12825 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Problem ID: 0031001
Hard, very hard, no Queensac
An important note not mentioned in the analysis: if black defends with ...Rd8, then Rxd7! is extremely strong because if black takes either way Nxf6+ wins both the bishop and the queen for a knight and rook.
I went for 1. Bh6. Needless to say, that is also winning. It allows you really very little time to distinguish between so many winning lines.
Agree, Bh6 gxh6 Rxd7 is winning too.
Black isn't forced to take the bishop after Bh6 and allows black to play more defensive moves like Qe6.
I thought at Qg3 after h5, keeping threats on Bf6 and Kd7 but ssemingly there must be some good B answer
LOLOL kotomitsuki XDXDXDXDDDDDDDXD
Got the problem, but lost a point. Should not be penalized for getting the problem. I understand not getting a plus,but I should not be penalized. A survey result by chess.com agreed with me. This practice should be stopped. Why ask members a question, when you guys are not going to listen?
Your idea would inflate tactical ratings beyond any semblance of meaning. It takes hard work to improve at tactics. It is no surprise that most people would rather not do the titanic, soul-crushing amount of work it takes to improve their ratings. I encourage you to embrace the challenge, while it still exists.
Very fun problem. And well said, Ulf.
I agree with ulfhethinn. Reacted poorly to h5. Didn't expect it. My fault not the fault of the rating system that's fine as it is. 'Solved' 94s minus 4.August: White's Qg4 double-attacks black's knight and also pins black's g-pawn. Dec2015 65s +3.
I missed the simple idea of Double Attack. Once again TT has me looking for some kind of mating attack that doesn't exist. I tried Rxd7 with the idea to follow up w/ Nf6+, and after black recaptures to play Bh6 attacking the Rook with a mate threat. I missed that after Qxd7, the Queen covers the g4 square and gives black time to save the Rook on f8 and stop the threat as the Queen cannot play Qg4+.
This is not a "Remove the Defender" problem... 👎 wrong tag..
Revisit 7/11/15 Failed in the same manner.
There's a threat to remove the defender that black can't meet.Since the tag is pertinent it deserves to be up there.Whether in an alternative but key line or a key post-solution line.Unfortunately there's no tag for 'attack the defender'.But that's okay. The critical stages occur before: those stages of the process most of the tags pertain to and only describe.New comment #20 below disagrees. That's okay. Double Attack and Remove the Defender are not exclusive of each other. So the 'argument' in that comment fails. Happy tactics everyone!
The 'double attack' tag is more pertinent than any.
Double-attack in that white's Q makes a double attack on two key squares. Black cannot respond to both threats adequately; hence it is not a 'Removing the Defender' problem. If the problem had continued where black played say Rd8 or Qe6, you might have a better claim for that tag, but the problem does not traverse that direction---where capturing the bishop is the goal. That, however, is not the case.
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!