Logical patterns
The following 3 diagrams share the same logical pattern. All 3 positions are larded with supportive one-movers. Let those not distract you. Logical patterns concern the whole combination. Albeit that the one-movers might steer the combination in a complete different direction. Let that not distract you.
USCF tactic 9
 |
| Diagram 1. Black to move |
r1bR1Nk1/1p3pp1/2p2n1p/p7/Pq2PP2/2N4P/1PP3BK/1R6 b - - 0 1
 |
| Diagram 2. Black to move |
3r1rk1/pp3ppp/4b3/3n4/1PR2B2/P6P/4BPP1/5RK1 b - - 0 1
Banusz, T. vs. Timofeev, Arty
 |
| Diagram 3. Black to move |
2r2r2/p6k/1p2p2p/3b4/1P1b4/3NB1RP/PP4P1/2R3K1 b - - 0 1
Dijkhuis, Tycho vs. Ris, Robert
UPDATE
 |
| Diagram 4. Black to move |
2k1r3/ppp2R2/4r1p1/6b1/3p1N2/8/PPP2PP1/2KR4 b - - 0 22
Vachier-Lagrave, M. vs. Van Foreest, J., La-Roche-Yon Blitz 2019
Notice how especially rooks in the middlegame are vulnerable for this type of combination. They have not enough space available to escape, and have a high value.
The salient cues are closely related to logic and not so much by geometrical patterns.
UPDATE diagram 4 added.
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember 2 other problems that apply the same logical pattern. Meaning that I can find 5 examples of a random logical pattern (USCF problem 9) in my problem set 0f 900. Doing some caveman math this means that if my average logical pattern density = 5, then my problem set of 900 might well contain about 900/5= 180 different logical patterns. Which seems quite plausible to me.
ReplyDeleteI always try to get a rough idea what we are talking about when it comes to the amount of work involved.
It took a lot of corrections and cajoling, but I finally coaxed Copilot to provide this summary of the common pattern in these three positions:
ReplyDeleteCommon logical pattern across all three positions:
Across Positions 1, 2, and 3, the shared motif is now very sharp:
A White rook is the key defender of a nearby minor piece.
That minor piece is either:
Pinned (Position 3), or Dependent on the rook’s line of defense (Positions 1 and 2).
Black’s plan is to:
Disrupt the rook’s defensive tie (by blocking, forcing it to move, or removing other defenders), and
Then use overload, double attack, or an in‑between check to:
Win the defended minor (Positions 2 and 3), or Win the rook itself (Position 1).
In all three:
The rook’s role as a constrained defender is the tactical fulcrum. Once Black breaks or exploits that constraint—often with an intermediate check like …Nxe2+ or …Bxe3+—material falls.
It didn't explicitly address the limited mobility of the rook as the constraint on the defender but it got "close enough" to make this a pattern to be trained.
De-materialization of the logical pattern takes it to a more abstract level that is independent of piece type and location on the board, thereby increasing the number of potential situations where it is applicable.
ReplyDeleteThere is a line-moving defender, perhaps with restricted safe movement along its line of defense (a line of attack used defensively). Any defensive constraint reduces the mobility of the defending piece. By definition, this is a potentially exploitable weakness.
If a defender is recognized, search for one of these possibilities:
Attack the defender directly with intent to capture it.
Overload the defender by adding another function.
Cut the line of defense by interposition between defender and defended pieces.
Divert the defender away from the line of defense.
If the defender has a limited space within which to move, restrict that space.
Exploit any available Zwischenzug or Zwischenshach moves.
Understanding is the very basis of the Trick. That's why logical thinking should guide you through the process. It is a matter of thorough absorption of the logic.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the caveman there about 180 logical scenarios in a problem set of 900.
How many one-movers is not clear yet. I count:
* diagram 1 = 3
* diagram 2 = 6
* diagram 3 = 3
* diagram 4 = 3
Say 4 per diagram at average.
180 x 4 = 720 in a problem set of 900.
720 one-movers. In how many categories?
Sorry about going back in time to comment. I thought it best to put another example of a “constrained defender” with the other examples in this post.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 8/3b2kp/4p1p1/pr1n4/N1N4P/1P4P1/1K3P2/3R4 w - - 1 40
I commented about this position on 12 JUN 2016. Dr. Lasker uses it as an example of a “combination” with no explanatory details, giving this comment:
4.—White makes a combination by which he gains an important Pawn.
1. Nc3 Rc5
2. Ne4 Rb5
3. Ned6 Rc5
4. Nb7 Rb5
5. Nb7xa5
I originally used the term "redeployment maneuver" to describe that sequence of moves. After 10 years of advanced training (from this blog), specifically this blog post, I’ve expanded my viewpoint of what needs to be seen in positions of this type in order to formulate a logical sequence.
What are the weaknesses?
An obvious surface-level clue is that the a5-square is B.A.D. [1:1]. A second clue is that the Black rook has a restricted range (constrained to 2 squares: b5,c5) from which it can maintain the defense of BPa5. A third clue is that the BNd5 is pinned against the BBd7, and has no square to which it can retreat and create a direct defense of the BBd7. If it moves, White can capture BBd7 WITH CHECK, gaining a tempo. Combining all these factors (in Lasker’s sense of a “combination”), what does that indicate should be done?
Attack the weakness again!
What’s available to White to add to the attack on a5? The king and rook can’t attack a5 directly, so it will have to be the WNa4. How can White get the knight to where it can attack a5? By a roundabout route, forcing Black to shuffle back and forth between the only two direct defensive squares. After that cogitation, it should be fairly easy to “SEE” the maneuver Nc3-Ne4-Nd6-Nb7-Nb7xa5.
As an aside, I gave this position to GM Stockfish. His principle variation starts with 40. Nc3 and then determines that it’s best to just abandon the a5-pawn immediately in favor of activating the remaining pieces. Anybody want to try to “SEE” 26 moves (52 ply) into the future?!?
