I got the initial move and the game followup easy enough. What made it difficult was finding the winning line after 34. Bxf4!?, which White should have played to maximize resistance.

However, I suspect Watson would have found the winning line 34. Bxf4 exf4! 35. Qg2 (35. Qf3 Bxb2 36. Nxb2 Bxg4+ 37. Qxg4 Qh1#) 35...Qxd1 36. Rf2 Bd4 37. Rf3 Qe1 38. Kh2 Qh4+ 39. Rh3 Qxg4 40. Qxg4 Bxg4 41. Rh7+ Kg6 42. Rxb7 f3 (-25.18 @ 18 depth, Fritz 10, 2-cpu).

I solved this too without resorting to computer engines. Using computer engines to solve problems BEFORE trying for your own self will not benefit you since it deprives you of a proper mind exercise. The best way to approach a problem for maximum training is to get a pen and a piece of paper, and try to solve and see all the lines if the move is ok BEFORE checking it on a computer engine.

Really? In fact, the reverse is true. There is no agreed definition for many of the terms that we use. For example, you use a different definition of the term "blindfold" to <Domdaniel> and me. Only the other day there was a discussion about the meaning of the word sacrifice and <patzer2>'s trademark "sham sacrifice". The pages of CG.com are full of debates and disagreements about individual phrases and words.

And it is not just here that this happens. GMs and chess authors cannot agree about the precise meaning of words such as "tactic", "combination" or "endgame".

Some would argue that any game which starts with 1. f4 is a Bird's opening, even if it later transposes into another opening complex. Others would say that the opening it transposes into dictates the name.

<The thing that may confuse you is the whole transposition of openings.> There you go again - you really do find it hard to have a conversation without being rude, don't you?

It is not so much that I am "confused" about transpositions - I have been around chess for long enough to know that there are few precise definitions. The trick is to recognise and respect different points of view, without being unduly rude, judgemental or didactic.

I tend to agree, although there are some twists in the tale...

A KID has a large number of defined features - white plays d4 and usually c4/ Nc3; black plays a kingside fianchetto, Nf6, d6 and usually 0-0. By contrast, a term like the Zukertort opening has just one defining feature - 1. Nf3. So it is much more descriptive and useful to describe a position as a KID instead of a Zukertort, because that helps us to understand more of the position and the common plans and strategies.

So when given a choice between a large and diverse opening complex (1. Nf3) or a more specific one (eg the KID), we tend to use the more specific term.

I suppose this is perfectly understandable. If we were asked to describe someone, we would probably talk about age, height, race, appearance, etc. We wouldn't say - "it was a human."

But what about positions which could come equally from two opening systems with the same level of defined features? For example, some lines of the Scandinavian transpose to the Caro-Kann. The Vienna often transposes into the King's Gambit.

As another contributor who (without realizing it) apparently writes up "blindfold" solutions before computer analysis, let me respond. My original post handled the variation 30...Nxg4 31.Kh1 under Kotov's Rule. If White declines the sacrifice, he has lost a P without any compensation: under Kotov's Rule, calculation terminates.

Interestingly, the defender (White) is best to decline the sacrifice (according to Toga). In many puzzles, this leads to modest gains for the attacker. Kotov's Rule is therefore extremely useful, to focus analysis upon critical tactical variations, rather than positional variations where calculation is essentially unnecessary.>

Very true! I didn't solve everything after 31. Kh1 since Black has already won a pawn and White has no compensation (White is very passive in this line). I didn't go solving that line very deeply though I gave that the best continuation after 31. Kh1 are the Rh8, Nf6, and g4 by Black.

I'm not clear as to why the Zukertort name emerged, or how useful it is. Until recently, 1.Nf3 was generally called a Reti -- although this should really only apply to systems with c4.

Equally, the 'invitational' aspect seems a red herring -- like calling 1.d4 e6 a 'French invitational' when the real point is what it becomes after, eg, 2.e4 d5 or 2.g3 f5 or 2.c4 Nf6 etc.

There *are* some unusual transpositions, as you say, where a position can be reached in very different ways and it seems important to specify whether it started as, say, a Panov Attack or a Tarrasch.

But as a general principle, I suggest that any flank opening (or English/Reti/Zukertort) in which White plays an early d4 or e4, thereby transposing to an e4/d4 opening, should be given the latter's name - so that 1.c4 e6 2.d4 d5 is a Queen's Gambit, not an English, Agincourt Invitational (or whatever).

