Thursday, November 15, 2018

A flaw a day. . .

The flaws sofar seem pretty trivial. Probably that triviality is preventing them from being addressed. The flip side being that it is probably possible to fix it.

White to move

3qr3/Rb1nrpk1/2p2npp/1p1p4/1P1P3B/3BPP2/2Q3PP/2R2NK1 b - - 3 1
[solution]

Two B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) pieces and a point of pressure. Smells like a duplo attack in the making. But since the chess logic is underdeveloped, I start with the wrong capture.

Chess logic should be so obvious, that you look at the consequences of the answer moves to both captures. Why isn't the obvious obvious to me? Due to a poor educated system II, I guess.

4 comments:

  1. did take me 44 sec, first counting material, then i did check for a moment if there is something with Bxg6 ( the king is a little weak, check kingsafty first ), then i was trying fint something with e7 ( Ra7 and Bh4 and Q-c4-e7 ) . Qc4 did fascinated me for a moment ( getting more pieces into play ). But then i saw that Bxf6 pulls the king to f6 and then the solution was clear

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tempo said "Chess logic should be so obvious, that you look at the consequences of the answer moves to both captures. Why isn't the obvious obvious to me?"

    Its not chesslogic. You look for the most forcing move first because otherwise the opponent may escape by an unexpected in between move so Bxf6+ is more forcing than Rxb7
    and
    1.Rxb7 Rxb7 is somehow improving the position for black, the Rook at b7 does now still protect f7 but protects Nb6 too and now the queen protects Nf6 while 1.Bxf6 pulls the king in the open
    so even without calculation or reasoning Nf6 should be better
    Its the "smell" of a good move, a good move is usually a good move in a tactical situation too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. System I [RCCM] "threw up" 1. Qxc6 first. I suspect it was because c6 is the common square connecting BOTH B.A.D. squares, based on Dr. Lasker's motif of encircling, with the derivative "idea" of "Add an attacker to a B.A.D. (i.e., "weak") square." Almost as soon as that notion popped into consciousness, System II immediately rejected 1. Qxc6 as the FIRST move. However, I've been working on trying to apply GM Rowson's concept of "Reject the MOVE BUT retain the IDEA." Or perhaps it's GM Beim's articulation of the old Soviet Chess School maxim: "If it doesn't work, but you really want it to, then it must work!" In any event, I'm working at trying to be stubbornly persistent when System I makes an immediate suggestion. Where there's smoke, there might be fire!

    System II asks a question: "Is there some (perhaps deferred) way to connect and take advantage of BOTH B.A.D. squares?"

    Bb7 has the Function of "protecting" c6 - [RCCM] says "Chop it off!" System II counters that after 1. ... Rxb7 Black now "overprotects" f6 (1:2) and thus f6 is no longer a B.A.D. square. "Verander de volgorde!" By chopping on f6 FIRST, the Black King now occupies f6 - and is a new "target" for a CHECK.

    [RCCM] shouts "AHA! I 'see' the connection between f6 and b7!"

    After 1. Bxf6+ (most forcing move) Kxf6 (target 1 is in place) 2. Rxb7 (very forcing move) Rxb7 (unprotected target 2 is in place) 3. Qxc6+ (most forcing move) "forks" the two new targets, which cannot be moved in such a way as to provide mutual protection. Black loses a piece.

    System I proposes; System II disposes.

    It's a partnership, not a competition.

    ReplyDelete