|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-29-09 | | remolino: Too easy, 23. Rxf6. This was easier than a Monday. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | Patriot: Initial candidates: Nxf6+,Rxf6
23.Nxf6+ works nicely only if 23...gxf6 (24.Rg3+ winning queen and a pawn for rook and knight) but that's not forced as 24.Bxf6 can be played. But 23.Rxf6 fits nicely as it exposes black to both 24.Qxh5 and 24.Rxf8#. 23...Qe8 24.Rxf8+ Qxf8 25.Rxf8+ wins queen for rook. 22...Qh5?? -- another "hope chess" move leading to another chessgames puzzle. Although material is equal, white has serious positional plusses: a protected passer on d6, pressure down the f-file, and disconnected black rooks (thanks to a bishop that cannot move). I'm not sure what the best move for black is at that point. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | TheTamale: <gawain: How does one alert Chessgames.com to a position from a previously unkibitzed game that looks like a good puzzle position?> Not 100% sure this will work, but I believe Chessgames.com staff peruses the "Kibitzers' Cafe" section for suggestions. |
|
Sep-29-09
 | | chrisowen: Marshalling the position 23.Rxf6 freely opens it with the poor en prise black queen not happy having to sacrifice herself to get out. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | alphee: Among exf6, ♘xf6 and ♖xf6 this last one did not appear as the favorite from the begining, even if when the "solution" is found it looks like obvious. |
|
Sep-29-09
 | | kevin86: Ouch! White threatens mate and queen at the same time-much better and forceful than Nxf6 (my move-darn it) |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | YouRang: I found it after a too-long effort. I saw the discovered attack on black's queen based on moving my f3 rook at the opportune time. But I got it stuck in my head that the rook move had to be check. Eventually, I realized that a mate threat was just as good, so 23.Rxf6 (threatening Rxf8#) leaves black with no time to save the queen from 24.Qxh5. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | BOSTER: Honestly, I like to read <Once> comments because you can find here not only <Material even>,but something else.
BTW, about <Material even>.
Very often the <CG> puzzles represents the position where the solution is forced mate or win in couple moves.
I want to ask players icluding <dzechiel> and <johnisponge> ,which great job I respect. Do you really think that this is impotant to know that the such position has the same amount pieces, pawns and even Kings?
Maybe in such position another decisive factor (let's say imbalance) is decides the battle.
Maybe if you put this position into chess program you will see +10.0 or more points?
<Material even> .Does it have any sense in such position?
Maybe it is good idea to talk about <Material even> when the position is almost equal. |
|
Sep-29-09
 | | Domdaniel: <BOSTER> ... if I may ... I asked a similar question once and got interesting replies from <dzechiel> and others. As I understand it, the 'material even' routine is simply a way to check and list the basics before getting down to analysis. It may not always be relevant or useful -- but it's a good habit, and good habits should be maintained regardless. I'm not half so organized myself, but I respect those who do it this way. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | ZUGZWANG67: The ideas of a discovery, fork and back rank mate appear clearly here. It only remains to find the correct move order. And 23.Rxf6, with the threat of 24.Rxf8 mate forces B to drop the Q, as 23. ...gxf6 24.Qxh5; 23. ...Rxf6 24.Nxf6+ gxf6 25.Qxh5; or 23. ...Bxf6 24.Nxf6+ Rxf6 (24. ...gxf6) 25.Qxh5 win easily. But I don' t think that 23.Nf6+ (23. ...gxf6 24.Rxf6 Qe8) would do the job. Time to check! (GULP...)
-----
Cool... |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | Summerfruit: Material is even.
23.Rxf6!
White threatens both 24.Rxf8# and 24.Qxh5, against which black has no reasonable defence. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | johnlspouge: < <BOSTER> wrote: I want to ask players icluding <dzechiel> and [<johnlspouge>] [snip] Do you really think that this is [important] to know that the such position has the same amount pieces, pawns and even Kings? [snip] <Material even> .Does it have any sense in such position? > I have a systematic process of analyzing chess positions, and I try to share the process by writing my stream of consciousness, relatively unedited. I agree: <Material even> is irrelevant if mate is in the air, but usually mate is not in the air. A player needs more than a P to win if he is already down material, and frequently, mistakes are posted on the <assumption> that material is equal. As a seasoned skeptic, I try to assume nothing. "Hypotheses non fingo."
Isaac Newton.
