Originally posted by Katastrooflol, yes its from a famous Andersen game, and yes the sacs are faulty ! Nc7+ is very very tempting, but alas white has a stronger move, excellent try though! i give you a clue, look for blacks weakest squares and the pieces which protect those squares! and try to exchange, chase away, embroil them in play!
I like experiments.
First thoughts upon looking at the position: isn't this from a famous Andersen game where he sacced both rooks?And didn't those sacs turn out to be faulty after being checked by an engine?
Second thoughts: white rooks hanging but white army is much better developed and aimed at the black king which is still stuck in the center.I'm go
Conclusion: Nc7+ must be the move and that is what I will play.
Ok,how wrong was I? 🙂
Originally posted by Katastroofblack can't take the g-rook because of Nd6+, nor the a or c-pawns because leaving the a1-h8 diagonal allows Nxg7+ which looks like another killer. and because white is a piece down, this position must be from an on-going white attack.
I like experiments.
First thoughts upon looking at the position: isn't this from a famous Andersen game where he sacced both rooks?And didn't those sacs turn out to be faulty after being checked by an engine?
Second thoughts: white rooks hanging but white army is much better developed and aimed at the black king which is still stuck in the center.I'm go ...[text shortened]...
Conclusion: Nc7+ must be the move and that is what I will play.
Ok,how wrong was I? 🙂
I can't see a mate, so I guess the a-rook has to be rescued first (unless maybe white king can escape checks to h3 and black gets mated?).
Rc1 would guard the pawn which needs no guarding
Rd1 with d4 seems like it could block a1-a8 diagonal, but that wastes the f5-knight which is the reason to block the diagonal in the first place.
Re1 seems like attacking, but getting rid of e4 is just so slow...
I don't know, I can't find any real wins here. it looks like white has sacced a piece in hopes of confusion, which would fit in the olden days. but maybe it's just a draw. well not draw, but equal?
I'm sure I could lose either side though.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs it Bd6 ?
thanks Mad Rook for defending me, even though we have 'crossed swords', in the past I applaud your objectivity. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to convince those who are either interested, slightly intrigued, amused, bemused and those who are vehemently opposed is to put the two strategies to the test. so before giving the details o pbN1N1P/4PBP1/3P1Q2/PqP5/R4KR1 w kq[/fen]
please try hard, white to move, regards Robert.
If .. Qxa1+, Ke2 (King should move away from Rook to avoid any further check and the White Rook attacks Black Q. The Rook has to be taken away by Bishop or Queen)
If Queen captures Rook, thenNxg7+, Kd8. Bc7#!
If Bishop captures Rook, then e5 should work for White.
🙂
If Black Bishop captures white Bishop, then Knights come into play with a threat of white Q attacking f7.
honestly i am amazed at all the ingenuity of you guys. i think myself that i would need to do something to save my rook, and would have got scared and lost, however let me try to explain bangievs method in clear and concise way. i do not expect you to agree, but like katastroof, i like an experiment.
first we look at the squares, we always choose the squares first, our opponents weakest, i.e least defended squares and then choose the moves that suit the position. Bangiev himself states:
The aim of the B-method is to ascertain in a specific, concrete situation which squares are strategically important. The B-method works in essence as follows: the player must first look for those squares which are of strategic importance, and only then for the moves which are to help him take possession of these squares. This principle can be summed up as follows: choose the squares- choose the move. (Most chess players think in exactly the opposite manner. They first of all look for the moves, and then consider which effect their chosen moves will have on the various squares.)
so in this instance which are blacks weakest, i.e least defended squares? the dark squares. this is further compounded by the fact that whites pieces, the bishop on f4, the knights on d5 and f5 all co-operate together effectively on the dark squares. this is what we are trying to achieve, all our pieces working in harmony against a specific colour complex. so far so good.
now we ascertain which pieces defend or occupy the dark squares and try to exchange or involve them in play in order to weaken these squares further. in this instance its the bishop on c5, the queen on b2, the knight on g8 and the pawn on g7 which are defending the dark squares , we must therefore try to challenge, exchange, involve in play or remove these pieces. this helps us pick our candidate moves, which must be examined further, each in its own turn to decide the side effects.
so we can consider 18.Nxg7, 18.Nd6, 18.Bd6, 18.d4 all of which excert pressure on the dark squares.
18. Nxg7? Kf8 is bad for white
18.Nd6+ Bxd6 is also not much fun
18.d4 and Bd6 need further investigation, Bd6 looks stronger as it exerts more pressure on the dark squares, involves the c5 bishop in play which is defending the dark squares e7 and f8, which is what we are aiming for. therefore the move which meets the demands of the
position is Bd6!!
