I wanted a place to post chess stuff. So I am starting this thread. I went to a very young kids tournament. I am walking around looking at the games. They are amazing. One move white may be +/- (winning advantage white) the next it could be =+ (black slight advantage) and the next -/+ (black has a winning advantage.) There was this little girl, maybe eight years old, if she weighs a feather over fifty pounds is a miracle. The ratio of boys to girls was maybe 4:1 favoring boys. Anyway, I am strolling the isles, assessing positions, calculating variations, assigning +/-, =, +=, etc to each. But I stop at this little girls table. Her position is one I might have achieved. She is playing logically, sound positional chess, with a minefield of possibilities for her opponent to step on. I watch as she squeezes her opponent like a boa constrictor, and now, all she has to do is, go for the throat and annihilate her opponent in a sequence of moves that forces a win. Instead she plays a passive move, a horribly weakning move, my heart drops. Her opponent jumps all over her, she is under extreme duress now, and eventually succumbs to a combination that leaves her defenseless. I can see tears out of the corner of her eyes (boy I have been there) she doesn't say a word. She tips her king over, extends her hand in resignation, tears now visibly flowing from her eyes. I follow her to her parents (after she comes out of the bathroom so that no one can see her cry), make a couple of suggestions and show her how she might have proceeded logically from the position to gain the full point. She listens attentively, can follow the suggestions in her head. I told her one more thing, when she has an advantage, she must convert that advantage in some way. In this particular position, I told her she needed to turn into a dragon and go for her opponents throat and obliterate him. She shakes her head yes. I watch her next game. She is again playing beautiful positional chess. Develop, gain central influence, put the king in safety, sieze open lines, parry tactical threats. She has reached a position where she is clearly better. She goes on to win this game in a forceful style. I show her a forced win with a queen sacrifice that would have won by force in mate in seven, but that is way to much to ask for. Well done.
In these puzzles, don't post the answer, be satisfied with knowing that solution so that others may enjoy themselves. Also, no using a computer in any of these puzzles White to move and check mate in two moves. You must give check mate in two. If you see a way in ten or three etc, that is not the puzzle.
Bravo! âWe cannot resist the fascination of sacrifice, since a passion for sacrifice is part of a Chessplayer's natureâ Rudolf Spielman
If you want to post your own puzzles or any position, here is a place to do it http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php Set up a position, Click "Make Diagram" then save it as an image.
Ever see all the openings there are? After what move does a classic opening become a variation? Or just past the opening?
Yeah, it is quite expansive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_openings Fischer complained late in his life that chess had become a memorization exercise, and that even a relatively inexperienced player could upend a strong grandmaster simply by analyzing openings endlessly. That is why he proposed Fischer-random where the pieces on the back row are shuffled into one of several possible arrangements, thereby moving the fight back into creativity over the board as opposed to computer aided preparation. As far as your second question, chess "theory" is based on games by top players. When a move becomes popular and is shown to be sound, it is often given a name.
Ok, we go from a relatively simple chess puzzle, to one that is close to impossible. You are welcome to use a computer. You will know when it has an answer when it's evaluation function gives 0.00 for the position More clues are given here: http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/christmas2009/chr09-08.htm White to play and draw:
You mean to say he proposed to alter the opening arrangement of pieces? Of course theres a finite number of arrangements the back row can be shuffled into too which just brings you full circle to that aspect of the reinvented game becoming as rote as Fischers proposal of openings having become ...for super computers. If this inexperienced player can upend the grandmaster than its only because the inexperienced players, esp. a studied inexperienced player, which is a bit of a contradiction, game was superior to the grandmasters. You can't go around saying you were upended for very long. I wouldn't jump too quickly at a conclusion regarding the merits or not of the games openings being too well understood. Does it foul the games creativity? That presupposes what the game is meant to be, and who but Fischer would have the hubris to propose to be that arbiter.