|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-04-18 | | 5hrsolver: What was going through my mind -- Immediately I considered 34...Qh4+ 35. gxh4 g3+ but then the king just goes over to h3 or h1. Then I started looking at other moves like 34...Bxe5 or Rb2, or BxB, or Rxg3. Nothing seems to be working. I know theres a combination there somewhere. Getting frustrated. Considers the queen sac again and finally see it. 34...Qh4+ clears the g3 square for the pawn advance and the 3rd rank for the rook. after 35. gxh4 Rh3+. Then 36. Bxh3 blocks the h3 square and the h1 square is now exposed to the bishop for the final 36... g3#. Beautiful combination. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | zb2cr: Well, the Queen sacrifice was an obvious possibility, but finding the follow-up took me a bit. I'm glad to say that I solved this one; the mating pattern, being unusual, is not easy to see. |
|
Jul-04-18
 | | takchess: Happy 4th.Qsac Rsac pawn advance. My week same as penguincw
. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | ChessHigherCat: < ossipossi: You play English to get control of d5, and not to give control of d4...> Do you mean 4. e4 was a mistake? |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | ossipossi: You play English to get control of d5, and not to give control of d4... then you try to take control of b4 and give contol of b5... There is a hidden simmetry in English opening... |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | ossipossi: @<ChessHigherCat> I am joking, of course, but there is a truth in what you say: I have my dogmas. Play c4 aut e4. I know by myself it's stupid. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | ChessHigherCat: <ossipossi> I don't think it's stupid. You're right that SF prefers 4. d3/Nf3/e3 instead. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | patzer2: Calculating the most forcing moves, I found the mate-in-three 34... Qh4+ 35.gxh4 (35.Bh3 Qxh3#) 35... Rh3+ 36.Bxh3 g3# solving today's Wednesdy puzzle. For me the more interesting aspect of this game, was the positional maneuvering leading up to the final mating combination. In general, White seemed too eager to trade down material against his younger, lower-rated opponent -- even at the cost of giving up the advantage or conceding small positional advantages. For example, note how White's game slides quickly down hill after the unfavorable exchange 15. Nxd4?! Bxd4 ⩱ (-0.31 @ 28 ply, Stockfish 8). Instead, the little discovered attack combination 17.e5 dxe5 18. Nxd5 exd4 19. Bxb7 Rb8 20. Bg2 = (0.00 @ 29 ply, Stockfish 8) would have kept it level. Earlier, instead of 14. Ne2 Bh8 =, Black could have improved with 14. Kh1 a6 15, f4 ⩲ to ± (+0.80 @ 27 ply, Stockfish 9 analysis of move 14.?). P.S.: Impressive win by Ilya Makoveev, who was then 8-years-old. He is now a 12-year-old FIDE Master, and holds the titles World Chess Champion in the category U-9, European Chess Champion category U-9, Russian Chess Champion in the category of U-11. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | patzer2: White's clearly decisive mistake appears to be 27. e5?, allowing 27...dxe5 28. fxe5 f5! -+ (-2.03 @ 27 ply, Stockfish 9). Instead, 27. hxg6+ hxg6 28. f5! bxc4 (not 28...gxf5? 29. Qh5+ Rg6 30. exf5 +-) 30. fxe6+ Ke8 ∓ (-0.89 @ 27 ply, Stockfish 8) puts up much more resistance. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | whiteshark: #3 || I must have been here before... |
|
Jul-04-18
| | pittpanther: Found this knowing it's a puzzle. If I was merely observing this game I don't think I would have seen the combination. |
|
Jul-04-18
| | sjunto: Queen Sac Wednesday? |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | CHESSTTCAMPS: For one who has been well-exposed to the discipline of investigating forcing continuations first, I was stumped by this for longer than I would care to admit. Certainly I looked at Qh4+ fairly soon, but didn't see the right follow-up quickly and switched to something else. Finally I circled back to find the solution: 34... Qh4+!! 35.gxh4 (Bh3 Qxh3#) Rh3+!! 36.Bxh3 b3# Diverting two low-valued defenders with a double-major sac is beautiful! |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | hdcc: So we resume normal programming, with a double-sac Wednesday following a no-sac Tuesday, and getting the "weekly sac average" straightened out. I was feeling fairly chuffed about getting this one right - until I showed it to my ten year old son, who worked it out in less time than it took me (he's very bright; he takes after my wife). |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | Walter Glattke: To comment this, in Glattke Code V 25 1.c4 c5 2.d3, V 26, 2.Nc3 and V 32 2.Nf3 there are big holes in the "theory", but, 1.c4 will be won often by black, and I consider 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 as a very fearful continuation. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | Walter Glattke: 1.Nc3 is more complicated, so black can play against point c3 with Qa5, Bg7, and Nf6-e4, so I see possibilities here after 3.-Bg7. |
|
Jul-04-18
 | | gawain: Wow! A breathtaking checkmate. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | lzromeu: I found Bf3 (stockfish says: -5,74)
not bad, unless the blunder mate in 3 |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | cormier: Stockfish 8 (minimum 15s/ply) 11... Bh8 <better is 11...Bxh6> 12.Qxh6 Rb8 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Nb5 Nc6 15.f4 a6 = 0.00 (28 ply) |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | Walter Glattke: Instead of 27.e5 one can play 27.hxg6+ hxg6 28.f5 gxf5 29.Qh5+ Rg6 30.exf5 or 27.-Rxg6 28.Qh5 Kg8 29.f5 exf5 30.exf5 or 27.-Ke8 28.gxh7 Rxg4 29.h8Q+ or 28.-Qxh7 29.Qxe6+ Kd8 (Qe7 Qxg8+) 30.Qxd6+ so 27.e5 seems to be the deciding mistake. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | landshark: Beautiful double sacrifice de featuring the deadly bishops! 34.... Qh4+!!
35.gxh4, Rh3+!
36.Bxh3, g3#
Last night (bleary eyed) I saw all the elements, just could not put them together. Glad I waited until daylight to try again. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | Patriot: Instead of solving this because they want to sac the queen or because they want to look at all forcing moves, I would hope everyone would solve this because they recognize the positional factors that lead to a forced win. Factors like the two bishops aiming down on the king's position, black's nearby pawn, the two rooks and the queen aiming on that side. THAT will help you OTB! |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | ChessHigherCat: <Patriot> That's all true, but let's face it, when you're analyzing a position OTB, sacrificing the Q is the last thing you look at, as a sort of last resort, but it's one of the first things you look at in a puzzle (although I admit I did waste 5 minutes or so diddling around with other moves before I saw it) |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | Patriot: <ChessHigherCat> No, I try to figure out what's going on before doing any calculation unless there is a tactic glaringly obvious to me. When you look at how all the pieces are aimed and advanced pawns, that often suggests what candidates to look at. I think it's a mistake to solve puzzles by looking for queen sacs, for example, because that's not how you would think in a game. If the elements aren't there it's not a good thing to look for queen sacs and forcing moves etc. because it's a waste of clock time. |
|
| Jul-04-18 | | TheBish: D Morozov vs I Makoveev, 2014 Black to play (34...?) "Medium/Easy"
I'm not sure if I've seen this one before, but if so, I didn't remember it. It didn't take long to find the solution, looking for the most direct, brute-force approach: 34...Qh4+!!
This stunner begins a direct mating attack by preparing a following rook sacrifice to open the long diagonal for the light bishop, allowing a mere foot soldier to deliver the kill shot. 35. gxh4 Rh3+ 36. Bxh3 g3#.
Quite beautiful! I hope to play just one game in my lifetime that ends with such awesome fireworks! Quite appropriate for the 4th of July! Happy Independence Day to all my fellow USA Americans! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 34...Qh4+