18.Bd6!! ..Bxg1 (18... Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Qb2 !)
again we go through the same process, which moves exert more pressure on the dark squares. Nxg7 is bad because of Qxg7, therefore e5 is the only move which really meets the demands of the position and fits in with our concept.
19.e5!! ..Qxa1
20.Ke2..at this point Kieseritzky resigned.
20... Na6 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+ Nxf6 23. Be7#
(20... f6 21. Nxg7+ Kf7 22. Nxf6 Bb7 (22... Kxg7 23. Ne8+ Kh6 24. Qf4🙄 23. Nd5+Kxg7 24. Qf8🙄
(20... Bb7 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qxf7 Nh6 23. Ne6+)
(20... Ba6 (In order to provide the Ke8 with flight squares d8, c8). 21. Nc7+ Kd8 22. Nxa6 (22.Qxa8 ? Qc3 23. Qxb8+ Bc8) 22... Qxa2 (22... Qc3 23. Bc7+) (22... Bb6 23. Qxa8)23. Bc7+ Ke8 24. Nb4 +-)
It is interesting to note here that all the enemy pieces which in the starting position were defending the squares in the e5-area (Bc5, Ng8, Qb2, Pg7) have been brought into the game through targeted actions and as this has happened they have lost control of the squares d6, c7, f6, g7, e7, making it possible for White to seize these squares.
hopefully you enjoyed the narrative and any comments are most welcome, i myself thank wormwood, katastroof and ram1977 for their bravery and participation, regards Robert.
😀
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso, umm... Bd6 gets TWO exclamation marks even though it lost the game??
honestly i am amazed at all the ingenuity of you guys. i think myself that i would need to do something to save my rook, and would have got scared and lost, however let me try to explain bangievs method in clear and concise way. i do not expect you to agree, but like katastroof, i like an experiment.
first we look at the squares, we always choos ...[text shortened]... thank wormwood, katastroof and ram1977 for their bravery and participation, regards Robert.
😀
yep, just checked with fritz, after Bd6 it's -4.82 for black with Qxa1+.
doesn't really convince me about bangiev.
I really have a problem with all of these mechanical rule-based approaches to chess. it's such an engineering approach, which is great when you're building up some kind of a machine. but the problem is, our brain can't process information in that way. no neural net can. -instead we associate, classify, generalize, and spot patterns from chaos.
our brain exploits massive parallellism achieving spectacular computational power with the snail pace 280km/h signal speed. our graphical processing blows any modern computer out of water even in simplest everyday activities like catching a ball thrown at us. even transforming a 2d picture to 3d is a sort of open question for computers, there's no fully working algorithmic solution to it. and the partially working solutions are computationally heavy. still, our brain reconstructs the 2d-data effortlessly to 3d, tracks a flying object through 3d, calculates staggeringly complex differential equations to operate hundreds of individual but interconnected bones/muscles/joints in a gravity field, and catches the flying ball from air just like that. in real time. -I mean, computationally speaking, that leaves supercomputers biting dust.
but for some reason, we tend to be impressed about our primitive sequential processing, which can handle 5-9 objects at a time and maybe 1 calculation per second. which is what we use when we process rule-based systems. it's slow, and the most foreign way for our brain. we need something far more flexible and fuzzy.
rant over. 🙂
Originally posted by wormwoodI've just started to run my engine on move 18, but I'm working at a disadvantage, since I have a rather old and slow PC. But I suspect this may be a difficult position for engines to see. It may require deep analysis.
so, umm... Bd6 gets TWO exclamation marks even though it lost the game??
yep, just checked with fritz, after Bd6 it's -4.82 for black with Qxa1+.
For what it's worth, here's what Wikipedia says about the position:
"18. Bd6!
With this move White offers to sacrifice both his rooks. Hübner comments that, from this position, there are actually many ways to win, and he believes there are at least three better moves than 18. Bd6: 18. d4, 18. Be3, or 18. Re1, which lead to strong positions or checkmate without needing to sacrifice so much material. The commercial version of the chess-playing computer program Junior recommends 18. Nc7+, followed by Re1. Garry Kasparov has pointed out that the world of chess would have lost one of its 'crown jewels' if the game had continued in such an unspectacular fashion. The Bd6 move is unusual, because White is willing to give up so much material."
But I do agree with you - I don't really think this one possibly cherry-picked game proves anything about the B-method, especially since the best move for move 18 seems to be unclear.
