|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-12-05 | | AniamL: Oops. I didn't see that white's rook was pinned, so I came up with an alternate "solution". |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Saruman: <rcs>
36.-Ke7 37.Qe5 forcing a trade of queens, and the queen goes to some random square like Qd2 38.Nxf7! b3 (Kxf7?? Rg7+ mating) 39.Qd6+ Kxf7 40.Qd7+ Kf6 (Kf8 Rf3+ mating) 41.Qg7+ Kf5 42.Qe5#. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Koster: Yes, black is lost. After Qe5 he has to trade queens, or allow Ne4 with killing attack. After Qxe5 dxe5 Rc3 white doesn't trade, just plays Ne4, another line is Rc5 f4 Rc4 Nh3 Rc3 Rg8 with easy win, although probably white has quicker win than mine. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | rcs: Saruman
36....Ke7 37.Qe5 Qxf2. That prevents Nxf7, yes? Then perhaps if the b pawn falls, black can follow through with a direct attack on the white king with his queen and rook. But the more I think about it, the more I feel white could weather the storm somehow. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Saruman: 38.Nxe6 is probably even better. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Saruman: 37.Qe5 Qxf2 38.Ne4 also wins; basically everything wins... |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | TTLump: Yes, this is a simple puzzle, but I still would not want CG to change the format. I like the way the difficulty level starts from easy and progresses to hard. I enjoy the easy ones as well as the hard ones. I also enjoy analyzing the games themselves, trying to find where the loser went wrong. In this case black was finished after 35.... Qf4, because he has irrevocably exposed himself to the deadly double discovered check (if he doesn't take the Queen, he loses the bishop AND the rook), but 35... Qc7 (ironically!) or 35... Rc7 holds, and gives black some distinct chances because of the extra passed pawn and the bishop vs knight... |
|
Dec-12-05
 | | kevin86: I missed this one too :(
The winning tactic was neat-turning the fork into a double check. I have a problem calling this a sacrifice-it is more like a loan of a queen at a bishop's interest. Even Jaws would have appreciated those shark rates. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Whitehat1963: Yeah, I got this one. I know, it's easy, but I haven't really been looking at the puzzles too much lately. |
|
Dec-12-05
 | | WannaBe: <TTLump> I agree, I usually get the Monday ones to make me 'feel good'. I may get the Tues. Wednes. and I am usually batting 0-fers rest of the week. =( |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Mendrys: Easy, but I missed it. I neglected to consider black's passed b pawn. I too saw 35 Nxf6?? gxf6 36. Qxg7 and thought an easy win for white. I believe that white is losing after this. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | FICSwoodpusher: When considering a combination, I usually try reversing the move order to see if it results in something better. That would have helped anyone who first thought of Nxp (to then play QxB afterwards). So reversing the move order gives QxB first. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | aginis: <ermiro1> I find the monday and tuesday puzzles almost not worth bothering with, wed thurs puzzles i rarely fail to solve so i'm in favor of just having fri-sun levels. and i'm sure there is someone who is even better than me and only enjoys the sunday puzzle. However no matter what day of the week there are almost always 3 pages of kibbitzing this indicates that the point isn't always the solution to that particular puzzle. This is another way to showcase a game, and offer a forum for discussion, (Note that the puzzle always comes from a game and not a composition.) If you're looking for hard puzzles pick up a book, if your interested i can recommend several. In any case <CG.com> has not only diregarded numerous appeals for harder puzzles but has not even deigned to reply to such requests. perhaps its time to come to terms with the way things are. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | erimiro1: <aginis>I accept your point. About books - no thanks, I have enough of them |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | artemis: to every one complaining about "easy puzzles":
On the simpler puzzles, try to calculate passed the forced win (unless it is a checkmate, in which case tough luck). This way you get to excercise your calculation and you get to see some tactics. While I can say with honesty that I solved this puzzle in under half of a minute, I have been training very hard recently. Infact, after you have gotten good at tactics, you should not ignore "simple puzzles." Take pride in your ability to calculate and solve every one you see. This will ensure that you are still as sharp at the tactics as you think that you are. Secondly, I know that recently, while I have not always kibitzed, I have actually missed some "Easy puzzles." That was the best thing that could have happened to me. I was very embarrassed for missing some of them, but I can guarantee you that if I see a similar theme in a tournament game I will not miss it! Also, what are you complaining about? Think about when you first started solving puzzles (especially if that was soon after joining chessgames.com). You very easily could have missed these puzzles. The fact that someone with a 2530 rating missed this should give you some pride and some definite feeling of satisfaction. While they missed at the board, and probably in time trouble, you are definitely improving your chess by solving the puzzles. The only way to become worse at them is to stop doing puzzles. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | eezzell: The finish of this game doesn't make sense. 36...Kxg7 is a pointless move,
36...Ke8 or 36...Ke7 is forced, then it is up to white to show the game can't be drawn. Even strong players just "give up" sometimes. It would be much more satisfying to see the game end 36...Ke8 37. Qe5 QxQ
38. dxQ Rc3 39. Rf3 1-0
or something like that but not Kxg7??
