. Bc4 .> Yep. That was my point. And I was guessing you meant Be6 and a6 as that made sense, but I thought you'd want to correct it yourself and you did XD. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | zenpharaohs: I couldn't decide whether 11 Qc4 or 11 Qb5 was better. Rybka rates them about equal. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | YouRang: <zenpharaohs: I couldn't decide whether 11 Qc4 or 11 Qb5 was better. Rybka rates them about equal.> They probably are equal as far as a computer would be concerned. I give a tiny edge to Qb5 because it gives black an opportunity to make a bigger blunder (if he doesn't see the queen-winning threat of Bc4). Computers don't think that way. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | Terry McCracken: From a human viewpoint, I feel 11. Qb5! best for all the reasons given. I too looked at Qc4 and then Qb5 and stuck with it. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | Steve Case: I went with B5 because I saw that it wins the Bishop. I didn't consider that C4 was equivilent to "Trading when your up" as someone up thread pointed out. So C4 is better because it forces the Queen trade while winning the Bishop. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | dzechiel: <Steve Case: So 11 Qc4 is better because it forces the Queen trade while winning the Bishop.> This is an important concept. Since white knows that he will go up a piece in the combination, he should clearly use the line that also forces the exchange of queens. Once a player is ahead in material, it benefits that player to exchange equal material off of the board in order to increase the percentage of his advantage. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | schnarre: I had looked at 11. Qb5 as well, but ended up rejecting it in favor of Qc4 (11. Qb5 Qd1+, 12. Kxd1 Rd8+, 13. Ke2 Bg4+, 14. Ke1 Bxe3 or 13. Ke1 Bb6 [if 13...Bxe3? then 14. Qb3+ Kh8, 15. Qxe3], 14. Bxb6 axb6, 15.0-0 Nc6) I had also looked at 11. Bxc5 Qxc5, 12. Qc4+ Qxc4, 13. Bxc4+ Kh8, 14. 0-0 favoring White. Qc4 just had that nice simple resolution! |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | aazqua: I thought Qb5 was a better answer. I suppose they're both good enough. |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | johnlspouge: Some people have presented arguments in favor of Qb5 over Qc4. Who of them would play Qb5, and later in the game, when presented with the opportunity of trading Qs with all else even ("ceteribus paribus"), would defend the notion of avoiding the trade? As <dzechiel> points out, when at a material advantage, trading pieces is generally good strategy. It is the confluence of capturing the B and trading Qs that makes trading Qs appear less attractive. It is too bad that <UdayanOwen>, our resident psychologist, is unavailable to explain this curious phenomenon of human evaluation :) |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | Terry McCracken: < johnlspouge: Some people have presented arguments in favor of Qb5 over Qc4. Who of them would play Qb5, and later in the game, when presented with the opportunity of trading Qs with all else even ("ceteribus paribus"), would defend the notion of avoiding the trade? As <dzechiel> points out, when at a material advantage, trading pieces is generally good strategy.
It is the confluence of capturing the B and trading Qs that makes trading Qs appear less attractive. It is too bad that <UdayanOwen>, our resident psychologist, is unavailable to explain this curious phenomenon of human evaluation :)> I think you meant "ceteris paribus";)
To the main issue. What move is better?
IMO Both and Neither! Why do I say this you ask? Am I between Quantum States? Well it's really very simple. A couple of reasons and I think it will clear up the "confluence phenomenon" in the process;) One, computer analysis is about equal and two, I would choose either depending on circumstances; e.g. I'm playing a human, especially a weaker human, I set a snare with 11. Qb5!? with the the extra threat of 12. Bc4 threating the win of Black's Queen. I'd play 11. Qc4 if my opponent is close in strength,(an obvious blunder), and the win of the Bishop forces resignation. No need to add insult to injury!:-0 |
|
| Jan-08-08 | | D.Observer: If <NN> continued, how will the game go on? |
|
| Jan-09-08 | | johnlspouge: <Terry Macracken: I think you meant "ceteris paribus";)> Quite correct, and thanks for correcting the slip. "Ceterus" is 2nd declension, as clearly displayed by the form "et cetera". |
|
Mar-24-24
 | | GrahamClayton: There is another game between Schlosser and NN that was also played in Meseritz (now known as Międzyrzecz) in 1940. It was featured in "Chess Traps, Pitfalls, and Swindles" by I.A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld, where it was described as ‘one of the most far-reaching swindles in the history of chess’.
click for larger viewThe game concluded with 1. Kf1 Rxa3 2. Bb4 Rxa2 3. Qh6+ Kxh6 4. Bf8+ Kh5 5. g4+ Kh4 6. Be7+ g5 7. Bxg5+ Kh3 8. Nf2+ Kxh2 9. Bf4#. 1. Kf1 was necessary to stop the Black king escaping via g1 or g2. |
|
| Mar-24-24 | | Jean Defuse: ...
Kurt Richter - Kurzgeschichten um Schachfiguren (1955), p. 25: <'... von dem Stettiner Schachfreund Schlösser ...'> Black to move:
[Event "Casual Game"]
[Site "Stettin"]
[Date "1940.??.??"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "Schloesser"]
[Result "0-1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN " 
click for larger view"] 1... Bxg3 2. Qxe8+ Kh7 3. Rcc1 Qh4 0-1
... |
|
| Mar-24-24 | | Jean Defuse: ...
<GrahamClayton: There is another game between Schlosser and NN> The position was also given on page 43 of 'Schachmatt - Eine lehrreiche Plauderei Vol. 3' by Kurt Richter (<A. Schlösser> v NN, Meseritz 1940). Richter certainly knew 'Schachfreund' Schlösser from his early days in Berlin. DWS 1915, p. 70:
[Event "Casual Game"]
[Site "Berlin, Cafe Royal"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "Schloesser, A"]
[Result "0-1"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN " 
click for larger view"] 1. Rf1 Bxg3 2. Qxe8+ Kh7 0-1
In an earlier edition (24.02.1907 on page 67) the DWS reported: 'Berlin - On January 20th, the “Pythagoras Chess Club” was founded here with 20 members. ... 2nd Chairman <Arthur Schlösser> ... |
|
| Mar-25-24 | | jffun1958: Black can trade the black-coloured bishops 10...Bxe3 11. Qxe3 (+1.69)
or better
10. ... Bg4 11. Qf2 Bxe3 12.Qxe3 c6 (+0.28)
click for larger viewThe continuation 10. ... Qxd5? is a blunder and will lose a piece as shown in the game. |
|
Mar-25-24
 | | perfidious: That is most interesting. It looks as though Black has good play for the pawn, while his opponent's development lags in the proposed 10....Bg4 line. This strikes me as one of those positions where <Fishie> would go into heroic defence mode as White, outcalculate the average 2750 player and win a la Lasker, but for mere humans, that would be a difficult business at best. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
