|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-12-10
 | | Jimfromprovidence: For those looking for something else to do with this game, an alternative to solving the puzzle is to analyze the position after 27 d7. The text 27...Bxd3 saves black.
click for larger view 27...Be5 on the other hand, is a forced mate for white. 
click for larger viewIt took me a long time to figure out why the text works but the alternative does not. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | xrt999: <But it's clear that we can no longer judge what's really happening without a computer, if we want to be objective.> If you break this sentence down what I think you get is : If we want to be objective and judge what is really happening, we need a computer. The occasional litotes, an understatement achieved by negating an opposite, I am not adverse to. In other words, "can no longer do without" softens the statement "need" or "require". Is it just me, or do others find that most high level GM's talk in litotes? |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Eyal: <After all to make 9 moves in 14 seconds is also a bit of a physical challenge. It does not help you to be one move close to mate the opponent when your time is over. I guess Shirov was focused on that issue much more then on finding the best move and thus happily accepted the draw offer.> Actually they were playing with 30-seconds increments starting from move 1, so such a "physical challenge" wasn't really an issue - Shirov "only" had to find the basic winning idea in the few seconds that were left to him, and he would have gotten enough time to make the remaining moves. Btw, the moment of Shirov accepting Dominguez's draw offer (as well as Karjakin coming up immediately to tell him about the missed win...) is documented in http://www.coruschess.com/- Daily News #13, from about 1:50. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | YouRang: Got it pretty quickly (for a Friday).
It's not hard to see that the key point is about back-rank threats against black, thanks to Pg6. At the moment, black's queen on a5 is defending against both (1) Qa8+ and (2) Rd8+. If we can nudge the queen then it must relinquish its defense of one of those squares. An the queen can easily be nudged with 31.b4.
If the queen moves along the a-file (e.g. 31...Qa7), then 32.Rd8+ wins because our queen hits f8 (32...Bf8 33.Qxf8#) If the queen moves along the diagonal (e.g. 31...Qc7), then 32.Qa8+ wins because 32...Bf8 is answered by 33.Rf1, and once again Qxf8# is threatened. Black must jettison material simply to postpone mate. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Eyal: With regard to the time trouble issue, it should also be noted that it was mutual and influenced both players - Shirov got his winning chance with 31.b4 due to Dominguez blundering with 30...Bg7??- instead, 30...Be5 should be enough for a draw, since in that case the bishop doesn't deprive the king of the g7 square in the 31.b4 Qc7 32.Qa8+ sequence (where Dominguez said after the game that he missed Rf1 after 32...Bf8). |
|
Feb-12-10
 | | patzer2: At http://www.chesstactics.org/ provides Ward Farnsworth's interesting and unique perspective in a discussion of deflection and removing the guard: <This section is devoted to methods for achieving those aims: ways of removing or disabling the pieces that guard targets in the enemy camp. It covers material that has been labeled in a wide range of ways in the literature, including terms such as destruction, deflection, diversion, decoying, damming, drawaway, driving off, breaking communication, blockading, overloading, attraction, interference, interception, and obstruction. While some of those terms have useful meanings, on the whole the proliferation of jargon is unfortunate. All of those devices can be assimilated under the heading of “removing the guard”; we can then subdivide this theme into four methods—four ways to loosen a piece or square you would like to take. (a) You can capture the guard; (b) you can attack the guard (i.e., threaten it so that it becomes obliged to leave its square); (c) you can take something else the guard protects (distracting it, or showing that it is “overworked”); or (d) perhaps you can interpose something between the guard and its protectorate, interfering with the defensive work the guard is trying to do.> |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Patriot: <patzer2> Thanks for the info! I like the way Farnsworth calls the whole thing "removing the guard" and breaks it down into four methods. That seems so much easier to grasp. <xrt999> I still can't wrap my mind around what a "litote" is. :-) |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | MiCrooks: Was Corus played with an increment? I believe most tournaments of this kind are now. Was it 30 secs? Obviously if Shirov had only 2 secs left on his clock, even having just made a bad move I would not offer a draw otherwise. Now way he rips off 9 moves in 2 seconds! |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | cyclon: It looks like 31.b4 (whilst White Queen is still in f3, guarding a3-pawn) and if Black Queen stays on d8-a5 diagonal by -Qb6/Qc7, then 32.Qa8+ becomes possible - Bf8 33.Rf1, entailing win. If it doesn't, but stays somewhere on the a-file, then 32.Rd8+ wins outright. This game was recently on CB. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | pferd: <patzer2: At http://www.chesstactics.org/ provides Ward Farnsworth's interesting and unique perspective in a discussion of deflection and removing the guard:
This section is devoted to methods for achieving those aims: ways of removing or disabling the pieces that guard targets in the enemy camp. ... We can then subdivide this theme into four methods—four ways to loosen a piece or square you would like to take. (a) You can capture the guard; (b) you can attack the guard (i.e., threaten it so that it becomes obliged to leave its square); (c) you can take something else the guard protects (distracting it, or showing that it is “overworked”); or (d) perhaps you can interpose something between the guard and its protectorate, interfering with the defensive work the guard is trying to do.> Seems to me you could also pin it (which has a similar effect to (d) but achieves it by another mechanism). |
|
Feb-12-10
