|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-17-14 | | Caissas Clown: Good to see a Q sac , albeit a passive one without a forced re-capture , on a Tuesday. It was easy to spot , but still far too pretty for a Monday ! CG realised that - bravo ! |
|
Jun-17-14
 | | Once: The starting position for today's POTD makes it look as if neither player has quite got the hang of castling... |
|
Jun-17-14
 | | Penguincw: Alright! I got a Tuesday puzzle, but not a Monday puzzle. :| 20.Ng5 is the winning move, as if it's taken (20...Qxg5) then 21.Qxg5 leaves white up a queen for bishop and pawn (not to mention potential mate threats with a rook lift). If 20...Qxh6 then 21.Nxf7# 1-0 is a fork and mate. If black does nothing (ex. 20...Bd7) then 21.Nxf7# 1-0 wins anyway. |
|
Jun-17-14
 | | gawain: 20 Ng5 is the surprising winning move. The threat is Nxf7#--and Black cannot meet this threat without surrendering his queen or allowing an alternative mate. Nifty. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | Herma48852: 20. Ng5! Black must give up his queen for the knight or get mated with Nxf7. Moving his rook to f8 allows Qg7 mate. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | patzer2: Our Tuesday solution 20. Ng5! creates an unstoppable dual mate threat (e.g. 20...Qxg5 21. Qg7# or 20...Qxh6 21. Nxf7#). I suppose 20. Ng5! could be classified as a double attack tactic. Yet as double attacks go, this one is a bit unusual since it involves two different pieces threatening separate mates on different squares. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | kevin86: White leaves his queen en prise by 20 ♘g5, but it is black who must lose HIS queen. If black moves the rook to create an escape square, ♕g7# and if ♕xh6 (the text, ♘f7#) |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | Amarande: This pattern is critical and generally winning almost no matter where the Black Queen is. Ng5 would always win. For instance, with the Black Queen at f8 (which seems more favourable than here), 20 Ng5 and Black still succumbs: 20 ... Rg7 (again the Queen cannot be taken because of mate on f7) 21 Rd1!! (even stronger than just winning the Rook) and Black can still give up as he will be a Rook and Bishop down. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | heuristic: isn't the losing move 17...Qd5?
the Q has to get to f8 (the h6 WQ) or to b2 (the f6 WP) to defend adequately. 17...Qb4 18.Qh6 Rg8 19.Nf3 Qb2 |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | LucB: Man, I'd love to end a game this way! |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | Chess Dad: I'm sure move 20 is Ng5, but I'm not sure what black is going to do about it.
If he responds 20... Qxh6, then 21. Nxf7#
If he responds with either Rf8 or Rg7, then 21. QxR#. And if he responds with Qxg5, then 21. Qxg5 winning. I don't see anything else for Black. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | Balcacer: More o less : This is what Holand did to Spain in Brasil 2014, first match. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | BOSTER: <Amarande: no matter where the black Queen is Ng5 always win>.
Try Qb2. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | BOSTER: <heutistic:the Q has to get to f8> this is wrong,
<or to b2>. This is correct. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | BOSTER: <SimonWebbsTiger: Only 11...Qxc4 is dibious>.
But the Q. is: can Black get away with it? |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<boster>
not really. Black is simply asking for it because 12. Kg1 obviously threatens Ra1-c1. Black's king will never be safe. |
|
Jun-17-14
 | | numbersguy70: Black needed Qb4-Rg8-Qb2 after 17.Rc1. Even then, Fritz gives white a slight edge while a pawn down. |
|
| Jun-17-14 | | dzechiel: White to move (20?). Black is up a pawn. "Easy."
There's lots to look at, but white wins after...
20 Ng5
Threatening 21 Nxf7#. The only good way to stop checkmate is 20...Qxg5 21 Qxg5
giving up a queen for a knight (yeah, it's not very good after all). Time to check. |
|
| May-13-17 | | zanzibar: OK, I'm suspicious of this game.
First - the game continues to mate. I would have guessed Yudovich would resign after 20.Ng5. Second - neither <CT> nor <RUSbase> have this game. So, what's the source of the game, where exactly was it played, and when? . |
|
| May-13-17 | | Retireborn: <z> I think it's just a possible variation from this game:- Kotov vs M Yudovich Sr., 1939 I actually have this analysis up to 21.Nxf7 in my own database, but I can't recall now what book I go it from - probably one of those collections of combinations etc |
|
| May-13-17 | | zanzibar: <RB> you're a step ahead of me; I was just posting on intuition. I thought about comparing the games, but missed the connection. This is just a fake game, in that case, and probably should be removed from <CG>. Perhaps added as an analysis branch in the real game. . |
|
Jun-05-23
 | | Sally Simpson: As suspected by the two posters above this game is analysis of the game Kotov vs M Yudovich Sr., 1939 The Art of Checkmate ( page 135 in my algebraic edition) by Ranaud and Kahn states that many masters were onboard the Piriapolis taking them to Argentina for the 1939 Olympiad. Here is the passenger list including Najdorf, Alexander, Eliskases, Golombek...https://www.hebrewsurnames.com/arri... Some of the players, not named, analysed the recently played Kotov game which was not in the newly published MCO 6 '...which everyone had with them on board.' Ranaud and Kahn cannot name the players who came up with this analysis, nor can they give an exact location: 'On the sea somewhere between Antwerp and Buenos Aires.' They give a slightly different finish. But the main idea in this game is there. 
click for larger view17. Rd1 Qb4 18. Qh6 Rg8 19. Nf3 Qf8 20. Ng5 Rg7 21. Rd8 1-0 I checked MCO 6. The line is not there. MCO 7 (published in 1947) has the Kotov vs M Yudovich Sr., 1939 game and a sub variation credited to Simagin in Shachmaty 1939. (this threads game may have come from another variation given by Simagin.) See also H Mueller vs NN, 1934 where here 
click for larger viewInstead of 11.Kf1 White sacced both Rooks with 11.Qd2. Don't delete this game. Just change the location to analysis onboard the Piriapolis. The Piriapolis was sunk by the Luftwaffe in June 1940 https://wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?15062 |
|
| Jun-05-23 | | Retireborn: Geoff, thanks for that. I note that Victor Kahn is on the Piriapolis list, and in Buenos Aires he played this game:- V Kahn vs P Schmidt, 1939 Is he the same person as Kahn the writer, do you know? |
|
Jun-05-23
 | | perfidious: <Retireborn>, the same; Kahn was third board for the French side, after Alekhine and Gromer. |
|
| Jun-05-23 | | Retireborn: <perf> Thanks. So Kahn himself was probably one of the masters who analysed Kotov's game on the ship, and he may have been disappointed that Schmidt chose 9...gxf6. I forget now where I saw Kahn v Schmidt analysed, but I suspect it was Alekhine's book of chess battles, which included several games from the 1939 Olympiad. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 20.Ng5