D50 +2.19 40.Nc3 Rb7 41.Nxa5 Nxc3 42.Kxc3 Rc7+ 43.Kb4 Kh6 44.Nc4 Bc6 45.Rd6 Bd5 46.Rb6 Kg7 47.Ne3 Bc6 48.Kc5 Bh1+ 49.Kd6 Ra7 50.Rb4 Ra2 51.Rf4 Ra6+ 52.Ke5 Rb6 53.b4 h6 54.Rc4 g5 55.hxg5 hxg5 56.Kd4 Kg6 57.Kc5 Rc6+ 58.Kb5 Rd6 59.Rc5 Rd8 60.Re5 Kf6 61.Ng4+ Kg6 62.Rxe6+ Kf5 63.Re1 Ba8 64.Ne3+ Ke4 65.Rd1 Rb8+ 66.Kc4 Rg8
GAME
[Event "New York"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1924.03.25"]
[EventDate "1924.03.16"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Black "Fred Dewhirst Yates"]
[ECO "A48"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "153"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 O-O 6. h3 c5
7. dxc5 Qa5 8. Nd2 Qxc5 9. Nb3 Qb6 10. Be5 e6 11. Nb5 Ne8
12. Bxg7 Nxg7 13. h4 a6 14. Nc3 Nc6 15. Bd3 f5 16. Qd2 Ne5
17. Be2 Nc4 18. Bxc4 dxc4 19. Qd4 Qc7 20. Qc5 Qxc5 21. Nxc5 b6
22. N5a4 Rb8 23. O-O-O b5 24. Nc5 Rb6 25. a4 Nh5 26. b3 cxb3
27. cxb3 bxa4 28. N3xa4 Rc6 29. Kb2 Nf6 30. Rd2 a5 31. Rhd1
Nd5 32. g3 Rf7 33. Nd3 Rb7 34. Ne5 Rcc7 35. Rd4 Kg7 36. e4
fxe4 37. Rxe4 Rb5 38. Rc4 Rxc4 39. Nxc4 Bd7 40. Nc3 Rc5
41. Ne4 Rb5 42. Ned6 Rc5 43. Nb7 Rc7 44. Nbxa5 Bb5 45. Nd6 Bd7
46. Nac4 Ra7 47. Ne4 h6 48. f4 Be8 49. Ne5 Ra8 50. Rc1 Bf7
51. Rc6 Bg8 52. Nc5 Re8 53. Ra6 Re7 54. Ka3 Bf7 55. b4 Nc7
56. Rc6 Nb5+ 57. Kb2 Nd4 58. Ra6 Be8 59. g4 Kf6 60. Ne4+ Kg7
61. Nd6 Bb5 62. Ra5 Bf1 63. Ra8 g5 64. fxg5 hxg5 65. hxg5 Bg2
66. Re8 Rc7 67. Rd8 Nc6 68. Ne8+ Kf8 69. Nxc7+ Nxd8 70. Kc3
Bb7 71. Kd4 Bc8 72. g6 Nb7 73. Ne8 Nd8 74. b5 Kg8 75. g5 Kf8
76. g7+ Kg8 77. g6 1-0
Once you start to see the analogy, you see them everywhere. The final solution to the transfer problem with which we struggled so much.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of the constrained defender motif.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 6k1/5p1p/p4Bp1/2p5/8/1PK1NP1P/P2rrbR1/R7 b - - 1 29
Black’s 29th move was 29.… Bx(N)e3.
White did not realize his good fortune after 30. Rxe2 Rxe2 and ended up losing the game by time forfeiture.
You can’t play what you don’t SEE!
[Event "rated rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/CKuq0FWt"]
[Date "2022.01.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Gynuk"]
[Black "ilkor7"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "CKuq0FWt"]
[UTCDate "2022.01.18"]
[UTCTime "16:24:51"]
[WhiteElo "1592"]
[BlackElo "1648"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-5"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+55"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "900+0"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Opening "Van't Kruijs Opening"]
[Termination "Time forfeit"]
1. e3 d5 2. b3 e5 3. Bb2 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 a6 8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. Qg3 Qf6 10. f4 d4 11. Qf3 Ne7 12. fxe5 Qxf3 13. gxf3 Bxe5 14. exd4 Bg3+ 15. Ke2 Nf5 16. c4 O-O 17. Kd3 Rad8 18. Rg1 g6 19. Na3 c5 20. d5 c6 21. Bf6 Rd7 22. Ke4 Re8+ 23. Kd3 cxd5 24. cxd5 Rxd5+ 25. Kc2 Re2 26. Nc4 Bf2 27. Rg2 Ne3+ 28. Nxe3 Rdxd2+ 29. Kc3 Bxe3 30. Rxe2 Rxe2 31. Rd1 Bd4+ 32. Bxd4 cxd4+ 33. Rxd4 Rxa2 34. Ra4 Rxa4 35. bxa4 Kf8 36. Kb4 Ke8 37. Ka5 Kd8 38. Kxa6 Kc8 39. Ka7 h5 40. a5 g5 41. a6 f5 42. Kb6 Kb8 43. Kc5 g4 44. Kd4 gxh3 0-1
FEN: 1k3r2/p5pp/3N4/5b2/8/1P1pbP2/PBn3KP/3R3R w - - 3 31
ReplyDeleteAnother “constrained defender” motif variation, following Black’s 30.… Kb8. The Black rook is defending the BBf5 and apparently has control of of the B.A.D. f5-square [1:1]. However, looking at the squares between the BRf8 and BBf5, there is no safe location from which to continue the defense if the BRf8 is attacked. Note that Black can attempt to absolutely pin the WBg7 against the WKg2 with 31.… Rg8 but that is easily answered by capturing the BBf5 with 32. Nxf5, protecting the WBg7.
Weakness identified ∴ ATTACK!
[White "Alexander Finkel"]
[Black "Alik Gershon"]
[WhiteElo "2467"]
[BlackElo "2502"]
[Date "2000.12.21"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Event "ch-ISR"]
[Site "Ramat-Aviv/Modiin ISR"]
[Eco "B01"]
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4 4.f3 Bf5 5.Bb5+ Nbd7 6.c4 e6 7.dxe6 Bxe6 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.b3 Bb4+ 10.Kf2 b5 11.cxb5 Qxb5 12.Ne2 Rd8 13.Na3 Qf5 14.Qc2 c5 15.Qxf5 Bxf5 16.Bb2 cxd4 17.g4 d3 18.Nd4 Bg6 19.Nc6 Bc5+ 20.Kg2 Nxg4 21.Nxd8 Ne3+ 22.Kg3 Kxd8 23.Rac1 Nf5+ 24.Kh3 Be3 25.Rcd1 Nd4 26.Nc4 Bf5+ 27.Kg2 Nc2 28.Ne5 Kc8 29.Nxf7 Rf8 30.Nd6+ Kb8 31.Bxg7 Bh3+ 32.Kxh3 Rxf3+ 33.Kg4 Rf4+ 34.Kh5 1-0
notice how it is often the rook that is the doofus,
DeleteOut of the frying pan and into the fire.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 1r4k1/p4p2/3p2pp/8/q1Pb4/N7/Q2B1PPP/2R3K1 w - - 0 29
Chuzhakin’s Hazardous Element #9 - Intrusion Squares is illustrated in this position following 28.… Bxd4. (Chuzhakin uses the position following 29. Rc2 as his example.)
