| Jan-23-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: I knew it! Queen sacks always win! :) |
|
Jan-23-04
 | | Sneaky: Desperado! |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | sacanimal: As soon as I saw that material was equal w/ both Q's under attack, the desperado move Qxc3 suggested itself--then shortly thereafter justified itself, since on the next move the black Q can take the loose N on c6 if the White Q takes bishop. |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | hart: I used the 3-step problem solving strategy that I described 2 days ago. Step 1: Study the board and determine Black's objective, using process of elimination. Checkmate? Quite possibly. The King is relatively trapped already. But no, there are not enough pieces threatening him. Capture White's Queen? Yes, very likely! Step 2: Identify the obstacles. Ah, Black's Queen could be taken in retaliation, and Black's Bishop is also being threatened. Step 3: Remove the obstacles, which in this case means ensuring that Black gets a good return for the loss of Queen and Bishop. That return would be--White's Queen and both Knights! And all the dominoes will fall in their proper sequence if Black starts with...Qxc3! And does he? Yes! I would be interested in hearing about alternative strategies that you kibitzers might have used, if any, to reach the same conclusion. |
|
Jan-23-04
 | | kevin86: If 12 bxc3 ♗xd1 13 ♖xd1 bxc6 or 12 ♕xe2 ♕xc6 either way,black has stolen a piece. A desperado is a major piece that is doomed to capture-and captures a piece before it dies. In history,the most famous desperado was Samson-who pulled down a temple before dying,killing many Philistines. |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | yoniker: hart,there is not such a thing "solving strategy". One should just count the material,and then calculate candidate moves and his opponent's possible replies to each,and then to each one calculate a candidate response etc. until you come up with the best move...
Your primitive "solving strategy" won't work on harder tactical problems such as Combination Challenge/Hays. |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | Catfriend: Well, "it doesn't exist".. but strangely, this non-existant strategy helped him.. I have a bit different thinking process, but I also use some thinking-strategy to solve many, more difficult puzzles, and even to create some:)
Many GM's describe their precise thoughts during the game to show their chess-brain at work.
So maybe u don't have a strategy.. and use the same scan-it-all method as a conputer's one.. but others, more original players, may develop their own ways to find the answer! |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | talchess2003: The difference between chess and math is that in math there is a set thinking process involving many user-friendly steps; in chess you have to cultivate your own way of thinking. In my case, I just think in moves and strategy, no steps =\ it just slows u down. But maybe I am subconsciously calculating in steps.. oh well when calculating many subvariations one is faced with the test of analytical and mental organization abilities. As to this problem, the eye looks at the first sac it sees, and in my case, it was Qxc3... and this was especially easier because of the limited possiblities due to the lack of development |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | Catfriend: <talchess2003>
a. Math isn't what people usually imagine it - logic thinking. Only the writing-down of the proof is strict and precise - the search for proof itself makes math the most creative sphere of knowledge. What you talk about is the calculating-part, which barely can be called math. I"ll just cite the great Hilbert: "He didn't have the imagination and originality to make a good matematician - he became a poet".b.The subconsciousness surely uses steps - it was checked and verified!
"eye looks.." - you describe a process of filtring which your mind performs! |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | DepthlessBlue: So why does white end the game if he is down just one knight? |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | bilikidder: <Catfriend> Very true! I recommend William Dunham's Journey through Genius as a way to understand and appreciate the level of creativity in mathematics. <subconscious> For experienced players, most of the puzzles are solved relatively quickly because of pattern recognition. We recognize tactical motifs that we've stored in our brains. <Yoniker> Good grief, cut hart some slack! There's no need to put him down by calling his solving strategy, "primitive". And when you tell him there's no such thing as a solving strategy, what do you call the methodology you outlined to him? |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | BeautyInChess: Dan Heisman has proposed a way to make every move through a process. He says to look at checks, captures, and then threats. If none of these accomplish anything then take your least "active" piece and make it more active. I.e get everything doing something toward gaining space, protecting material, or gaining material. I followed this process and came upon Qxc3. |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | Lawrence: BeautyInChess, I think this is something different but also something that Dan is always on about. Counting. One and two and three. (The number of "unvoluntary sacrifices" I've made because I couldn't count up to 3!) |
|
Jan-23-04
| | Sneaky: There was a chess quote here the other day by Znosko-Borovsky that read something like this: The player who trains himself to look for all moves that smite, however absurd they may look at first glance, is on the road to becoming a first class tactician. That's exactly right: look at all moves that SMITE. Of course, a check smites. Threats on important pieces smite, and captures (especially in the heart of the enemy camp) are always smiting. |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | clendenon: I like that saying. |
|
| Nov-22-04 | | Whitehat1963: Oops! Player of the day takes one on the chin in quick fashion! |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | notyetagm: <Counter-attacks create desperados!> This game, J Perlis vs Tartakower, 1907, is the example that I use to illustrate this point. |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | YoungEd: No Perlis of wisdom here! |
|
| Sep-06-12 | | Llawdogg: Look at all moves that smite! |
|
Kibitzing