|
|
| Dec-12-05 | | erimiro1: <artemis >Solving puzzles alone does not make you a better player, and if you solve 100 of Monday puzzle, it won't help you to solve, say, Friday puzzles that demand much more understanding, experience, imagination and intuition of the game. We all know the "mate in 2" compositions, that are very-very hard to solve. But while most of practical players deny them, most of those who do like to deal and solve them are far from being good players. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Antipholous: The problem took me all but three seconds. I love knight forks, they're so cool when you pull them off. And when they happen to you, you just want to puke. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | TTLump: <eezzell> Imagine you are a GM playing black, with a strong position going into the end game. You have worked very hard to create a passed pawn that should tip the game in your favor, and then suddenly, your opponent wins a piece with a simple Knight-fork combination! You take his Queen in a state of shock, knowing what is coming, but not wanting to believe it, and then White deliver's the telling blow, the humiliation sets in, you knock your king over, get up and leave as quickly as you can to go hide somewhere, lick your wounds, and pull yourself together before the next round. So if you think it is unsatisfying for you the spectator, imagine the agony Didzarevic must have felt at that moment. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Halldor: This shows well the devastating power of the double check! |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | zabbura2002: I thought 36. Nxe6 fxe6 37. Rf3 would work.. but i missed the fact that the rook is actually pinned. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | artemis: <erimiro1> Solving puzzles alone will make you more tactically alert, which is a key to improving your chess. You need to actually play games and study strategy to improve make a large improvement. Can you really say that if I can develop my tactical sight that it is not improving my ability to play chess? By not solving puzzles, you will become a weaker player, unless you continue to play games instead of solving puzzles. Inorder to keep your level, you need to at least do what you can by solving every puzzle you come across (or trying to at any rate). As for what you said about mate in two puzzles, surely if you can look 7 moves ahead easily, then a mate in two will be simple. At the same time, I am not suggesting that a strong player simply study mate in two puzzles. That, as you pointed out, would not help him very much at all. but he should look at some every once in a while, to remind himself that there are positions that do not require tedious calculation. The progression of difficulty that chessgames.com features is an excellent choice. Those players who are very weak would not have a chance if all puzzles were thursday difficulty or greater. It brings them along. Also, when chessgames.com continues with a theme for the week, players of all abilities can see how a easy puzzle is similar to a harder one. It does makes solving them less difficult if there is a theme, but it allows players of all strengths the ability to notice similarities and patterns, which certainly cannot hurt their chess. Additionally, stronger players will look at more than one puzzle a day (or should at any rate), so if they dont see a difficult one on chessgames, then they will later. If they dont solve more puzzles, then they will probably play games or something to force them to keep tactically keen. If you want a challenge from this puzzle, try calculating 15 moves ahead, even though it is a sure win for white, black can still have some hope. Put the position on a computer and have it do the same. Compare and contrast your calculation and its. Over 15 moves most players will likely err, so you can learn something even from a puzzle like this one. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Dr. Zoltar: <erimiro1>
Chessgames is a site for all levels of difficulty. Frankly I think to solve this issue, Chessgames should just post two problems a day, one in an easy category and one in an advanced category. Perhaps the advaced category would show a (current) Wedensday difficulty puzzle as a Monday puzzle and so on. It looks like there is just enough space on the homepage to accomidate two puzzles side by side. At least that way everyone's level would be appeased. |
|
Dec-12-05
| | WannaBe: Frankly, I think, to solve this issue, is for the members who consider Mon/Tues/Wedn to be too easy not look at the puzzle. The site is fine as is, it's meant to be catered to various level of players. I do not see stronger players or the GMs that we have as members here complaining. If you think the puzzles are too easy, don't bother with them. Simple as that. End of discussion, in my opinion. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | patzer2: White's 36. Qxg7+! sets up a discovered check to win a piece. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 36.Qxg7+