[Chuzhakin]
9. Intrusion squares
Hazardous elements are intrusion squares. An intrusion square is a square in the disposition of forces of the defending side where an enemy piece or pawn can penetrate. An attack and defense of the intrusion square are calculated in the same way as an attack and defense of an object. For instance, an intrusion square will be considered a hazardous element also in the case if there is a piece or a pawn of the attacking side between the attacking piece and the intrusion square. If this square is crucial, for example, there is a threat of intrusion into the last or the last but one rank and especially a checkmate threat on the last rank, the equal number of defenses and attacks [a variation of B.A.D. applied to squares] will be considered a hazardous element.
Should the intrusion squares on the 3rd and 4th ranks be taken into account? That’s an open question. If the number of hazardous elements is not great and you have time, it is better to count them, because such intrusion squares can be of significant positional importance. If you do not count these HE, this will not result in a combination blunder, but that can cause positional errors. If there are a lot of intrusion squares, the detailed calculation can be often neglected for the optimization of thinking.
Priorities: the most hazardous squares are usually those on the last and the last but one rank.
White’s intrusions squares are b2, b3, d1. On b2 we see two attacks and two defenses, on d1 it is not defended and attacked through the rook. These HEs are threateningly used by Black.
29...Rb2 30.Qa1 [30.Rxb2 Qd1+ with a checkmate] 30...Rxc2 31.Qxd4 Qxa3 32.h3 Qb2 0–1
[END Chuzhakin]
Apparently White (a GM) “SAW” that the most critical intrusion square was b2, so he "protected" it. From that square, Black can threaten a fork of WQa2 and WBd2, and the WQa2 is a constrained defender [an exception to the “rook as doofus”]. Unfortunately, 29. Rc2 creates another vulnerability on the a1-rank: the WRc2 is “pinned” to the d1-square because of the potential back rank mate threat. 29. Be3 would have eliminated the fork possibility while not creating the back rank vulnerability. Having to drop the White queen back to a1 would have been unpleasant but apparently it is survivable.
GM Stockfish opines that White could maintain an even position by playing 29. Be3:
D27 -0.02 29.Be3 Bb2 30.Rb1 Rb4 31.c5 Qxa3 32.Qxa3 Bxa3 33.Rxb4 Bxb4 34.c6 Ba5 35.Bxa7 Kf8 36.Bb8 Ke7 37.Kf1 Kd8 38.Bxd6 Bc7 39.Bc5 Be5 40.Bb6+ Ke7 41.Ke2 Kd6 42.c7 Kd7 43.h4 Bxc7 44.Bxc7 Kxc7 45.Ke3 Kd7 46.Kf4 Ke6 47.Ke4 f5+ 48.Ke3 g5 49.hxg5 hxg5 50.Kd4 Kf6
[White "Michele Godena"]
[Black "Alexander Morozevich"]
[WhiteElo "2501"]
[BlackElo "2727"]
[Date "2013.11.12"]
[Round "5.6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Event "19th European Teams"]
[Site "Warsaw POL"]
[Eco "B06"]
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 d6 7.exd6 cxd6 8.Nf3 O-O 9.O-O Nc6 10.Re1 Bf5 11.Bf4 Na5 12.Bc2 Bxc2 13.Qxc2 Nd5 14.Bg5 Qc7 15.Na3 h6 16.Bd2 Rfc8 17.Rac1 b5 18.b3 Qb6 19.c4 bxc4 20.bxc4 Nb4 21.Qb1 Rab8 22.Rxe7 Nac6 23.Re4 Qa6 24.Re3 Qa4 25.Rb3 Nxa2 26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.Qxa2 Nxd4 28.Nxd4 Bxd4 29.Rc2 Rb2 30.Qa1 Rxc2 31.Qxd4 Qxa3 32.h3 Qb2 0-1
FEN: 8/3k1p1n/1bpp4/pp6/P2PP1P1/RNP1BPK1/1r6/8 b - - 8 26
ReplyDeleteAnother constrained defender. The WRa3 is immobile because of its defensive Function protecting the WNb3. The WNb3 is not immobile but is B.A.D. [1:1]. Dr. Lasker: “What is immobile must suffer violence.”
ATTACK THE WEAKNESS!
26.… b4 27. cxb4 axb4 28. Ra1 Rxb3
[White "Kalincar"]
[Black "Alfredo-Burbano1988"]
[WhiteElo "1922"]
[BlackElo "1990"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nd4 4. Nxd4 exd4 5. Qf3 Qf6 6. Qxf6 Nxf6 7. d3 Bc5 8. Bf4 d6 9. Nd2 a6 10. a3 Be6 11. Bb3 b5 12. h4 h6 13. f3 a5 14. a4 c6 15. c3 dxc3 16. bxc3 Kd7 17. d4 Bb6 18. g4 Bxb3 19. Nxb3 g5 20. hxg5 hxg5 21. Rxh8 Rxh8 22. Bxg5 Rh1+ 23. Kf2 Rh2+ 24. Kg3 Rb2 25. Ra3 Nh7 26. Be3 b4 27. cxb4 axb4 28. Ra1 Rxb3 0-1
FEN: 1b4k1/1b3pp1/p1p1q2p/1p1p1N2/3P4/2PQ3P/PPB2PP1/6K1 b - - 2 32
ReplyDeleteThe “constrained defender” can be an integral component of other tactical patterns. It is very important to embed ALL components of a pattern into LTM so that the associative machine has everything needed (when it is needed) to correctly recognize that pattern and the associated actions in a new (previously unencountered) position.
In this position, White has an “obvious” (it IS obvious, right?) back rank issue: Black’s 32.… Qe1+ would be mate (the BBb8 fulfills the same role as a WPh2 would), if it were not for the possibility of interposing with 33. Qf1. The usual descriptive categorization of Black’s next move is a “deflection” (distracting a defender away from the defended square/piece) of the WKg1, using a check: 33.… Bh2+. If the White king could move to an adjacent square (like g2) while maintaining the defense of WQf1, there would be no win. But, the “constrained defender” has no squares from which it can maintain the defense, so 34. Kxh2 Qxf1 wins material.
