|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-24-11 | | Shams: <...and must be adorned with at least three exclamation points.> Apparently. |
|
Sep-24-11
 | | FSR: <DarthStapler> 35...Bd3!!! really rectum, it's true. |
|
Sep-24-11
 | | perfidious: <FSR> I've also seen the Tarrasch game referred to as an example of the Plachutta theme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plachu... |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | Shams: <I've also seen the Tarrasch game referred to as an example of the Plachutta theme> Gesundheit. |
|
Sep-24-11
| | FSR: <perfidious> I'm a little confused about the distinction between the two. If I understand the Wikipedia article's definition correctly, Plachuttas are a subset of Novotnys involving defensive pieces that move in the same direction (for example, a bishop and a queen that is defending a diagonal; or two rooks; or a rook and a queen that is defending a rank or file). Novotnys that are not also Plachuttas involve two different-moving pieces, such as a rook and bishop. I hope I've got that right. |
|
Sep-24-11
| | perfidious: <FSR> That was actually the first time I'd read the Wiki piece and I agree; it is confusing. Maybe <Infohunter> can weigh in on the distinction between the two. Reinfeld, in his annotations to the Tarrasch game, referred to the final move as the Plachutta theme. |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | DarthStapler: Hey what happened to my comment? |
|
Sep-24-11
| | FSR: <DarthStapler> I'm going to take a wild guess that the powers that be found your comment offensive and accordingly nuked it. |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | Shams: <DarthStapler> Don't pretend! <Member since Nov-19-07> |
|
Sep-24-11
| | perfidious: <FSR: <DarthStapler> I'm going to take a wild guess that the powers that be found your comment offensive and accordingly nuked it.> That never happens here, as you well know, LOL. |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | whiteshark: <FSR> Thanks for the most exciting <Multiple Novotnys> ;) |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: Novotnys were discussed in FM Steve Giddins' article series on problem chess on <chessbase> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | Infohunter: <perfidious: <FSR> That was actually the first time I'd read the Wiki piece and I agree; it is confusing. Maybe <Infohunter> can weigh in on the distinction between the two.> I am more than delighted to answer the call. Just to make sure my response is impeccably accurate I consulted a reference book in my personal chess library, namely _The Oxford Companion to Chess_, ed. by D. Hooper and K.Whyld (1987). It has confirmed my thoughts on the subject. I also played over the four games mentioned above. Now to particulars:
<FSR: <perfidious> I'm a little confused about the distinction between the two. If I understand the Wikipedia article's definition correctly, Plachuttas are a subset of Novotnys involving defensive pieces that move in the same direction (for example, a bishop and a queen that is defending a diagonal; or two rooks; or a rook and a queen that is defending a rank or file). Novotnys that are not also Plachuttas involve two different-moving pieces, such as a rook and bishop. I hope I've got that right.> Well, no, that's not quite right. Novotnys are indeed interferences involving differently moving defensive pieces, but Novotny Interference is actually a subcategory of Grimshaw Interference, the difference being that in a Grimshaw the interference is not brought about by a sacrifice on the key square. Plachutta Themes also involve a sacrifice on the key square, causing similarly moving defensive pieces to interfere with one another. These are a subcategory of Wurzburg-Plachutta Themes, where no sacrifice on the key square is made. So it is correct to say that the Plachutta Theme is to the Wurzburg-Plachutta Theme as Novotny Interference is to Grimshaw Interference. <perfidious: Reinfeld, in his annotations to the Tarrasch game, referred to the final move as the Plachutta theme.> He was right. |
|
Sep-24-11
 | | Domdaniel: Luck forsakes Fuchs. |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | Gilmoy: The practical difference is that you may need a 2nd sac :) Novotný (he was Czech, not German) forces interference right away, because either line-mover cuts the other one's line. Plachutta only overworks the one that captures (since both defenders move the same way). Thereafter, you need a 2nd sac to deflect it. So you need <two> sacs <and> a mate fork. In the Wikipedia examples, White has exactly that in all of the problems. (And then, given that your opponent might wish to just decline your 2nd sac, it follows that it, too, must be an else-it's-mate, i.e. you really need a <mate trident>.) Hence chess literature has several OTB Novotnýs requiring !!!s, but Tarrasch vs Allies, 1914 seems to be singleton for Plachutta. |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | acapo: what if 21.Nd5? |
|
| Sep-24-11 | | kevin86: The Novotny is an example of forcing someone to zig in a zagging world. Black's piece blocks white and white must choose which of HIS own pieces to block the other. |
|
Sep-24-11
 | | Phony Benoni: I need diagrams to make this stuff clear.
click for larger viewThis is Fuchs vs. Korchnoi. White's bishop provides a defense against ...Re1+, the rook on d2 provides a defense against ...Qxd6. By playing <25...Bd3>, Black shuts off both defenses. Captures on d3 by the bishop or rook restore their defense, but interfere with that of the other piece. 
click for larger viewThis is Tarrasch vs. Allies. Here the ♖c8 defends against Rxc5#, the ♕d7 against Qb7+. By playing <31.Bc7>, White forces a capture which overloads the capturing piece by making it defend both threats. That's a Plachutta. Which brings up an interesting question about the "similarly moving pieces" part. Suppose in Fuchs vs. Korchnoi, White had a queen on c4 instead of the bishop, a position like this: 
click for larger viewNow, is <...Bd3> a Novotny or Plachutta? (Note that this is just for the purposes of illustration; position may not be completely sound without more tweaking.) |
|
Sep-24-11
| | Domdaniel: <Phony> I get the illustrative angle, but it *does* need tweaking. In the diagram, ...Re1+ mates. You could try a second Queen at f3, as in the original, but then ...Bd3 fails as a Queen recapture defends both ways. |
|
Sep-24-11
| | Phony Benoni: <Domdaniel> Quite right. Here's the result of a little tweaking:
click for larger viewAfter ...Bd3, rook captures interfere with the queen's guard of f1, while Qxd3 overloads the queen and allows ...Qxd6. |
|
Sep-24-11
| | Domdaniel: <Phony> Nice one. I have a theory that such obstructive or overloading moves can be hard for defenders to anticipate. If you're attacking you tend to look for them, but the defender mentally gives 'jobs' to various pieces - ("OK, the Queen guards the Knight, the Rook holds the back Rank, the Bishop watches g4..." - or whatever). Sometimes forgetting that a single enemy move can block two such defensive 'jobs'. Or maybe it's just me. |
|
Sep-24-11
| | FSR: <Infohunter> Thanks for the clarification. After reading it, I thought I understood the Novotny/Plachutta distinction perfectly. Then I saw Phony Benoni's position and got all confused again. Thanks a lot, P.B. <Domdaniel> It's not just you. As Monty Python might have said, "No one expects a Novotny." |
|
Sep-25-11
| | Phony Benoni: <Domdaniel> Is it possible defenders have trouble anticipating surprise moves because they don't want them to be there? Blocking out unpleasant thoughts, as it were. |
|
| Sep-26-11 | | Shams: <As Monty Python might have said, "No one expects a Novotny."> Ministry of Silly King Walks
The Theoretical Argument Clinic
Crunchy Frog(bert)
Ken "Clean Air Systems" Rogoff
The Exchange Spanish Inquisition |
|
| Jul-20-13 | | notyetagm: R Fuchs vs Korchnoi, 1965 25 ... ?
click for larger view25 ... ♗c2-d3!!  <novotny>
click for larger view |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