< <Domdaniel> wrote: [snip] It may not always be relevant or useful -- but it's a good habit, and good habits should be maintained regardless.I'm not half so organized myself, but I respect those who do it this way. > Hi, <Domdaniel>. You and <A.G. Argent> readily come to mind as able to maintain a constant creative disorganization. I find myself envious of the ability at times, but only in the most admiring way. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | Patriot: <BOSTER> It is a good habit to note material differences before solving puzzles, unlike OTB where you're already aware that you're a pawn up for example. I have occasionally fallen into a trap of not taking note of these differences thinking white is winning the exchange, for example, when really he's only getting the exchange back or perhaps even losing. It seems that most of the time it doesn't matter though because usually seeing that 'winning the exchange', for example, is the most that can be achieved. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | Patriot: <BOSTER> Material differences can have tremendous impact on the direction you take in analysis. For instance in a situation where white has a queen, a knight, and two pawns vs. black's rook and three pawns. It may be best to play 1.QxR! PxQ, leaving white with a simple win. Materially it doesn't seem sound to trade a queen for rook, but since white was already up in material it simplifies into an easy win with no complications. Of course this is position-dependent, but hopefully you understand the jist. |
|
Sep-29-09
 | | fm avari viraf: Who cares for the Queen, I want the King's head & so White plays 23.Rxf6! Black cannot play 23...Qxe2 since 24.Rxf8# & any other move loses, hence shake hands. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | antharis: 23. Rxf6.
23... gxf6/Bxf6/Rxf6 looses the Queen.
23... Qxe2 24. Rxf8 mate.
And if Black plays 23... Qe8 then 24. d7 which threatens winning at least the rook by getting a new Q. I think blacks best move is to accept the loss of the Queen and play f.ex. 23...gxf6 Nice one. Time to check. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | wals: 22....f5 (+ 1.22) would have kept Black in the game.
The text move Qh5 (+13.20) was suicide. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | WhiteRook48: 23 Rxf6 was pretty obvious |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | DarthStapler: Got it |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | A Karpov Fan: nice and easy today |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | dzechiel: <BOSTER: I want to ask players including <dzechiel> ... Do you really think that this is important to know that the such position has the same amount pieces, pawns and even Kings?> Well, yeah, I do. I don't think that anyone would argue that once you have a significant material advantage, that your strategy should switch from trying to obtain even more material to that of simplifying and consolidating the position. This is the easiest and safest way to bring home the full point. Yes, there will be exceptions (and you should be aware of those possibilities), but the material balance in any position is fundamental to determining the proper course of action. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | MaxxLange: the discipline of going through the whole board and counting up where each bit is: excellent training and orientation. If you look at each piece or pawn, and spend a second or two seeing to which squares it can move, keeping your count - White has a pawn for the Exchange - you will avoid blunders, save time, and calculate better in your later thinking. |
|
Sep-29-09
 | | HeMateMe: Are you talking about the Sillman method of counting up'imbalances' on the board, help assess the position? |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | BOSTER: <Domdaniel> .Thanks for your interesting reply, which encouraged me for my question to minimize the repetitions in our comments.
<material even routine ...is a good habit>, but agree with such opinion:
"The strong chess player is often the one who is less attached to dogmatic interpretations of the principles".
<Johnispouge> ,<dzechel> and <Patriot> .Thanks for your attention. Our chess perceptiveness is different,but this is O.K. The problem is we express yourself through chess. |
|
| Sep-29-09 | | Athamas: As far as material balance is concerned... I do it to orient myself as to what resources each side has at his disposal. I agree that it is fundamentally important to know whether the only discrepency is a knight vs. bishop or one side has more material. Winning a pawn and moving on with calculations when you are already down a pawn or bishop would be ridiculous. I feel the biggest key in counting the material is to make sure you do not overlook any potential resources or weaknesses, positionally or materially. However, I will disagree with consolidating a position because of material advantage. Unless it is the last piece or pawn and you have a quick and decsisive win, I will rarely just trade down. You quite often can lose or further derail your position by forcing simplifications. I like to king-hunt and if I have a material advantage I will continue to push my advantage and go for the quick checkmate or try to force further material or positional loss. Too often you can lose your material advantage in the end game if you let the opponent gain a positional advantage for his lack of a bishop or knight... or you can even draw since you obviously cannot checkmate with a bishop or knight. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