Note that these players are not patzers! Yet, Black missed this tactical shot (the winning pattern was not triggered) and (eventually) ran out of time—and LOST.
[White "nedloh_dleifluac"]
[Black "FM JustAnAppleToday"]
[WhiteElo "2439"]
[BlackElo "2516"]
[TimeControl "180+2"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7 11. Nbd2 Bb7 12. Bc2 c6 13. Nf1 Re8 14. Ng3 Bf8 15. Nf5 Qc7 16. Bg5 h6 17. Bd2 Rad8 18. Qc1 d5 19. Nxe5 Nxe4 20. Bf4 Nxe5 21. Bxe5 Qd7 22. Ng3 Nd6 23. Bxd6 Bxd6 24. Nf5 Bb8 25. Qd2 Qc7 26. Ng3 Re7 27. Rxe7 Qxe7 28. Re1 Qd7 29. Nf5 Re8 30. Re3 Rxe3 31. Qxe3 Qe6 32. Qd3 Kf8 33. Kf1 Bc8 34. Ne3 g6 35. Qe2 Qd6 36. Ng4 Bxg4 37. Qxg4 Qh2 38. Qc8+ Kg7 39. Qxc6 Qh1+ 40. Ke2 Qxg2 41. Qe8 Bf4 42. Bb3 Qe4+ 43. Qxe4 dxe4 44. f3 exf3+ 45. Kxf3 Bh2 46. Bd5 f5 47. Bb7 a5 48. a3 Bd6 49. Ba6 b4 50. axb4 axb4 51. Bd3 bxc3 52. bxc3 Ba3 53. c4 Bb2 54. d5 Kf6 55. h4 Ke5 56. h5 gxh5 57. Kg3 f4+ 58. Kf3 h4 59. Bf1 Bd4 60. Bh3 Bc5 61. Kg4 Bd6 62. Kxh4 Kd4 63. Bf1 Ke3 64. Kh5 Bf8 65. Kg6 Kf2 66. Bh3 Kg3 67. Bf1 Kf2 68. Bd3 Ke3 69. Bf5 f3 70. Kf7 f2 71. Bh3 Bc5 72. Ke6 1-0
FEN: 8/7p/2Pq1kp1/1p3p2/4r3/1PPQ3P/5PP1/3R2K1 b - - 0 34
ReplyDeleteThis is another example of the integral but subsidiary role played by a “constrained defender” in a totally different tactic from the previous example. There is an “obvious” back rank issue for White (the BQd6 serves the same role as a WPh2 would) [that much is similar to the previous example]. In this specific case, the WRd1 already has two defensive Functions: (1) protect the back rank from checkmate and (2) protect the WQd3. Guess which function has the highest priority?!?
Give the overloaded defender an additional defensive task—throw the S.O.B. an anchor that sinks him!
34.… Re1+ 35. Rxe1 (forced because White has no other way to escape from check) Qxd3, winning material.
Neither player saw this logical sequence. Black resigned in a few moves after losing his queen to a royal fork.
Note that these are not complicated patterns or associated logical sequences, but you can’t PLAY what you can’t SEE!
[White "jacq1192700"]
[Black "miiiiisha"]
[WhiteElo "1927"]
[BlackElo "1914"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. Re1 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. Nxe5 Be7 8. d4 O-O 9. Nc3 Bf6 10. Bf4 Be6 11. h3 Re8 12. b3 Nb5 13. Nxb5 cxb5 14. Qd3 c6 15. c3 g6 16. Qf3 a5 17. Rad1 a4 18. Ng4 Bxg4 19. Qxg4 Rxe1+ 20. Rxe1 axb3 21. axb3 Qd5 22. Qd1 Ra3 23. Bh6 Ra8 24. Re7 Bg7 25. Bxg7 Kxg7 26. Rxb7 Re8 27. Ra7 Re4 28. Ra1 Qe6 29. Rb1 Qf5 30. Qf1 Qd7 31. Rd1 Qd6 32. Qd3 f5 33. d5 Kf6 34. dxc6 Qxc6 35. Qd8+ Re7 36. Rd6+ 1-0
[Please forgive me for this “blast from the past”. I rarely see this type of position in tactical puzzles.]
ReplyDeleteFEN: 8/6rk/4p3/4P3/3K4/8/8/6R1 w - - 18 54
Patterns, patterns, patterns—I’m going back to a different older pattern to illustrate the importance of knowing patterns and associated logical sequences.
Can you “SEE” the salient clues (the pattern) that point to WHAT TO DO and HOW TO DO it? It’s obvious from the continuation that neither player knew WHAT and HOW. Black should NOT Have played 53.… Rg7. He would have lost IFF White knew WHAT and HOW. But, after a gross error by White, Black ended up winning the game, showing that once he got the relevant pattern actually on the board, he knew the logical sequence of how to play it out to the win. Such is chess at the club level. At the novice level, they KNOW neither WHAT nor HOW. At the club level, they often KNOW either WHAT or HOW—but not both.
You have to KNOW both the WHAT and the HOW of patterns in order to play them correctly and also to be able to avoid them.
[White "Xyle56"]
[Black "faymaykay"]
[WhiteElo "1673"]
[BlackElo "1654"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 h6 5. Be3 Bb4+ 6. c3 Ba5 7. Qb3 O-O 8. Bb5 d6 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. c4 Bb6 12. Bxb6 cxb6 13. O-O b5 14. Qb4 Qd7 15. cxb5 cxb5 16. Rfc1 Rfe8 17. d4 exd4 18. Nxd4 Bc4 19. b3 Be6 20. Qxb5 Qxb5 21. Nxb5 Red8 22. Nc7 Rac8 23. Nxe6 fxe6 24. f3 d5 25. Kf2 dxe4 26. Nxe4 Nxe4+ 27. fxe4 Rxc1 28. Rxc1 Rd2+ 29. Kf3 Rxa2 30. Rc8+ Kf7 31. Rc7+ Kf6 32. Rb7 a5 33. h4 g5 34. hxg5+ Kxg5 35. Rb5+ Kf6 36. e5+ Kf5 37. g4+ Kg5 38. Rb8 Ra3 39. Kg3 Kg6 40. Kf4 a4 41. bxa4 Rxa4+ 42. Kg3 Re4 43. Rb5 h5 44. gxh5+ Kxh5 45. Kf3 Re1 46. Kf4 Rf1+ 47. Ke4 Kg5 48. Rb8 Rf4+ 49. Ke3 Rf5 50. Rg8+ Kh6 51. Ke4 Kh7 52. Rg1 Rf7 53. Kd4 Rg7 54. Rxg7+ Kxg7 55. Kc5 Kg6 56. Kd6 Kf5 57. Kc5 Kxe5 58. Kc4 Kf4 59. Kd3 Kf3 60. Kd4 Kf4 61. Kd3 e5 62. Ke2 Ke4 63. Kf2 Kd3 64. Ke1 Ke3 65. Kf1 Kd2 66. Kf2 e4 67. Kf1 e3 68. Kg2 e2 0-1
FEN: 8/7k/5P1P/3p2K1/3r1B2/8/8/8 b - - 0 57
ReplyDeleteTactics in a simplified endgame position (from lichess.org).
