From the starting position, I thought you were going to show a Bxh7+ sac. Doesn't that work?
Accusing Combination?
Sort:
nice combo!
Jul 17, 2009
0
#4
Scarblac wrote:
From the starting position, I thought you were going to show a Bxh7+ sac. Doesn't that work?
i saw that but i didn't analyze it yet. it probably does, though. good tactical awareness on ur part:)
Jul 17, 2009
0
#5
When somebody labels somebody a 1300 or 1400-player, do they have any clue if the player has been at the same rating for the last year/years/decade?
One's true rating approaches one's actual playing strength only after a LOT of games. There are two brothers in our local club whose dad will rarely let them play tourneys, so they are rated 1300ish (probably similar to you) and damned if I can even come close to matching them tactically. One of them gave a National Master a nightmarish time at a tournament not so long ago.
The Bxh7 sacrifice might be unsound if only because there isn't a dark-square Bishop to control the g5 square - the knight will be a lot less stable on this square. Plus, no Rook on h1 to bring into the attack after h2-h4-h5.
Good tactical show. I know that you certainly can't underestimate a 1300-1400 in Live Chess to NOT spot an attack like that, their real skill levels vary widely.
Jul 17, 2009
0
#7
I think you played really nice tactics in this game and black was foolish to leave himself open to such but I think this post is more about showing your game off than what black said to you afterward! 
Thanks for letting us see.
Okay, here's what an engine has to say about this.
1. Bxf7+ is better. After Ng5, Black seems to defend with 1... f5.
1... g6 is quite bad.
2. Rf3 gives time for f5 which Rybka still says works better.
2... e5 is bad again, giving back the advantage plus more.
3. Ne4 Qe7 4. Nf6+ is best. Kh8 is worse; Kg7 works better than this.
5. Qe1 is best. ... exd4 is just awful.
6. Qh4 h5 7. Qg5 best. The engine likes Qxf6 a bit better than Kg7 but Black is hopeless by now anyway.
8. Rxc6! is absolutely best. Black seems to get into a forced mate. Nothing is much better than bxc6...
9. Nxh5 Kh7 best. The engine chose 10. Qxe7 first but rates Bxg6+ equally good. fxg6 Qxe7+ best.
Overall, it looks like your opponent just didn't defend properly. He could have been about equal (according to the engine!) if he played f5 on one of those first two moves. Although from move 3 onwards, all of White's moves were first pick. This doesn't imply cheating, it just means that White was able to spot Black's defensive flaws pretty well, which weren't too difficult to spot once the combination began (but I didn't see Rxc6!).
Good game then, you're a pretty darn good attacker. I'd better sharpen up after missing quite a few of those moves.
nice, i didnt see rxc6 coming and i think its a game winning move. to me thats a !!, it maybe a "simple" move to some folk but to a slow positional player like myself i found it stunning and wouldve resigned on the spot. good work, nice game, dont worry about the haters all they know to do is hate.
To me right away I saw the classic bxh7 instantly. And there was nothing like "oh my gosh I can't believe that move" (including the rook move). Like you said just removing the defender (seeing just two moves ahead for that tactic...not a big deal).
I say this because there was no reason for him to accuse you of anything. When I play fritz and he says "Mate in 16"...that is just annoying. This was not that.
na bxh7 shouldn't work
Great combination! As a ~1300 in online, I could never imagine beating someone rated above 1450! Great game!
G
The rook "sacrifice" is not what I would call brilliant. Neither is 9. Nxh5+.
They are pretty easy to spot.
KriptikMike wrote:
The rook "sacrifice" is not what I would call brilliant. Neither is 9. Nxh5+.
They are pretty easy to spot.
Not all of us are rated 2000. The OP is rated <1400 in correspondence. To find this in live chess is even better. I admire it- I would not have seen such moves. (Well, certainly not the rook sacrifice!)
As many of my friends know, I do not care about points in LiveChess. What does that mean? For example, if I need to go somewhere in the middle of a game, I'll simply resign, sometimes losing dozens of points. Or if I don't like how an opening went, I'll just resign. So even though I have a rating of 1326, I beat players in the 1500-1700 realm regularly. However, one such game like this struck me as particularly odd. I was playing a man rated 1736 and had come to this position:
Why am I accused of cheating just because my rating is low? Why do people always take things at face value? Is it not possible that a 1300 can defeat a 1700? Needless to say, I feel accusing someone of cheating is a serious thing, and should not be said unless you have real grounds for the accusation.