|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-26-06 | | lilfoohk: An easy one! |
|
Oct-26-06
 | | Honza Cervenka: <TrueFiendish: And if 24.Rd1 Qc2.> 24.Rd1 Qe4 was my solution. |
|
Oct-26-06
 | | Gypsy: After <22...h5>, White seems to have two sufficient defenses; however, both of them rather squirly: <I. 23.Qd1> and 23...Qf5 24.Bxa7 Rb2 25.d5 Rd2!... I.a 26.Qxd2? Qf3...
I.b 26.Qb1? (26...Qf3?? Re8#) 26...Re2!!
I.c 26.Qb3! Rd3 27.Qb8+ Kh7 28.Qf4 QxQ 29.gxf4 cxd5 ... and probably = -- <II. 23.Qc3> and 23...Rb1!... II.a 24.Bb4? Qe4!! 25.f3 Qe2!... with a mate.
II.b 24.f3! h4... where White has to defend carefully. -- I do not know if all of this is completely Fritz-proof, but the variations are rather fun. |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | Castle In The Sky: Got it-I had 23...Rb1 24. Qc3 Qe4, which would have won the rook. I'll take a 1/2 point for not seeing white's best response. |
|
Oct-26-06
| | Gypsy: <ceebo, calmarten, Marco65> Nice analyses! |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | outplayer: Was 22...h5 necessary? Couldn't White play 20.Bg7? |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | outplayer: 15.Nf4? White should have played 15.Re1! |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | syracrophy: <<outplayer: Was 22...h5 necessary? Couldn't White play 20.Bg7?>> Maybe black was just trying to weak White's castle with the threat 23...h4. I like your idea of 20.♗xg7. I think that your variation is better than 20.♗xc6? that just opened the b-file with a huge advantage for Black. 20.♗xg7 cxb5 21.♗e5 and White can still put a tough fight |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | zb2cr: Found it easily--about 30 seconds. Wish I could see this stuff in my own games quite as well. |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | YouRang: T'was a bit easy for a Thursday, but welcome anyhow. :-) One can quickly see that Black has two potential mate threats going: (1) back rank mate with rook or queen at b1#; (2) queen+bishop mate if queen gets to g2#. So, it's just a matter of finding how to use one threat to spring the other. |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | The17thPawn: Enjoyed the puzzle and I think Wednesday's was harder like others have mentioned. Duras is in my opinion often overlooked in the Capablanca, Rubinstein & Alekhine generation. He played both Nimzowitch and Maroczy evenly and damn near tied Marshall in their duels. He even took a game off Alekhine! Rubinstein pretty much owned him but that can be said of alot of players. |
|
Oct-26-06
 | | kevin86: I saw this one! The white rook is doubly cursed:not only is it pinned and unable to defend the queen;it is also vunerable to attack and must be defended by the queen. The queen has her own problems-she must defend the rook but also must guard f1 from a possible sac by her opposing number. She cannot do both in her own vunerable state. Thus,white is lost. |
|
Oct-26-06
| | Gypsy: <Duras is in my opinion often overlooked> Careful tabulations (Louma at all) of the 1906-1912 results ranks Duras level with Maroczy and Schlechter behind Lasker, Rubinstein, and Capablanca. |
|
Oct-26-06
 | | playground player: Yahoo! 4-for-4 this week! And last night on Pogo I finally beat an Expert--using a check + discovered attack on major piece technique that I'd just read about in your Kibitzers' Cafe. Thanks, CG.com! |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | aazqua: Not too dificult. Clearly the back rank is a problem, rb1 forces the queen to defend the rook and then a queen move overloads white. Novice game on white's part. |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | ceebo: <Gypsy> After 22...h5 23 Qd1 Qf5 24 Bxa7 Rb2 it seems that black wins. The only reasonable defences to the threat on f2 are d5 and f4: After 25 d5 there is 25...Rxa2 attacking the bishop. If 26 Bd4 then your Rd2 wins the bishop. Black needs to take slight care in the line 26...Rd2 27 Qxd2 Qf3 28 Re8+ Kh7 29 Rh8+ Kg6 (29...Kxh8?? 30 Qh6+ Kg8 31 Qxg7#) 30 Qc2+ f5 (30...Kg5?? 31 Rh5+ Qxh5 32 Qd3 winning) 31 Qxf5 Qxf5 (31...Kxf5?? 32 Rf8+). If the bishop moves elsewhere then, in view of Qf3, 26...Ra1 wins. Ra1 threatens in the same way as Rd2 but now the queen cannot dodge the threat. At best white can get to a hopeless R+B vs Q endgame by eventually sacrificing his queen on f1. Hence white must give up the bishop and should lose.
If 25 f4 then 25...h4 is undefendable. If 26 gxh4 then 26...Qg6 with mate to follow. If 26 Qc1 then 26... Rg2+ 27 Kh1 Rxa2 and white must give up the bishop. If 26 Qf3 then 26...Rb1 is decisive. Going back again, other moves such as 24 Bd6 or 24 Ba3 seem ok for white. Blacks attack is long lasting though. |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | MiCrooks: I had trouble with the variation Qe3 instead of Qe2 for a while. Saw the deflection was still there with Qc3, but thought White could hold out with Rc1. Had to actually mentally put the pieces on their new squares to notice Qf1 forcing mate! As to why h5 before Rb1...isn't because the line doesn't work without Black's King having some luft?! Without h5, after Qc3 Black has Qe8++! Probably helped that h5 looks like a natural attacking move against the g3 pawn, but am sure he already saw the continuation and knew his King needed some air! |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | Trouble: simple line but educational |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | chesspadawan: Is move 22...h5 necessary in order for black to win? looks to me like its unnecessary, maybe black saw it one move too late????? |
|
Oct-26-06
| | Gypsy: <ceebo> The Rb8-b1xa2-a1 is a great tactical resource. I was completely unaware of it. |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | Fezzik: 24....Qe4 loses for Black, but it was the *idea* of overworking the Queen that wins. I imagine even Duras had to look twice before seeing the same idea works with 24...Qd3!! This was a great move. Thanks for bringing up an oldie but goodie. |
|
Oct-27-06
| | Gypsy: <chesspadawan: Is move 22...h5 necessary in order for black to win?> I am not sure I understand the question, but Black's deflection combination does not work without the 22...h5(!) prep. White would simply replied <Qe8#> at the end of the combo, instead of surrendering. |
|
| Oct-27-06 | | syracrophy: A cheap try for a pun: "Go to the wall and work"
lol :-) |
|
Sep-24-14
 | | Stonehenge: Wasn't white Charles Henry Wallwork, see http://www.edochess.ca/players/p401...? |
|
Mar-23-20
 | | MissScarlett: <24.Qe2 Qd3 0-1> Found what I take to be the original score - in the <Westminster Gazette>, February 18th 1911, p.14 - only to discover a different finish: <24.Qe3 Qd3 25.Bb4 Qf1+ 26.Rxf1 Rxf1#>. Think we can trust this score because Hoffer credits Duras for sending it and another game. Correction submitted. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 25...Qf1+