Decisions, decisions: Should Black bring his rook around the horn (Ra4-Ra8) to try to prevent White promoting the f6 pawn or bring his king over to try to stop/eliminate/defer promotion?
What is the expected outcome of the game: White or Black to win/draw?
White’s obvious idea should be to promote a pawn. DUH! His bishop can control both the f8 and h8 promotion squares.
Black can use the rook and/or the king to try stop pawn promotion. There is a subtlety involved: if Black tries to bring the rook into play immediately via a4, White can lock the Black king in a box (composed of the f7 and h6 pawns plus the White king) with 58. f7. The fight then revolves around the fight between the Black rook and the White bishop—and Black will have to give up the rook for the f7 pawn when it advances to f8, leaving White with bishop and pawn. The bishop can control the Black d-pawn and prevent it fro promoting. Eventually the Black king will end up in the h7 corner with no moves, and then White can checkmate it with the bishop. In the interim, Black lacks sufficient time to advance his own pawn to promotion. Capturing the WBf4 might be an idea but if Black captures the h6 pawn (after 1.… Rxf4 2. Kxf4 Kxh6), White plays 3. Kf5 and will get into position to promote the f6 pawn and then get the newly minted queen back in time to stop Black’s pawn from promoting.
A logical sequence determines the outcome: White wins (and he did so in the game).
[Event "rated rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/Cw8VV6wz"]
[Date "2024.03.02"]
[Round "-"]
[White "maximiliannolan"]
[Black "The_Ski_Patrol"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "Cw8VV6wz"]
[UTCDate "2024.03.02"]
[UTCTime "05:58:48"]
[WhiteElo "1969"]
[BlackElo "1910"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+7"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-5"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "D00"]
[Opening "Queen's Pawn Game: Accelerated London System"]
[Termination "Normal"]
1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 Qb6 5. Qb3 c4 6. Qxb6 axb6 7. Nd2 Bf5 8. Ngf3 h6 9. Ne5 Nc6 10. a3 e6 11. Be2 b5 12. O-O Be7 13. h3 O-O 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15. Nf3 c5 16. Ne5 Rfc8 17. g4 Bh7 18. f3 b4 19. axb4 cxb4 20. Rxa8 Rxa8 21. Nc6 Kf8 22. Nxe7 Kxe7 23. cxb4 Rb8 24. Ra1 Rxb4 25. Ra7+ Ke8 26. Bd1 Rxb2 27. Ba4+ Kd8 28. Rxf7 c3 29. Bd6 Bg6 30. Rxg7 Be8 31. Bc7+ Kc8 32. Bxe8 Nxe8 33. Ba5 Nxg7 34. Bxc3 Rc2 35. Bb4 Kd7 36. Bf8 Ne8 37. Bxh6 Re2 38. h4 Nf6 39. Bg5 Nh7 40. Bf4 Ke7 41. g5 Kf8 42. h5 Kg8 43. Kf1 Ra2 44. g6 Nf6 45. h6 Nh7 46. gxh7+ Kxh7 47. e4 Ra1+ 48. Kf2 Rh1 49. exd5 exd5 50. Bg5 Rh5 51. f4 Kg6 52. Kf3 Rh1 53. Kg4 Re1 54. f5+ Kh7 55. Bf4 Re4 56. Kg5 Rxd4 57. f6 Ra4 58. f7 Ra8 59. Bd6 d4 60. f8=Q Rxf8 61. Bxf8 d3 62. Bb4 d2 63. Bxd2 Kh8 64. Kg6 Kg8 65. h7+ Kh8 66. Bc3# 1-0
Black can draw in two ways.
DeleteI failed to indicate that I had backed up one ply from the tactical problem position in order to give Black a choice of how to proceed. The actual problem began after 57.... Ra4. I’m sorry for the lack of clarity.
DeleteThe same pattern appeared twice in the same game. Black did not “SEE” it the first time, but did the second time. White apparently did not “SEE” it until it was too late. There is an “interesting” twist (a sacrificial deflection) which ensures that the White king is unable to escape from the back rank.
ReplyDeleteGM Savielly Tartakower — ‘The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.’
Chess Tempo Problem #99381
FEN: 6k1/5p2/p4Pp1/2pBRbP1/2P3r1/7p/Pr3P1P/3R1K2 b - - 0 33
Chess Tempo Problem #99383
FEN: 5R2/8/p4Ppk/2pB1br1/2P5/7p/Pr3P1P/3R1K2 b - - 2 36
[White "Eltaj Safarli"]
[Black "Vugar Ural oglu Rasulov"]
[WhiteElo "2645"]
[BlackElo "2526"]
[Date "2012.4.29"]
[Round "2.4"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Event "Nakhchivan Open 2012"]
[Site "Nakhchivan AZE"]
[Eco "B46"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.O-O Nf6 9.Re1 Be7 10.e5 Nd7 11.Qg4 g6 12.Na4 Rb8 13.b3 Nb6 14.Nxb6 Qxb6 15.c4 h5 16.Qg3 h4 17.Qg4 h3 18.g3 dxc4 19.bxc4 Qc7 20.Bg5 c5 21.Bf6 Bxf6 22.exf6 Rb6 23.Rad1 Kf8 24.Bc2 e5 25.Qf3 Kg8 26.Be4 Bf5 27.g4 Bc8 28.g5 Rh4 29.Qe3 Rb2 30.Bd5 Bf5 31.Qxe5 Rg4+ 32.Kf1 Qxe5 33.Rxe5 Rxg5 34.Re7 Kh7 35.Rxf7+ Kh6 36.Rf8 Bd3+ 37.Rxd3 Rg1+ 0-1
FEN: 1rbq1r1k/p5pp/4Qn2/2pp2N1/8/2N5/PPP2PPP/1R2R1K1 w - - 3 19
ReplyDeleteNOTE: White could have won a piece with 18 Qxa6, but apparently his eyes were fixed on the prize of attacking the Black king. It is bullet chess, after all!
