|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-05-18 | | Gilmoy: <6.f3 15.O-O> always carries the risk of <24.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 25.Kh1 king-in-the-corner syndrome>. <32..Rc3 33.Qe4 Ra2> Black attacks the floating pawn chains from behind. Incidentally, Black has achieved <both> of Rubinstein's rook sacs in Rotlewi vs Rubinstein, 1907 ... without either sac! (The point of the two sacs is that the king-in-the-corner has <no moves>, and so the two rooks will-be-skewering h2 from both orthogonal directions. Either one alone is mate, and both together are mate.) <36.Rg1 Qxf4> Now Q-sees-h2, so it has curiously taken over the role of Rubinstein's Ng4. <39..Rh3> is mate-in-three all over again. Rotlewi had two spite-blocks before Qxe4, Liu has two spite-checks. I guess in this kind of position after <13.Rc1>, Black plays <17..a5> to blow open a+b and gobble easy space with the flying rook on a. Conversely, if Black plays a6-b5-Rc8 first, then White plays a4 with the same idea. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | AlicesKnight: Saw this (for me) quite quickly. The neatness includes the prevention of White's Rxh5 and further checks. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | et1: Brilliant and easy, once you spotted it- a thing which was far for obvious |
|
Jul-05-18
 | | Richard Taylor: I found this one after abandoning my idea of the Q sac yesterday and getting side tracked. So here I was more vigilant and checked everything. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | malt: Found 39...Rh3
(40.gh3 Qh2# )
40.R:h5+ R:h5 41.h3 R:h3+ 42.gh3 R/Qh2# |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | CHESSTTCAMPS: White hopes for 39... gxf5 40.Qxh5+ with a draw and threatens 40.Rxh5+ gxh5 41.Qxh5+ with the same result. However, black's active and coordinated major pieces can both defend and attack: 39... Rh3! defends h5 and threatens 40... Qxh2# (or 40... Rxh2#) A.40.gxh3 Qxh2# (or Rxh2#).
B.40.g3 R(either)xh2#
C.40.Re5 Qxe5 only delays mate an additional move.
D.40.Rf4 Qxf4 does the same. |
|
Jul-05-18
 | | takchess: Rh3 can't be stopped.all forces intersect on the h2 square. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | hdcc: I spotted the correct move very quickly, and spent a bit more time checking that it was correct. My vision/instinct must be improving; although I note that some others here also found it on the easier end of the scale - I would concur with those who adjudged it as being more of a Tuesday level. As also acknowledged above, this is also a very elegant puzzle. |
|
Jul-05-18
 | | Willber G: <al wazir: Easy -- and the answer consists of a single move. Not a five-move combination, not a preponderant material advantage, not a won endgame. Just the one move.> Indeed, as evidenced by the brevity of <agb2002>'s analysis. Not Thursday material. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | whiteshark: Game Collection: 71_My_Alekhines_Block |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | dTal: Found this almost instantly, and I wish I could say it was my tactical vision improving, but I fear its more to do with the puzzle being more Monday level than Thursday level... |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | patzer2: If I had been Black and had just seen White play 39. Rxf5, I would've been tempted to play 39...gxf5? and allow 40. Qxh5+ = with a draw by perpetual. However, with only a Thursday puzzle position to consider, I had no qualms about making 39...Rh3! my first candidate move. The only difficulty was calculating to see if White had a defense. I visualized the possibilities <CHESSTTCAMPS> provided in his post, including 39...gxf5? 40. Qxh5+ =. What I did not see was the desperate 40.Qxg6+, which leads to mate-in-eight after 40. Qxg6+ Kxg6 41.gxh3+ Kxf5 42.Rf1+ Kg6 43.Rg1+ Kh6 44.Rg3 Qc6+ 45.Kg1 Bd4+ 46.Kf1 Qh1+ 47.Rg1 Qxg1# (Stockfish 9 @ 23 ply). P.S.: White's decisive mistake was 34. e6?, allowing 34...f5 (not 34...fxe6? 35. Qxc6 =) 35. Qxc6 h5! -+ (-5.89 @ 39 ply, Stockfish 8). Instead, 34...Qxc6 ⩱ (-0.57 @ 34 ply, Stockfish 9 analysis of move 34.?) gives White practical drawing chances. A move earlier, White could've secured the advantage with 33. e6! ± (+0.69 @ 35 ply, analysis of move 33.?). |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | catlover: The solution to today's POTD is very aesthetically pleasing. After botching yesterday's puzzle it was nice to get this one. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | ChessHigherCat: <catlover: The solution to today's POTD is very aesthetically pleasing.> In other words,
<After botching yesterday's puzzle it was nice to get this one.> |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | The Kings Domain: Nice puzzle and good game. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | bamaexpert: Ok folks, at the risk of being forever ostracized from the chessgame.com community, I HAVE to ask...what is the deal with "chrisowen"? His long nonsensical posts continue to perplex me. Is he some kind of savant? And if you're reading this ChrisOwen, can you enlighten me? Sorry, my raving curiosity MUST be assuaged. Other than mentioning the winning move 39Rh3, there is nothing in your post that makes any sense. Well, nevermind...guess I've missed previous posts with explanations. Gotta get back to work. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | benjaminpugh: This was easy to spot. Not many countermoves to check, either. Re chrisowen, my personal guess is that he speaks/writes in a foreign language then uses some very bad translation program to convert his posts into "English." The mentions of moves and positions are generally correct. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | cormier: Stockfish 8 (minimum 30s/ply) 9. Nc1 <better is 9.h4> h5 10.Nf4 e5 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Nd3 Rd8 13.b4 Qc7 + / = +0.56 (28 ply) |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | eblunt: <bamaexpert:> It's just attention seeking drivel. |
|
Jul-05-18
 | | Breunor: Years ago ( those of us here a long time!) remember Chrisowen used to make real posts. I kind of remember a transition then to quasi-coherent. But it's been like this for a few years I think. I hope it isn't some sort of illness. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | messachess: Nice puzzle. Simple but I didn't see it. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | catlover: <ChessHigherCat> Ha-ha! Yes, I rejoice in any POTD I get right, mainly because I often do not get the puzzles in the latter part of the week. But apart from that, I also thought the solution was pretty. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | Monocle: <bamaexpert> To be honest, I suspect chrisowen's posts are either mostly or completely automated. I'd say the account was a bot, if not for the fact that it occasionally misses a day or two and some people apparently remember when he made sense. The gibberish must be randomly generated. You'd have to be completely off your rocker to type that out day in, day out, for so many years. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | reti: It gets me every time. |
|
| Jul-06-18 | | abuzic: At move 38... black had forced mate in 4:
38...Qxh2+ 39.Kxh2 Be5+ 40.Rf4 Bxf4+ 41.Kh1 Rh3+ 42.gxh3 Rh2# |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