 | | scormus: <JimfromProvidence> thanks for the puzzler, took me a while too. A neat interference manoever if Be5 and rather satisfying. My Friday is saved ;-) Yes, it might have been an idea to set something along these lines .... |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Shams: <patriot>< I still can't wrap my mind around what a "litote" is. :-)> I had to look it up too but I think this is it:
Conventional form of emphasis: "That was some damn fine ham, moms." Emphasis using litotes: "Hey mom, that ham you made? Not half bad!" |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Patriot: <Shams> LOL! Thanks, I get it now! :-) |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | princeali123456: I'm sorry but 31.b4 should get !! rather than just one ! because it wins instantly! White can by either play Qa8 or Rd8 for a win, both of which are guarded by the black Q. 31.b4 either takes the queen or allows one of the winning moves I listed above. Shirov is human! He may not have seen it in time trouble but what's REALLY puzzling is that Rybka aquarium didn't see either. Check the analysis on chessok, there is a final lame line which gives white +0.19 "equal chances"!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder what Fritz and the other engines saw! |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Quentinc: <patriot>< I still can't wrap my mind around what a "litote" is. :-)> The classic example of why you should try to avoid litotes is something like: "The not unbrown dog crossed the not unwide street while a non unfast car left the dog not unharmed." As for the puzzle, I also saw it before (in the London Times) but didn't think it was that difficult. What I did find amazing (and what would have made a better puzzle, if variations of actual games were permitted) was Black's threatened maneuver, if White moved his rook off the back rank (e.g., Rd7), of ..Rf1+...Ra1+ and...Qxa3+. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | BOSTER: <dzechiel> <This game ended in a draw!?>
If you didn't rush to send your comment, but read b4 previous comments,I hope, you would not asked such childish question.
There is a big difference to find a move smoking a cigar (or drinking coffee) and to see this move, fighting for the first place in Corus with couple second on the clock.
This is why we are here (with b4 in the pocket) ,and they play in Corus. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Eyal: <what's REALLY puzzling is that Rybka aquarium didn't see either. Check the analysis on chessok, there is a final lame line which gives white +0.19 "equal chances"!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder what Fritz and the other engines saw!> Not so puzzling if you make the effort to look at the actual moves given there, a not unwise thing to do (http://chessok.com/broadcast?key=co...). It ends by mistake with 30.Qxf3, and then gives the +0.19 eval for Black's best move, which is 30...Be5(!) rather than 30...Bg7?? played by Dominguez (as I've already noted, with 30...Be5 the bishop doesn't deprive the king of the g7 square in the 31.b4 Qc7 32.Qa8+ sequence). |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Patriot: <<BOSTER> <dzechiel> <This game ended in a draw!?> If you didn't rush to send your comment, but read b4 previous comments,I hope, you would not asked such childish question. There is a big difference to find a move smoking a cigar (or drinking coffee) and to see this move, fighting for the first place in Corus with couple second on the clock. This is why we are here (with b4 in the pocket) ,and they play in Corus.> You misunderstood <dzechiel>. His comment was more a statement (not a question) expressing surprise in the game result (so was I!). Most, if not everyone here, understands there is a huge difference between solving a puzzle and striving for first place in a major tournament with seconds remaining on the clock. I'm certain <dzechiel> understands this as well. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | hedgeh0g: Arguing over the precise terminology of the b4 tactic is pedantic and doesn't contribute to improving anyone's chess. Instead of focusing on definitions, just work on improving your board sight and calculation and the tactics will come naturally, whether you can name them or not. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | johnlspouge: < <hedgeh0g> wrote: [snip] Instead of focusing on definitions, just work on improving your board sight and calculation and the tactics will come naturally, whether you can name them or not. > Precise terminology promotes control, as it always has, all the way back to Genesis: "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field..." The first thing the police want is your name ;>P |
|
Feb-12-10
| | patzer2: <pferd><Seems to me you could also pin it (which has a similar effect to (d) but achieves it by another mechanism).> Very good! Perhaps a sixth method would be to attack a second square or piece the guarding piece is protecting, so as to make it overworked (i.e. via simultaneous attack on both guarded squares/pieces). Of course both of these methods come close to the pinning and double attack tactics. Even though one might prefer to consider these tactical categories (deflection, overworked piece, obstruction etc.) separately, this methodology might be useful for showing how they relate to each other. It also might prove to be a good method for trying to undermine guarding pieces in game situations (i.e. how should I exploit a guarding piece -- capture it, deflect it, capture a guarded piece so as to distract it, obstruct its protection of a guarded piece or suare, attack a second guarded square so as to overwork it? etc.). |
|
| Feb-13-10 | | wordfunph: i didn't find the solution but my engine was too quick at 31.b4 my only consolation was Shirov's draw.. |
|
| Feb-14-10 | | Shams: <The first thing the police want is your name ;>P> "The most violent thing you can do to a child is give it a name." --J.D. |
|
| Jul-09-14 | | coulapic: 29.Rd7?? Rf1 30.Ka2 Ra1!! (31.Kb3 Qa4 32.Kc3 Rc8  ) 31.Ka1 Qa3 32.Kb1 Qb2# |
|
| Dec-30-15 | | maseras: What will happen if Black was play 30...Be5?
Maybe 31.Qe2 Bf6 32.Rd6 could give counterplay for White,but I am not sure. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