Another constrained defender and the logical sequence that gets White into that situation.
On the surface, White can play 19. Nf7+, forking the Black king and queen, and defended by the White queen (which doesn’t have any other location from which to defend the knight if it goes to f7). There’s the possibility of 19. Nf7+ Kg8 20. Nxd8+ Bxe6 21. Nxe6 with an extra piece. Even better, there is a smothered mate possibility in the cards: 19.… Kg8 20. Nh6+ (double check) Kh8 (forced) 21. Qg8+ Rxg8 22. Nf7#. There is an alternative: 19. Nf7+ Rxf7 20. Qxf7 winning the Exchange. Three variations, all apparently favorable. Embarrassment of riches!
Perhaps that last variation needs a deeper look. Yes, White has gained the Exchange and the position is quiescent (no more captures) BUT the White queen is now stuck on f7 with no safe way to escape! If Black can find a way to safely attack it, it will be lost.
BRING ALL THE PIECES INTO THE ATTACK!
The only Black piece that is not doing something useful is BRb1. 19. Nf7+ Rxf7 20. Qxf7 Rb7 and the White queen is caught.
AND, WHITE WON—because Black resigned!! So close, and yet no cigar; Black failed to LOOK at ALL the available moves!
“The threat is stronger than the execution.” — Aron Nimzowitsch
[Event "rated bullet game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/OPz8knnF"]
[Date "2024.04.24"]
[Round "-"]
[White "FortunetripleR"]
[Black "paulamirini"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "OPz8knnF"]
[UTCDate "2024.04.24"]
[UTCTime "07:55:39"]
[WhiteElo "1745"]
[BlackElo "1775"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+6"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-6"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "120+1"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Opening "French Defense: Classical Variation, Steinitz Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]
1. Nc3 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e4 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Nf3 c5 6. Be3 Nc6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Bxc5 Nxc5 9. Bb5 O-O 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. O-O Rb8 12. Rb1 Ba6 13. Re1 Nd7 14. Qd4 c5 15. Qg4 f5 16. exf6 Nxf6 17. Qxe6+ Kh8 18. Ng5 Bc8 19. Nf7+ Rxf7 20. Qxf7 1-0
Another constrained defender situation. White’s last move was 33. Kg4.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 6k1/1p2Bp1p/p1b1p1p1/6P1/6K1/4r2P/PPP5/2R5 b - - 5 33
Black followed the patzer advice: “Always check; it might be mate!” and played 33.… Bf3+. He was obviously unaware of the salient logical pattern. He actually had at least 20 different “candidate moves,” any one of which would have maintained at least an even game, and in most cases, a much better (winning) game.
SEEing a logical pattern can be preventative as well as an opportunity for advantage.
[Event "rated rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/wtd6dGg2"]
[Date "2025.09.02"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Jesussavessinners"]
[Black "Sekharsangma"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "wtd6dGg2"]
[UTCDate "2025.09.02"]
[UTCTime "17:25:36"]
[WhiteElo "1809"]
[BlackElo "1830"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+6"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-6"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "B21"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: McDonnell Attack"]
[Termination "Normal"]
1. f4 c5 2. e4 Nc6 3. Nf3 d6 4. h3 e6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. d3 a6 7. Bxc6 Bxc6 8. Nc3 Be7 9. Bd2 Bh4+ 10. Nxh4 Qxh4+ 11. Kf1 Nf6 12. Be1 Qh6 13. Bd2 Qh4 14. Qf3 d5 15. Be1 Qh6 16. g4 g6 17. g5 Qh5 18. Kg2 Qxf3+ 19. Kxf3 dxe4+ 20. dxe4 Nh5 21. Rd1 O-O 22. Bf2 Rfd8 23. Rxd8+ Rxd8 24. Bxc5 Rd2 25. Rc1 Rh2 26. Kg4 Rg2+ 27. Kh4 Nxf4 28. Be3 Ne2 29. Nxe2 Rxe2 30. Bc5 Rxe4+ 31. Kg3 Re5 32. Be7 Re3+ 33. Kg4 Bf3+ 34. Kf4 1-0
An example of using the constrained defender as a tempo-gaining means to another tactical pattern which ends in material gain.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 1r1n1k2/p1R2p1p/Bp2p1p1/3pP3/PP1P1P2/3K1P2/7P/8 w - - 3 30
It’s easy to “SEE” that there is a knight fork possibility on b4—assuming that the BNd8 can get there via c6. It’s easy to “SEE” that the WRc7 controls the c-file, specifically the c6-square, augmented by the WBa6. A moment’s consideration of the position after 30. Rxa7 should have triggered the constrained defender pattern: the WRa7 cannot maintain defense of the WBa6 if forced to move away. The siren song of “ill-gotten gains” was too much for White to resist; he did it anyway.
Chess SKILL is composed of many mini-skills, based on logical patterns. Each specific training example contains the most generalized logical pattern as its essence. We have to be exposed to a sufficient number [undetermined in advance for any specific player] of concrete examples in order to abstract and absorb the essence of each logical pattern. If we can only remember the specifics of particular examples, we have not absorbed the logical pattern.
The logical patterns are composed of interrelationships between pieces and squares, but not specific pieces-on-squares (which are merely examples). For example, a fork is an attack on two targets. A logical pattern is independent of the piece type (all chess pieces can execute a fork) and squares (the locations of the attacker and the two [or more] forked targets).
[Event "Weekly SuperBlitz Arena"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/QlSOgLBY"]
[Date "2023.10.24"]
[Round "-"]
[White "PrincesseRasta"]
[Black "drive_c"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "QlSOgLBY"]
[UTCDate "2023.10.24"]
[UTCTime "19:31:39"]
[WhiteElo "2342"]
[BlackElo "2207"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-7"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+8"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
[ECO "D06"]
[Opening "Queen's Gambit Declined: Marshall Defense"]
[Termination "Normal"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d5 3. Nc3 c6 4. e3 g6 5. f4 Bg7 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Qb3 Bxf3 8. gxf3 b6 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 Qxd5 11. Qxd5 cxd5 12. Bd2 O-O 13. Rc1 Nd7 14. Bb5 Nf6 15. Ba6 Rfd8 16. Rc6 Rab8 17. a4 Bf8 18. Bb4 e6 19. Bxf8 Kxf8 20. Kd2 Ke7 21. Rhc1 Ne8 22. b4 Nd6 23. Kd3 Rd7 24. e4 Rdd8 25. e5 Nb7 26. Rc7+ Rd7 27. Bb5 Rxc7 28. Rxc7+ Kf8 29. Ba6 Nd8 30. Rxa7 Nc6 0-1
Yes, it is all about mini-skills!