Originally posted by Mad Rookyeah, I only ran it a couple of minutes on my laptop, and these kind of situations tend to be difficult for engines. I also only glanced at the position originally, watching javelin qualification at the same time, so my own analysis is pretty shallow as well.
I've just started to run my engine on move 18, but I'm working at a disadvantage, since I have a rather old and slow PC. But I suspect this may be a difficult position for engines to see. It may require deep analysis.
For what it's worth, here's what Wikipedia says about the position:
"18. Bd6!
With this move White offers to sacrifice both his rooks ing about the B-method, especially since the best move for move 18 seems to be unclear.
but, I can't see a mate, nor a won endgame (which would be something fritz can't see), so even with the huge white pressure I can't see anything better than probably getting back a couple of pawns for the pressure.
I know, who am I to disagree with kasparov. nobody. but I just can't understand how white wins after 18.Bd6 Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Qb2 (which was fritz's suggestion if I remember it right).
well, all of this probably only means that I should study this game until I see the light. 🙂
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by wormwoodActually, Kasparov writing in 'My Great Predecessors: Part 1' states that 18.Bd6 is a dubious move that "throws away an easy win (and perhaps the win altogether)". He suggests instead 18.d4 which he analysed to a forced win. Other moves such as 18.Re1 should also win. Incidentally on move 17, White should have played d4 first and then followed up with Nd5, which would have won very easily.
yeah, I only ran it a couple of minutes on my laptop, and these kind of situations tend to be difficult for engines. I also only glanced at the position originally, watching javelin qualification at the same time, so my own analysis is pretty shallow as well.
but, I can't see a mate, nor a won endgame (which would be something fritz can't see), so even w ...[text shortened]... ll, all of this probably only means that I should study this game until I see the light. 🙂
Anyway after 18.Bd6?! Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Qb2! (found by Steinitz) the following critical position is reached:
Kasparov believes that 20.Kd2! is best.
After the further moves 20..Bxg1! 21.e5 Ba6 or 21..Bb7 Kasparov says: "White's attack in my view is sufficient only for a draw". Eg.
22.Nc7+ (22,Nxg7+ is no better) 22..Kd8 23.Qxa8 Bb6 24.Qxb8+ Bc8 25.Nd5 Ba5+ 26.Ke3 Qxc2 (or 26..Qc1+) 27.Qxa7 Qc1+ 28.Kf2 Qd2+ with perpetual check.
Originally posted by wormwoodThe fact that Bangiev chose this game as an example to show the effectiveness of his method in the tactical field ( ... he presents this game on his CD "Strategy Squares I, Tactics" as the first example) has been the subject of many discussions. It is not such a good example to show what the Bangiev method is all about. Bangiev has stated this himself, if my memory serves me well .....
doesn't really convince me about bangiev. [/b]
So please, don't dismiss the Squares Strategy because of this rather unlucky example.
Originally posted by max92Mein System by A. Nimzowitsch, Max Euwes's Judgment and Planning in Chess, Chess Master vs Chess Amateur, Amateur becomes Master, Master vs Master and Practical Chess Lessons I-VI
As a beginner what book helped you improve the most and help to understand certain aspects of chess most effectively,which one do you remember the most in your learning years.
Originally posted by ivanhoeokey dokey. it's still an interesting game though, and I hope I'll get off my lazy ass to study it properly one day. I still don't get how kasparov's d4 with Nd5 is supposed to work, but it's good to know it's in 'my great predecessors', which I've been wanting to read quite some time now... so much to do, so little time...
The fact that Bangiev chose this game as an example to show the effectiveness of his method in the tactical field ( ... he presents this game on his CD "Strategy Squares I, Tactics" as the first example) has been the subject of many discussions. It is not such a good example to show what the Bangiev method is all about. Bangiev has stated this himself, if my ...[text shortened]... ...
So please, don't dismiss the Squares Strategy because of this rather unlucky example.
Originally posted by wormwoodHere's a review by Steffen Hoffmann of Bangiev's book ( ... not the CD !) „Felderstrategie: Taktik“ ( ... German language)
okey dokey. it's still an interesting game though, and I hope I'll get off my lazy ass to study it properly one day. I still don't get how kasparov's d4 with Nd5 is supposed to work, but it's good to know it's in 'my great predecessors', which I've been wanting to read quite some time now... so much to do, so little time...
http://www.schachlinks.com/cgi-bin/admin/action-pub_rezensionen_anzeigen--news_id-2910.html