The fact that White has Qxf6+ suggests that Black's moves have to all be checks, and this makes fairly easy to solve (Black's 3rd move being the tricky one). Can you remember how long it took you to see it OTB Greenpawn, and how long you checked for before playing the combination?
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20003
Originally posted by Data FlyThat's something I did see however, but I always ignore counterthreats in puzzles, because you know there is a winning attack.
The scary thing is that I didn't even see that White had fxg8=Q! The white pawn on f7 is so incongruous that my brain refused to register it.
Hi data Fly,
Actually if I recall I did think long at all to play the winning combo.
I had seen all kinds of ideas a few moves before the winning position arose.
Back here:
I realised this is lost so played 21...e6 to get the Bishop onto c6 and bring things to a head.
Once there I was looking for and seeing all the tricks and traps on my opponents time.
When the mate appeared I had it double-checked before he made his move.
I Did not think I'd get to play it.
Yes it was a gamble, but I'm lost if I try to hang on - the secret is swindling wins
is knowing when to go for it and admit to yourself all is lost (quite easy for me -
as I'm usually lost from move 3.)
Actually I did not physically play Bxg2+ to kick off the combo.
I picked up the Bishop and was moving it towards g2 when it slipped out of my hand,
bounced off the board into my opponents lap. He caught it.
"Sorry, can you put that on g2."
So my opponent played Bxg2+ for me!
Here is the full game.
Originally posted by greenpawn34That reminds me of when I played a blind player and had to play his moves as he told me them. The game was a dull draw (I blame his guide dog which kept nuzzling my foot under the table) but it occurred to me at the time how psychologically crushing it would be if he found a brilliant piece sac and I had to play his winning move myself.
"Sorry, can you put that on g2."
It's an interesting question about when is the right time to abandon sensible chess and go for cheapos. You often only get one chance. All too often you (well, me) have a difficult position and have a chance to sac a pawn to free your game a bit, but decide not to. Then a few moves later your position has deteriorated and you keep thinking back to the position before and wishing you had gone for it. Eventually you get to a horrible ending and get ground down without once giving your opponent any problems to solve. I hate those games. It's better to burn out than to fade away (just ask Kurt Cobain).
Hi Data Fly
Having seen and heard myself described as a 'swindler' I might be qualified to answer.
My game plan is 99% of the time is always the same. Point things at the King.
This advice about improving the position of your worse piece is fine.
I look for finding a piece that is not pointing towards the King.
In the above game here.
I must have decided that the g6 Bishop was not playing it's part in King hunting.
So moved it from g6 to c6 from where it sacked itself.
In years to come when the chess world finally understand me and how
chess should be played this will hailed as a brilliant idea!
Point things towards the King and have confidence in yourself that you will see the
shot if and when it arrives. and there you go. You are now ready to get outplayed but
have some kick back up your sleeve if they botch it up.
Link that to your own deep ingrained fear of the endgame and the fact players are apt
to defend themselves poorly and miss threats against themselves especially when in
an overwhelming position. It cannot fail......sometimes.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAlso, Greenpawn has mentioned several times the common practice in OTB games of allowing your opponent to checkmate you as a mark of respect for their clever combination. An example of me doing it can be found here: Thread 102963. I could have resigned after 30. Bb6+, but I thought my opponent deserved to checkmate me.
If you look at the notes it says "My opponent resigned here." GP just put the end of the combination in so we could see it.