|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-11-04 | | crafty: 21...♖d8 22. ♖xd4 ♘xd4 23. ♘d5 ♕c6+ 24. ♕xc6 bxc6 25. ♘c7 = (eval 0.16; depth 13 ply; 750M nodes) |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | hart: <Re: easy chess puzzles> May I please remind anyone who is frustrated by the simplicity of puzzles like today's that "You are encouraged to participate and learn from players stronger than yourself, while guiding those who are weaker"? Puzzles like today's guide weaker players like myself. In contrast, there are often puzzles here in which the solution baffles me, even after I've looked it up--I don't see how the solution could be a winning move. If every puzzle were that tough, I would never learn. Hopefully, the easier puzzles will help me to develop my skills so that I will in time solve the harder ones. I commend chessgames.com for its inclusivity. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | hart: <Hi chessgames.com> I notice that questions like <Taylor Nixon's> pop up day after day. Maybe it would be helpful to people like him if the list of links under your heading "PLAY CHESS" on the home page appeared higher up, perhaps above "RECENT KIBITZING"? |
|
Feb-11-04
 | | Sneaky: Folks, they're not ALL easy. Some days they are so hard the conversation here is one of dumbfounded awe. Today's an easy one, no doubt. The average rating in the USCF is 1429 (or 1064 if you include scholastic members) ... so I think there's an excellent chance that even today's problem gave some people a workout. Unfortunately the snoots around here have shamed them into silence. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | sleepkid: ...here's another famous Olafsson victory. One which I rather like: F Olafsson vs Fischer, 1958 |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | Larsker: Today's puzzle was so easy that I felt like looking it over a couple times to see if I had missed something. The immediate, obvious solution was also the right one. This is not always the case in chess, I've been told. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | slylonewolf: Larsker, your observation is correct! |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: QxR and mate next. |
|
Sep-15-14
 | | Phony Benoni: Sign. Even Tal. Even Tal. Is any of us safe from the Terrors of Back Rank Mate? |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: Well, actually, Black has the option of interposing and playing on a rook down. Still -- first!! |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: If Tal had just accepted the queen exchange he would have been slightly better, right? Essentially even position with a minor development advantage. |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | plumbst: Very Easy. Material is equal; White's queen is under attack. The bishop indirectly guards h7 meaning there could be a back-rank idea. 22.Qxc8+! If 22...Bxc8 then 23.Re8#
Otherwise, White wins a massive amount of material. e.g. 22...Nd8 23.Qxd7 (23...Rxd7 is still met by 24.Re8#) |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | lost in space: I love Mondays!
22. Qxc8+ Bxc8 (else overwhelming material plus) 23. Re8# |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | zb2cr: 22. Qxc8+ does it. Black either gets mated, if 22. ... Bxc8; 23. Re8#; or loses big material if either 22. ... Kh7 or 22. ... Nd8. |
|
Sep-15-14
 | | FSR: As <Phony Benoni> said, it's mind-boggling that Tal of all people would fall into a back-rank mate. |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | diagonalley: black was TAL(?!?!) ... well, as somebody once said: "it's a funny old game" - (he was referring to football, but the same applies to chess IMO) |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | Once: One reason for this sort of chess blindness could be the way that we label things as "safe". Take the position just before Tal's disastrous 21. Rc8 
click for larger viewTal must have noticed the combination of the white rook and bishop and the threat of Re8+ with a potential back rank mate. But at the moment he has <two> pieces guarding against that threat - the Bd7 and the Ra8. And with two defenders, we could be tempted to put the threat into the box marked "safe". It will take at least two moves for my opponent to get rid of both defenders, right? Wrong. 21...Rc8 is remarkably efficient at removing both of the pieces defending black's back rank. Chess seems like a simple game of turn for turn where only one happens at a time. But sometimes we can create two or even three threats at once. Or, in this case, distract two defenders with a single suicidal move. Not safe at all. |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | agb2002: The material is identical.
Black threatens 22... Rxc7.
The white bishop x-rays h7 and the rook on e4 can reach Black's back rank. Hence, 22.Qxc8+ wins a rook because 22... Bxc8 is met with 23.Re8#. |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | morfishine: <22.Qxc8+> and thats all folks |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | estrick: "My Captain! My Captain!" |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | hoodrobin: I call it the blind spot. It used to visit me quite often. You can learn to make it unlikely, never impossible.
:-) |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | gofer: Hmmm, I think for once we have a flawed POTD on a Monday! We have to continue
quite a few moves into the combination to give the clear win as the usual
queen sacrifice doesn't lead to a quick mate - just a quick win! 22 Qxc8+ Qd8 (Bxc8 Re8#)
23 Qxd8+ Nxd8
24 Rxd4 ...
click for larger viewBlack is already two rooks down, so is deader than dead, but further
material is going to be lost...
~~~
Black was <Tal>!?!?! Now that is unusual for a Monday! |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | TheBish: F Olafsson vs Tal, 1971 White to play (22.?) "Very Easy"
This one is so easy, that even the great Tal walked into it! Very easy to solve when it comes with a diagram labeled "White to play" and "Very Easy", but also very easy for even a former world champion to miss in his calculations -- or more precisely, neglect to calculate! I remembered reading his explanation of how it happened in a book I have, "Attack With Mikhail Tal" by Tal & Iakov Damsky (Tal's last book, published in 1994, two years after his death). On page 117 of this book, Tal writes: "Here one might well ask the question -- 'What would you not have played?', and the overwhelming majority of players would give the correct answer. But... 21...♖c8?? 22. ♕xc8+ and, surprised at what had happened, Black resigned." When Damsky (a Russian sports journalist) asked "What was the mechanism of your blunder?", Tal replied: "It was also purely psychological [referring to the previous example, Kasparov-Ribli, Skelleftea 1989, where Kasparov offered a draw, missing a brilliant tactic involving weakening the back rank combined with a discovered attack on the queen], as evidently, is invariably the case. We know so much about tragedies on the back rank, that we simply forget about them. That is, these threats exist somewhere in theory, set apart, as it were, from our positions on the board. For me this game as though united them, if not for ever, then for a long time. And for probably ten years, in each game that I played, when the type of middlegame had been determined, I would spend a second, in order at almost every step to inspect my back rank. This would seem to have helped, and no more surprises of this type occurred." |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | Nick46: <Phony Benoni: Sign. Even Tal. Even Tal...> The back rank in this case being The Valley of the Shadow of Death |
|
| Sep-15-14 | | Once: <TheBish> An excellent post! I've got "Attack with Mikhail Tal" - one of my favourite books, but I haven't read it in ages. And you are quite right. This is the second game fragment in chapter 8. Very refreshing for a former world champion to illustrate a point using one of his losses rather than one of his many wins. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
