nice
When a winning move turns out to be a doomsday move
Sort:
Mar 14, 2017
0
#3
Deep analysis is hard to achieve in blitz settings. But it is nice to see how shallow tactics might fail due to a longer term positional advantage which give rise to a deeper tactic.
At the beginner level, players should be able to see relatively simple tactics such as the bishop discovery 23...Bc5+ in the above game leading to a queen capture 24...Rxd2 (assuming no immediate checkmate or counterplay by their opponents).
At the intermediate level, players are expected to have some degree of tactical vision in a game, which in this case would mean the bishop discovery 23...Bc5+ followed by first playing the sacrifice 24...Qxf1+ before capturing the d2 queen (to avoid a potential checkmate 25. Rf8# if the queen is captured on move 24) and win material.
At the more advanced level, however, players are expected to be already aware of these potential tactical ideas by their opponents and subsequently plan on how to evade such unpleasant tactics or even come up with counter-tactics such as the one shown in the puzzle above.
Looking back at this post, I now realise how a seemingly positional game on move 23 allows for complex ideas and may potentially turn into a battle of tactical warfare. If I were to play this game again, I would probably see Black's deceptively winning combination and fall for 23...Bc5+?? 24. bxc5 Qxf1+? 25. Rxf1 +-.
The tactics that franklin showed is a good one. Racing with his pawn when he is an exchange down. The tactics that the white applied is usually done by desperate people. I know because a lot seem to push the pawns when losing. Franklin would not have likely missed if you had managed to win an exchange notwithstanding your confusion with move order to have an exchange up.
Nice tactical sequence, but I guess that most strong players would not bother calculating this, since the simple 23.Qe2 kills any Black counterplay and leaves white with a completely winning position.
The other way is fun too. You think you blundered and drop something, it turns out to be poison. Best example I ever saw, an IM friend of mine and published chess author dropped his queen for a two bishops and a pawn . . . and the resulting position was a shocking complete positional bind. He pretended he offered the material on purpose and the game was published in our state's chess magazine. Wish I could find that one...
29. KxRh3?? 29. c7 1-0
15. g3 hmmm 15. f4
17. Be2 hmmm 17. f3
21. ... Bxb4, you never know the deflection might work.
22. ... Bxb4 the piece is attacked and I sure am not putting an undefended rook behind it.
24. Qg2 without knowing the time this looks to be the worst of Qc2 / Qe2 / Qg2
@Optimissed #14 is this based on the #1 game? If so it is 17. ... f5 and black is bust.
@pfren is calling it with 23. Qe2, certainly at 24. ( #13 ) I can see that move.
What is your line 23. ... Bc5+ (over ... h6) you do that and white plays 24. b4xBc5 RxQ 25. Rf8# due to 23. Raf1 pinning the black rook to the back rank.
Do I need to go and lay down ??
We will focus on the game starting from move 23.
On move 22, Black played Rd8 intending 23...Bc5+ followed by 24...Rxd2. White played 23. Raf1! in response to Black's move, threatening a potential mate threat with 25. Rf8#. The psychological section started here. I told my opponent that I loved the d2 queen, and in response, he said 'Oh no blunder', clearly knowing this trap and trying to persuade me into thinking that he had made a blunder. After looking at the position, I determined that 23...Qxf1+ is not a solution, as the reply 24. Kxf1 meant that 24...Bc5 is no longer a check. So I went on to play 23...h6.
A few moves later, I was still not convinced by this position (I kept looking back at this particular position while I was still playing the game), and only then did it occur to me that changing the move order would have changed the game for Black, because 23...Bc5+ is followed by 24...Qxf1+ and 25...Rxd2, and at this point of time my opponent agreed, telling me that he also missed this response by Black. We did not think of this move order, but only the other move order, and thus we never found this idea, and it was a burden to Black as Black is the player who must come up with the move to allow this combination to occur. I was psychologically affected by this as I had missed this combination for Black by simply swapping the move order (and I went on to lose the game subsequently due to this psychological impact). The White queen cannot participate constructively in the attack, and the net outcome of Black's two rooks versus White's rook and bishop should be an advantage for Black.
Or is it? Why, then, is the move awarded an exclamation mark instead of a question mark? After the game, to my horror, I was shocked to find that this seemingly good combination by Black is thwarted by a counter-combination by White. EDIT: Franklin21 was the first to notice this combination, I would like to take the opportunity to thank him for sharing this with me.
The following will illustrate why the seemingly winning move, or rather combination, is actually a blunder.
From this I have learned two things. One, move orders in a game often matter. Two, a seemingly winning position may not be actually as winning as it appears to be, so we must calculate best moves and any counterplay thoroughly.