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...

Read it and weep.

Also, if you solve these puzzles by moving the pieces with your hand, then you are not using your OTB analysis practise time as well as you should.

<Jimfromprovidence>

I'm glad you read my line...much appreciated, Jim. However, after glancing at the board for like 5 seconds after 37. Rf3 it is obvious that 37...Qe1 is still the winner.

I published that idea first, man. That's all I'm saying.

As for taking off the blindfold and turning on Fritz, that's a funny one. Good on you! Well, if you must know, I've yet to turn on Fritz for this puzzle/game.

Does that answer your question?

lol...

<Once> I didn't know you were so easily belittled: you're way over-sensitive. Unless you promise to quit acting like a little skirt, PLEASE put me on your ignore list.

And before you do that, I would like to point out what you said for your own information. And I quote, "Chess terms are fuzzy and imprecise at the best of times, and especially so when it comes to naming the openings."

This is what I was indicting. Reading comprehension will take you far, grasshopper.

<domdaniel>

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...

Enjoy!

30 ... Nxg4+

1) The acceptance

31 hxg4 Rh8+
32 Bh3 Rxh3+
33 Kxh3 Qg1! (33 Kg2 Rg3+ 34 Kh1/Kf1 Qg1#)

Now black is threatening Qg3#, Bxg4# and Qh1#! OMG!!! There are only two ways to protect Qf3 and Qg2.

34 Qf3 Bxg4+ 35 Qxg4 Qh1#
34 Qg2 Bxg4+ 35 Kxg4 Qxg2 36 Kf5/Kh5 Qh3+ 37 Kxg5 Bh6#/Bf6#

2) The refusal

31 Kh1 ...

Now things are a little trickier. Black has his key pawn and so is now definitely winning, but how to make the advantage really work. Probably in situations like this I would take my advantage, re-group and then attack again. I don't know if this is correct in this instance, but it looks okay...

31 ... Nf6

Black is now threatening g4, Bxh3, Rh8 and Nxe4, so white has a lot to cope with, but the rest is beyond my feeble mind to analyse! All lines look good for black...

I could go into the history of real blindfold play - Koltanowski, Najdorf, Hort and Miles all played multiple opponents without sight of the board - but I don't think there's much point. You seem to persist in misunderstanding the word.

Moving to the somewhat seedier academic realm on the Internet, we find at http://www.worldchesschampions.com/...: "A chess game played without seeing the board. Blindfolded players can either actually be blindfolded or simply have his/her back to the board. The moves are called aloud and the blindfolded player must remember where each piece is."

From this definition, one could argue (and, I suspect, at least <one> probably will :) that the use of the puzzle diagram instead of an actual board constitutes "blindfold", as one must (as above) "remember where each piece is". An ordinary tournament chess game, however, is played under equivalent conditions, and clearly is not "blindfold".

Remember that a board, empty or not, is a diagram. It allows for the players to not have to visualize a field, just the pieces.

And that is precisely what I am doing.

Meaning: Once one of those Melody Super GMs plays a move he disturbs the equilibrium of the given diagram and starts 'blindfolding' it.

Likewise with me once I hit on what 30...? is and start playing moves in my Mind's Eye then I start 'blindfolding' it.

Of course, I will agree with you that what I am doing is not pure blindfolding a la Morphy at Cafe de la Regence or anything; however, I am following the lead of the modern Super GM praxis.

Enjoy!

I did *not* know, <Dom>. Thanks.

It's a dull old day when you don't learn something new at <CG>.>

Thanks for bringing good vibes here, johnlspouge.

Yeah, I'll second that.

It seems we've been blindfolding all this time and never knew it.

But - seriously - chess vision is a complex thing. It even seems to vary between players - some are more 'visual' (fields, lines of force, etc) and others more 'narrative' (I go here, then ...)

Take White's position after 33...Qg1 here. It's not a difficult move to find in itself: what's extraordinary is that White should have no defence.>

Cool, Domdaniel. I'm glad that you also solve these puzzles without moving the pieces by hand.

Right on.

I don't disagree that there is a difference between Koltanowski blindfold and Melody Amber Blindfold.

But Blindfold is blindfold. So enjoy it, ol' chap.

:)

Black to play (30...?) "Insane"