Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Tactical Lightning Combo Strikes Twice in Same Game?


  • 23 months ago · Quote · #1

    learningthemoves

    Howdy Chess Friends,

    Here's a quickie example of how you can use a sneaky little tactical combination to stack the deck of the material, the position and ultimately...the entire game in your favor.

    I was more than happy to execute this particular three move combination in the game once in a tight spot to win my opponent's queen when I needed it.

    Then, when the very same combo worked again later in the game to win my opponent's rook with just two moves this time, I knew I was "onto something" and should share this one just in case you believe you can begin to look for opportunities to use it in your own games.

    This should be particularly helpful for newer players or someone looking to break through the 1200 rating barrier by adding this tactical weapon to your middle game strategy repetoire.

    (If you're above that level, then it should only be review of something you know.)

    Just the two tactical shots I just described here were enough to lead to the "mate in 2" that ended the game for me.

    1st Combo: Check out moves 14,15 and 16.

    2nd Combo: Check out moves 27 and 28.

    If this is a tactic you haven't used yet and you'd like to begin to use it in your own games, It may be a good idea to play through the two combos over and over until you're confident you know them well enough to use them in your own games.

    Again, I don't expect anyone over the 1200 rating barrier to find this useful for anything but review, but I do hope it helps the newer player looking to improve.

    Enjoy!

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #2

    orangeishblue

    I think you are confusing blundering with tactics.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #3

    learningthemoves

    orangeishblue wrote:

    I think you are confusing blundering with tactics.

    Nope. Both were sacrificial exchanges that gives black great compensation.

    See, if you notice, if black didn't use the sac to check white's king, then white would simply win the exchanges.

    But the tactic of setting up the double attacks paid off for black because of the use of the check to keep the initiative needed to win the queen and later, the rook.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #4

    tarikhk

    black has NO compensation after 9....Nxe5. You sac a piece and what have you achieved by doing so? The king is in safe and sound. White has better development. Black hasn't castled yet. That queen and bishop adds pressure and you have the c-file, but it is easily defended and nowhere near enough compensation. You should have been destroyed. Lucky for you 15.Qxd5 was played, somehow giving you the impression that you are channeling Tal by doing a simple discovery attack.

    9...Ng4 needed to be played, and black's fine, maybe even equal.

    You play terrible chess, call it amazing, then get defensive when people call you out on your bs.

    I'm sure you're a troll. You have to be.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #5

    fzweb

    Agreed, black is losing after 11.Nf3. After O-O-O, Nb5, Qd7, white should have played Nxd6+ Qxd6, Qd4 attacking a7 and intending Bf4, close to winning for white (although Nxa7+ is also fine).

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #6

    learningthemoves

    tarikhk wrote:

    black has NO compensation after 9....Nxe5. You sac a piece and what have you achieved by doing so? The king is in safe and sound. White has better development. Black hasn't castled yet. That queen and bishop adds pressure and you have the c-file, but it is easily defended and nowhere near enough compensation. You should have been destroyed. Lucky for you 15.Qxd5 was played, somehow giving you the impression that you are channeling Tal by doing a simple discovery attack.

    9...Ng4 needed to be played, and black's fine, maybe even equal.

    You play terrible chess, call it amazing, then get defensive when people call you out on your bs.

    I'm sure you're a troll. You have to be.

    No, you're the troll. I never said it was amazing or channeling Tal.

    That was just you being afraid I was thinking that.

    Well, don't you worry about what I think of myself. I'll deal with that on my own terms.

    Yeah, when you break down the combination at its root it is quite simple which is why I provided it as value to those with a lower rating.

    I don't "have to be" anything.

    I am who I am. And certainly won't be brought under the power of another.

    "You should have been destroyed"...

    Yeah. Probably even "coulda and woulda" too.

    Except that one pesky dog named Scooby Reality and his friends.

    I think it's truly pathetic the simpletons who are so afraid that someone will think more highly than themselves than they ought that they have to come in here and drag their menstral rags into someone's showcase thread.

    None of your theories were played.

    Only the moves that were played, were played.

    So I guess all that's left is for your face to turn red and have smoke come out of your ears because I won.

    Man, you'd think you were my opponent from all your vitriol which happens to be the only bs between the two of us.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #7

    orangeishblue

    This was no sacriicial exchange it was simply a one move blunder.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #8

    learningthemoves

    orangeishblue wrote:

    This was no sacriicial exchange it was simply a one move blunder.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. Here's why:

    To start the discover attack, I had to sacrifice the bishop with check...The tempo afforded me the luxury of winning the queen as a result of moving the piece I sacrificed.