DeleteHere’s a “baker’s dozen” (13); tactical positions centered around a common logical pattern. These problems are not very difficult but are illustrative of “SEEing” the essence of a logical pattern.
ReplyDeleteIs there a “vis-a-vis” geometrical pattern between two line-moving pieces? Is the pattern LPDO? Is the pattern a discovered attack, with the discovering piece giving check? Was the player falling for the tactic being greedy? Was the move preceding the tactic planned or was it an oversight: not “SEEing” the pattern until it was too late?
1. FEN: r3kb1r/pppbppp1/5n2/6p1/Q1Bq4/3P4/PP3PPP/RN2K1NR w KQkq – 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… Bd7.
2. FEN: rnbq1k1r/pp2pp1p/6p1/1BP5/8/5N2/PbPB1PPP/R2QK2R w KQ – 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… Bxb2.
3. FEN: r4rk1/p2q2p1/6pp/3Np3/P7/P3nN2/2P2P2/3QK2R w K – 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… Nxe3.
4. FEN: 1r6/pb1N1k1p/3P2r1/5p2/P1PB4/3P3P/8/1R3K2 b - - 0 1
White’s last move was 0. Nd7.
[Is this an example of a constrained defender?]
5. r1b1qb1Q/1pB2kp1/p1n1pp2/8/2PP4/P3P3/1P3PPP/R3K2R b KQ – 0 1
White’s last move was 0. Bxc7.
6. 4k1nr/1p1q1ppp/4p3/1N6/3b4/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ2K1 b k – 0 1
White’s last move was 0. Nxb5.
7. 2r1q2k/4bRpp/3pQ3/p3p1P1/1pP1P2P/1P6/8/2KR4 b - - 0 1
White’s last move was 0. Qe6.
8. 8/3q2k1/3B1pb1/6p1/3Q3p/8/5PPK/8 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… Bg6.
9. 2rr1bk1/p5p1/4p1qp/1p3p2/2pPpPN1/2P1P1QR/PP4PP/5RK1 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… f5.
10. r1b2rk1/1p3ppp/p1np4/2n1p3/2P5/4P1B1/q1BQN1PP/1R2K2R w K – 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… Qxa2.
11. r4rk1/pp1bbpp1/1q1p1n1p/2p1pP2/1nP1P1P1/PQNP1N1P/1P1B4/R3KB1R b KQ – 0 1
White’s last move was 0. a3.
12. 6k1/1p2q2p/2p1P1p1/1rb1Q3/3r1B2/6P1/P4P1P/2RR2K1 b - - 0 1
White’s last move was 0. Red1.
13. r1b1r1k1/pp3ppp/8/8/1b1q4/3BB3/P3KPPP/2RQR3 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… Qxd4.
The pieces-on-squares are unimportant. It is the SKILL of SEEing the underlying logical pattern(s) and associated move(s) to be triggered that must be trained. The number of exercises required to ingrain the pattern(s) will definitely vary for each person.
I just picked this particular pattern because it is very common when solving lichess.org tactical problems. After isolating the pattern (without trying to pin it down using verbiage), I was able to almost instantly recognize it and the corresponding move(s) associated with the pattern(s).
Calculation is only required when you DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE UNDERLYING LOGICAL PATTERN(S)!
Calculation is only required when you DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE UNDERLYING LOGICAL PATTERN(S)!
DeleteThis can't be stressed enough. This is the Trick. I consider the need for calculation as a "failure". As an indicator that work needs to be done. That was my main goal during the tournament. Mapping out the area's where I needed calculation. The holes in my bucket.
The essence is to understand the difference between a geometrical pattern and a logical pattern. A logical pattern is on a higher conceptual level. Thus solving the transfer problem: how to make knowledge reusable between different positions.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between a geometrical and a logical pattern is illustrated by the questions I asked in the "baker's dozen" comment above.
Delete(1) Is there a “vis-a-vis” geometrical pattern between two line-moving pieces? Yes, but that does not encompass the entire logical pattern.
(2) Is the pattern LPDO? Yes, but an isolated LPDO by itself is not a pattern. The means to take advantage of the LPDO (the actions that are triggered) ARE part of the logical pattern.
(3) Is the pattern a discovered attack, with the discovering piece giving check? Yes, but that does not encompass the LPDO aspect.
It is the combination of all the geometrical factors that makes up the logical pattern.
Unfortunately, too much of the chess training literature focuses on the geometrical aspects while SEEing the entire logical pattern is left as an exercise for the student to figure out on his own or by osmosis. It’s difficult (if not impossible) to provide clear examples of complete logical patterns because all logical patterns have visual AND conceptual components. The conceptual components require language for description, and the sequential nature of language obscures and may unintentionally simplify the holistic notion of a concept.
For example, Charles Hertan’s Forcing Chess Moves: The Key to Better Calculation emphasizes the forcing nature of moves (Checks, Captures, and Threats) as a means to better calculation like a computer. [Unfortunately for his thesis, computers do NOT focus on CCT; they use brute force mindless calculation that is unavailable for human use.] Focusing on logical patterns shifts the focus away from calculation and toward a natural reaction without having to use a slow, laborious System 2 step-by-step thinking process.
As Capablanca said so eloquently (with paraphrasing):
“I know at sight what a position contains. What could happen? What is going to happen? YOU figure it out [using calculation]. I KNOW it [because I SEE the logical patterns]!”
Arabian Mate
ReplyDeleteChess Tempo definition:
The Arabian mate involves checkmating the opponent king in the corner of the board using a rook and knight. The rook delivers the mate on the edge of the board adjacent to the corner square, and the knight protects the rook and prevents the king escaping on the second empty edge square adjacent to the corner.
Pattern requirements:
• Mate in the corner of the board.
• Mate using rook and knight.
• Rook delivers mate on the square adjacent to the corner square.
• Knight protects the rook AND prevents the king escaping on the second empty edge square adjacent to the corner.
Example:
FEN: 8/4Np2/k2p2p1/2P5/2K2b2/1R6/r7/8 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… c7xd6.
