Why did he did so?

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3476
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu May 18, 2017 7:15 pm

It would, but white would have been a pawn up. If black wanted to retain winning chances, 2...Rxf2+ would probably have been best.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16083
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu May 18, 2017 8:24 pm

Barry Sandercock wrote:2..Bg7 would have stopped White's perpetual check.
Count the pawns. White retakes on f1 and is a pawn up.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Fri May 19, 2017 1:41 pm

What's this combination based on?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3476
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri May 19, 2017 1:47 pm

Some poor analysis, for starters: 3...Rf1+ is a rather stronger response to 3.Kh1 than 3...Nf2+ is.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Fri May 19, 2017 1:52 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Some poor analysis, for starters: 3...Rf1+ is a rather stronger response to 3.Kh1 than 3...Nf2+ is.
I was about to say that... It is a nice combination, that wins a piece. White can't recapture on e4 as mate is forced. If the White queen wasn't undefended, then White might have time to capture on f8. I don't think any of the moves to save the queen really help (because of the mate on g2), so White is a piece down with further material loss to follow. White should just resign. Not much else to say.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16083
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri May 19, 2017 1:57 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:What's this combination based on?
Given Jack's line, a forced mate or loss of the Knight on e4. The ending was the two minor pieces is presumably good for Black, but not one you would want to play if short of time and without a 30 second increment.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sat May 20, 2017 7:44 pm

What's this comination based on?

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sat May 20, 2017 8:06 pm

And what about

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sat May 20, 2017 8:07 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Some poor analysis, for starters: 3...Rf1+ is a rather stronger response to 3.Kh1 than 3...Nf2+ is.
Ha!ha!
true...I am a poor patzer!

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2280
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sat May 20, 2017 8:08 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:And what about
Well that line is completely forced, so not much debate surely?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun May 21, 2017 11:43 am

What is the justification for 15...e5 in:

*

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16083
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun May 21, 2017 11:54 am

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:What is the justification for 15...e5 in:
*
My first thought is that the intention is to follow with .. Bxf3 and .. Nd4. But perhaps not, as this leaves the Knight unchallenged on d5. Maybe then it's to get f5 in, with play against the Kingside in the style of a Kings Indian.

It's one of those difficult decisions as to whether or when to incur the backward d pawn particularly against a half open d file. The success of the Sveshnikov suggests that it's frequently a plausible idea.

(edit) It's actually Sefc v Petrosian from 1957. Sefc went 16. Ne1 whereupon Petrosian played .. Nd4. Against an engine suggestion that 16. h3 should be played, the engine suggests .. Bxf3 17 Qxf3 f5.

The Soviet players of the 1950s knew things in these Kings Indian like positions that later became common knowledge.
(/edit)

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun May 21, 2017 7:46 pm

What'd give White the advantage in:

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun May 21, 2017 7:53 pm

What makes 1...Qa4 winning in:

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16083
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Why did he did so?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun May 21, 2017 8:50 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:What makes 1...Qa4 winning in:
It defends the Bishop on a2 and removes the Queen from the threat of the c4 pawn. I'm not sure I see why it's better than .. Qa5 or .. Qa6. Perhaps being closer to the King, it works better for constructing a mating net.

Post Reply