    So I sacrificed the bishop and in exchange won the queen at the end of the series of the 3 moves.

    Maybe I should have annotated move by move, but I thought it was fairly obvious. I forget sometimes it may be harder for someone else to know what's going on just by watching the moves unfold.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #10

    Vimitsu

    learningthemoves wrote:
    tarikhk wrote:

    black has NO compensation after 9....Nxe5. You sac a piece and what have you achieved by doing so? The king is in safe and sound. White has better development. Black hasn't castled yet. That queen and bishop adds pressure and you have the c-file, but it is easily defended and nowhere near enough compensation. You should have been destroyed. Lucky for you 15.Qxd5 was played, somehow giving you the impression that you are channeling Tal by doing a simple discovery attack.

    9...Ng4 needed to be played, and black's fine, maybe even equal.

    You play terrible chess, call it amazing, then get defensive when people call you out on your bs.

    I'm sure you're a troll. You have to be.

    None of your theories were played.

    Only the moves that were played, were played.

    So I guess all that's left is for your face to turn red and have smoke come out of your ears because I won.

    We praise chess games for their elegance, their incredibly sound calculations. That is why we examine variations; if we only looked at the actual moves, we would study games like this:

    So study sound sacrifices, and those in your own games will be sound.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #11

    waffllemaster

    learningthemoves wrote:
    orangeishblue wrote:

    I think you are confusing blundering with tactics.

    Nope. Both were sacrificial exchanges that gives black great compensation.

    See, if you notice, if black didn't use the sac to check white's king, then white would simply win the exchanges.

    But the tactic of setting up the double attacks paid off for black because of the use of the check to keep the initiative needed to win the queen and later, the rook.

    So you're claiming that you sacrificed a piece on move 9, to win his queen on move 15 after an unforced error?

    And then you sacrificed a rook on move 21 (your opponent knows how to use a discovered attack too huh?) knowing that you'd win it back 6 moves later, again due to an unforced error?

    This kind of "logic" is why you're catching flack from people.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #12

    learningthemoves

    waffllemaster wrote:
    learningthemoves wrote:
    orangeishblue wrote:

    I think you are confusing blundering with tactics.

    Nope. Both were sacrificial exchanges that gives black great compensation.

    See, if you notice, if black didn't use the sac to check white's king, then white would simply win the exchanges.

    But the tactic of setting up the double attacks paid off for black because of the use of the check to keep the initiative needed to win the queen and later, the rook.

    So you're claiming that you sacrificed a piece on move 9, to win his queen on move 15 after an unforced error?

    And then you sacrificed a rook on move 21 (your opponent knows how to use a discovered attack too huh?) knowing that you'd win it back 6 moves later, again due to an unforced error?

    This kind of "logic" is why you're catching flack from people.

    Oh, well then that shows where the flackers completely missed it.

    I was well aware of the two blunders I had made with allowing the fork and the other take.

    And the mistakes had absolutely nothing to do with the 2 tactics which were supposed to be made available for those with ratings under 1200ish so they could see how that tactic can help pull them out of a tough spot.

    It wasn't created for those higher rated. And I even pre-emptively had stated this isn't for those higher rated and you'll already know it.

    I did that just to make sure no one who wanted to come in and talk about mistakes made in the entire game had any leg to stand on,

    because the relevant topic was only the tactic. And it was only shared for those who could find it useful. And yes, believe it or not, there are those who haven't learned that yet and who can understand it easier from someone's game closer to their level.

    The ones who focused on mistakes or "trying to bring me down a notch" or whatever agenda they thought they had just  didn't follow directions.

    I instructed those who hadn't learned the tactic yet to view only the moves where the tactics were displayed.

    That was the entire point.

    And did I know that the high brows would come out and be like, "well you made a mistake, blah, blah, blah"

    Of course.

    That's not to say I didn't have high hopes they'd be smarter than that and that they'd be able to read and follow the simple directions, but I knew the temptation to gravitate toward something negative or fault-finding would be too much for them to resist as usual.

    Oh no! Another crab thinks he's going to climb out of this bucket or at least is having a good time -- Quick! Someone grab his leg and pull him back down...That ought to wipe the smile off his face.

    Good gracious folks. Some need to get a life. I pay my monthly membership for the right to use the resources.

    If I want to create a thread and showcase a recent game I played purely because I won...then that's what I'll do.