Here are a “baker’s dozen” examples of the logical pattern associated with the Arabian Mate. Categorization as an Arabian Mate is NOT a substitute for logical pattern recognition. The important thing is to avoid getting “hung up” on the verbal definition. The point is NOT to solve the problems! Instead, it is SEEing the salient cues and arriving at the essential logical pattern in various pieces-on-squares positions. Sometimes preliminary tactics are required in order to set up the final logical pattern.
1. FEN: 5rk1/pp4pp/2p5/4R3/3P4/2P1nqP1/PP1Q3P/R5K1 b - - 8 26
White’s last move was 26. Qd2.
2. FEN: 7r/3Q4/3pNk2/3Pp3/2P3n1/7p/PP3qPP/R5RK b - - 4 27
White’s last move was 27. Rg1.
3. FEN: 3r4/8/2R5/2p1kpp1/2P4n/P5KB/5P1P/8 b - - 3 35
White’s last move was 35. Rc6.
4. FEN: 6r1/pN2k3/1p2p2B/5p2/2B1nP1K/8/PPP4P/R7 b - - 0 34
White’s last move was 34. Bxh6.
5. FEN: 3rrb2/1p3ppk/2p4p/p1nq1P2/3pp1N1/P2P2RP/1P1Q2P1/3R2NK w - - 0 29
Black’s last move was 28.… e4.
6. FEN: 6r1/1p4qk/p2pB3/P1p5/4PN2/1P3nrP/1P3Q2/3R3K b - - 8 38
White’s last move was 38. Be6.
7. FEN: 2k5/ppp5/7N/3Np3/3Pp3/4Bnrb/PPP2R2/R6K b - - 1 24
White’s last move was 24. Be3.
8. FEN: 2k3r1/1pp5/p7/7r/1P2pN1n/2P1B3/P4PPP/3R1RK1 b - - 7 29
White’s last move was 29. Nf4.
9. FEN: 8/7k/6Rp/1p5K/1rn2N1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 60
Black’s last move was 59.… Rxb4.
10. FEN: b3r1k1/3R1p1p/p1p2Bp1/8/Pb2P1N1/7P/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 34
Black’s last move was 33.… Bxb4.
11. FEN: 8/P7/3R2pk/8/7K/r2n4/8/8 b - - 0 60
White’s last move was 60. a7.
12. FEN: 3RN1rk/2p2p1p/1rn3pB/p4b2/8/1P6/P4PPP/4R1K1 w - - 8 26
Black’s last move was 25.… Nc6.
13. FEN: 2kr4/p4pQ1/4pP2/7r/1p6/1P2NqP1/P4P1P/R3nRK1 b - - 5 28
White’s last move was 28. Qg7.
Here’s an interesting problem that begins with a similarity to the Arabian Mate pattern [you MUST “SEE” the contours of the logical pattern in order to use that logical pattern], ending with a fork, gaining material.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 1R6/3r1Npk/4p2p/8/1P2b3/8/8/5K2 w - - 2 38
White made a “surprising” move and the game eventually ended in a draw. It seems strange, given the White player’s rating and a time limit of 10+5.
Rhetorical question: How many mini-skills would have been involved that White obviously did not possess?
[Event "Игорь Немцев 10+5 без берсерк Arena"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/A83hTzDz"]
[Date "2022.10.06"]
[Round "-"]
[White "IgorM368"]
[Black "Fedor_Girinovich"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[GameId "A83hTzDz"]
[UTCDate "2022.10.06"]
[UTCTime "16:43:54"]
[WhiteElo "2254"]
[BlackElo "1737"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-26"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+9"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]
[ECO "B10"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Accelerated Panov Attack, Modern Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]
1. c4 c6 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. cxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 6. Bc4 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Nc6 8. d4 e6 9. Nf3 Bd6 10. O-O O-O 11. Re1 b6 12. Bd3 Bb7 13. Bg5 Qc7 14. Rb1 Rac8 15. Qc2 h6 16. Bh4 Nb4 17. cxb4 Qxc2 18. Bxc2 Rxc2 19. a3 Rfc8 20. Bg3 Bxg3 21. hxg3 R8c3 22. Re3 Rxe3 23. fxe3 Rc3 24. Kf2 Be4 25. Ra1 Rc2+ 26. Kg1 Re2 27. Re1 Ra2 28. Rc1 Rxa3 29. Rc8+ Kh7 30. Rc7 Bg6 31. Ne5 Rxe3 32. Rxa7 Rxg3 33. Rb7 Be4 34. Rxb6 Rxg2+ 35. Kf1 Rd2 36. Nxf7 Rxd4 37. Rb8 Rd7 38. Ne5 Rb7 39. Rxb7 Bxb7 40. Kf2 g5 41. b5 Kg7 42. Nc4 Kf6 43. Nd6 Ba8 44. b6 Ke5 45. b7 Bxb7 46. Nxb7 Kf4 47. Nc5 e5 48. Nd3+ Ke4 49. Nc5+ Kf5 50. Kf3 h5 51. Kg3 e4 52. Nd7 g4 53. Nc5 e3 54. Nd3 Kg5 55. Ne1 e2 56. Kf2 Kh4 57. Kxe2 Kh3 58. Kf2 Kh2 59. Ng2 g3+ 60. Kf3 h4 61. Nxh4 g2 62. Nxg2 1/2-1/2
One preliminary move. One double attack.
DeleteHere are 5 problems that have a specific salient “clue” in common but different mini-skills required to solve them.
ReplyDelete1. FEN: 2r3k1/R1rpqpp1/4p2p/4P3/8/1Q4P1/5P1P/3R2K1 w - - 2 26
Black’s last move was 25.… R4c7.
2. FEN: rnbb2k1/pp6/4pnPp/8/6q1/2N2Q2/PP3P1P/3R1RK1 w - - 2 19
Black’s last move was 18.… Qg4+.
3. FEN: r4k2/pp3ppp/2p4q/8/3PQ3/2P2Nb1/PP4P1/4R1K1 w - - 3 29
Black’s last move was 28.… Bg3
4. FEN: 4r1kr/3n1ppp/p2p4/2qN4/1p6/8/PPP2PPP/4RRK1 w - - 0 20
Black’s last move was 19.… Rxe8.
5. FEN: 1r4r1/5p1k/3p4/pppP1pRp/3pP2P/1P1P4/P2K1P2/6R1 w - - 0 26
Black’s last move was 25…. gxf5.
1. one exchange. One double attack
ReplyDelete2. one series of exchanges (tit for tat). One double attack
3. one preliminary move. One back rank mate
4. one series of exchanges. One smothered mate
5. one lawn mower's mate.