|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-02-07 | | kellmano: Right, I hereby declare myself a total geek, but I am curious: Could black's 29th move have been recorded in algebraic notation as Rxh2#? The additional h as an identifier is not necessary (Rhxh2#) is not needed as Rfxh2 is +, not #. I doubt that i have asked many more inane questions in my life, but nevertheless I'd appreciate an answer if anyone knows. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | jon01: This is not queen sacrifice, it's just mate. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | gus inn: 12.Nxd5 ? is a bad move.Much better and in the spirit of the actual position would have been 12.Ne4 (!). |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Rawprawn: I found a brain cell that hadn't been used in a long while and put that on the job. It thought I was insulting it and went off in a huff. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Crowaholic: <kellmano: Could black's 29th move have been recorded in algebraic notation as Rxh2#?> Since Rxh2# is unambigous, it's ok. But it may still confuse some people (or computer programs). I'm writing a (so far) simple chess software myself and the way I handle it is to treat every part of the move notation (piece type, source file, source rank, capture or not, target piece type in case of capture, target file, target rank followed by check sign, checkmate sign or nothing, plus certain special cases like castling, promotion and en passant capture) as an optional filter. If exactly one move suits all criteria, the notation is accepted. If there are no legal moves that fit, the notation is rejected as illegal move rsp. nonsensical. If there is more than one move, the notation is rejected as ambiguous. When it comes to output, it is in general advisable to be more specific since other chess software may be less tolerant. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | ahmadov: This is one of the easiest puzzles I have ever had to solve... I do not understand why White played 28.Rb2, instead of resigning? |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | zb2cr: I'm with <Tactic101>. As long as you don't sacrifice the ♖ instead of the ♕, and remember to take with the ♖ on the h-file, it's easy. Perhaps 10 seconds. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Fezzik: Sheesh. I guess I have to put on smiley faces to let people know I'm not serious. Anyway, Thanks for all the responses enlightening me on the ways of chess nomenclature. :) I'm glad that the regulars found this "too" easy. Monday puzzles should be so easy that a beginner could get it, and a two-mover that shows material isn't everything is a *perfect* Monday puzzle! Regarding the rating system, 1 star is about right considering it's Black to move! |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Arkanin: A way to win is Rxf3 with white's best continuation a terrible position down a bishop and pawn with forced trade of queens. I didn't stop long enough to see if there is a better way; a forced win is a forced win as long as you know how to get it in all variations (some of the variations will take more moves, but, you win a B and force the trade of Qs and then smash your opponent). No idea if it was the best move, didn't look that long and my laptop doesn't like the pgn viewer. Anyway. loltooeasies kinda annoy me, I gotta say. I get the sense a lot of the time people strap on their lawlerskates without understanding something, especially on the wednesday+ puzzles. Probably discouraging for beginners too. Also discouraging for me come thurs-sunday. :P |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | YouRang: Ah well, very easy today. The hardest part was noticing that it was black to move. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | kellmano: <Anyway. loltooeasies kinda annoy me, I gotta say.> Gotta agree. If they were consistent, and turned up on Wednesday to say "About right", and on Sunday to say "Too hard", I'd respect it a bit more. |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | kevin86: The only trick to this one is that black must keep his rook at f2-to block white's coverage of the h2 square. Typical Monday queen sac-elegant as always. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | IMDONE4: omg i got a monday! |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Billosky: I think this is the easiest puzzle CG has yet given us ... No, I take that back, it's just that my chess skills have now been honed to the point where I can solve even monster problems like this one! |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | playground player: It's nice to start the week with easy puzzles! My wife is a beginner, and these Monday puzzles challenge her, but are not daunting enough to discourage her and put her off chess. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | ianD: That wasn't really a puzzle.
|
|
Jul-02-07
 | | fm avari viraf: I'm happy that everyone found it easy but all these little tactics go along way in building a strong foundation. BTW, even Masters have missed it in actual play. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Sydro: This puzzle was way too hard for me! I thought for 1 hour but I wasn't even close :( |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | Marmot PFL: <Sydro> Hint - if it's Monday just sac your Queen. You have about a 90% chance of being right. |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | Willem Wallekers: <playground player:>
Cheers on behalf of my girlfriend, she agrees with your observation :) |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | LIFE Master AJ: A fairly easy puzzle.
Sam Lloyd was a fantastic problemist, but - apparently - not such a great player. |
|
Jul-02-07
 | | beenthere240: Same Sam? Loyd or Llyod? What the 'ell? |
|
Jul-02-07
| | patzer2: For today's puzzle solution 28. Qxh2+! gives the great problemist Sam Loyd a mate-in-two puzzle as the finale of this game, which is a good object lesson in how not to play as White against the Tarrasch. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | dzechiel: <kellmano: Right, I hereby declare myself a total geek, but I am curious: Could black's 29th move have been recorded in algebraic notation as Rxh2#?> I think the PGN standard says that the addition of a '+' (check) or '#' (mate) is not enough to disambiguate a move. Let me check. Yup, section 8.2.3.5 says in part "Neither the appearance nor the absence of either a check or checkmating
indicator is used for disambiguation purposes."
This makes sense when recording games by hand as well. It's not like the good old days of descriptive notation when "B-N5ch" would easily disambiguate the moves. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | TheIrateTurk: I felt the solution to this puzzle was so obvious that I ended up looking for another move. Once I was over my initial misapprehension it was easy. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 28...Qxh2+