    But I'm not getting paid to babysit.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #13

    waffllemaster

    I must confess I didn't read your first post at all, it was long and I was lazy :p  I just looked at the game and skimmed the comments.  I see now you clearly say you'd like to illustrate this tactic (that happened twice!) for others who may not be aware of it.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #14

    learningthemoves

    pfren wrote:

    It's rather funny seeing white blundering a ton of material (even the queen) and still having a clear advantage after 30...g4?

    Yeah. I thought so too. I remember thinking...how many more mistakes can I make and still win...this is crazy...poor fella.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #15

    tintillo

    Hi,

    sure i am.
    kept trying those home remedies.

    HAHA

    medicine is the new car

    please i ATE all the ice-cream now i am trying to get a new life from now ON i will be a SUPERHERO



  • 22 months ago · Quote · #16

    learningthemoves

    _yiquan_ wrote:

    it's the way you phrased things, the tone of what you wrote. it gives false impressions. I don't think you quite realize how you are coming across there.

    maybe I can help.

    if you don't wan't high rated players picking apart your enthusiast games, you should write something along the lines of:

    "here is an example of [such and such tactical theme] ( i.e. discovered attack). If you are a beginner, perhaps seeing this tactical theme at work within an actual game will help you to recognize and incorporate it into your own games blah blah blah etc etc."

    If you do this in the future, I promise you will no longer have any problems in this regard.

    I thought so too! Because if you read the first post, you'll see that's exactly what I said.

    I said the point of this demonstration is to show beginners (under 1200ish) how they can use this tactic to win more games.

    I also said the reason I posted this particular blitz game is because there are 2 examples of the particular combination.

    And yes, it is a combination because pieces had to be sacrificed in the sequence of moves leading to the gain of both the queen and the rook.

    It's not just a discover attack because there is a sacrifice that must be calculated and is part of the sequence of moves in the combination that must be done in order for it to be successful.

    So I did it in the past and there were still people who thought they were being clever by crapping on my thread with their passive agressive aspergers.

    It's not this one...there are more where it was far worse.

    The funny thing is they are 100% incorrect and I usually preemptively disqualify any leg they hoped to have stood on before they even find my content.

    But, the messages and support from the beginners who have thanked me and said their rating, playing strength and understanding has increased makes it all worthwhile.

    As they say, "No good deed goes unpunished."

    And if you want to avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing and be nothing. :-)

    When they come out of the woodwork and say stuff like, "I hope you don't think you're brilliant" and stuff like that, it's only the confirmation I'm on the right track.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #17

    learningthemoves

    _yiquan_ wrote:

    I think people may disagree with you in terms of it being a combination, or perhaps a valid combination. I have only casually breezed through it, but it seems like a simple example of a single tactical theme.

    generally speaking, people usually take issue with enthusiasts who seem to have an absurdly inflated sense of their chess playing ability. sometimes they may, perhaps, mistakenly perceive this in what you post as a result of a certain tone and/or phrasing.

    Yes, thanks. You're exactly right on both counts. It is a simple example of a tactical theme that happened twice in the same game just as I had stated. 

    The thing is, I'm not at a loss trying to understand their reactions. I'm used to it by now. They were hoping someone would ask for better moves so they can be the big shot and feel good about helping someone.

    Well, that's not me and yet I understand their motives. Yet I don't go searching through their content and calling them out...although I might do that one day just for fun.

    And Right. I'm aware of their psychological inadequacies which cause them to fear someone's confidence may not be justified and I understand their position on disagreeing that the combination was a combination or valid.

    But the facts are quite clear that it is indeed a combination. You can't get any more forcing than a check. The opponent had no choice but to get his king out of check. In doing so, the sacrifice in combination with the discover attack won the queen.

    I'm not going to go walking with my head down or act like I don't know something just because someone else's insecurity thinks they're less of a chess player if I don't play small and grovel or something.

    I'm too old for those kind of games and realize all the nuances of it, but just refuse to participate.

    I'm not running for some political office and I'm not interested in oiling all the right hinges or "paying dues" or any of that hogwash.

    Those who said the combination wasn't a combination just revealed their ignorance. That's all. 

    They need to focus more on how their tone comes across if anyone does. I posted my content as providing value to those who were looking for it.

    If it didn't apply to them (they'd know it if they read the post instead of jumping to false conclusions) then they didn't have to participate.

    Instead, they decided to take a shot at me and revealed themselves to be nothing more than little punks. But I don't have time to make up for what home training they didn't get as youths. They certainly are in no position whatsoever to criticize me although they somehow falsely anointed themselves to that position. Well, they're fired. They just haven't realized it yet. 


Back to Top

Post your reply: