MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

15:32 UTC
ISC 2022
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jul-2022

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade A small video
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
(21) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Feb 11, 2021 16:11]

A new video :
https://youtu.be/WKhxmQDz1R0

Samuil Leites
Schach 1975
1st Prize
Version J. Rotenberg Matplus.net (2007?)
(= 7+5 )
2#
1…Bd6 a 2.Sg5‡ A
1…Rg7 b 2.Sf4‡ B
1…S×g3+ 2.Q×g3‡

1.Qc8? [2.Sf4‡, 2.Sg5‡]
1…Bd6 a 2.Sf4‡ B
1…Rg7 b 2.Sg5‡ A
1…Sg4 2.B×g4‡
but 1…S×g3+!

1.Qf6! [2.Sf4‡, 2.Sg5‡]
1…Bd6 a 2.Qh4‡
1…Rg7 b 2.Q×f1‡
1…S×g3+ 2.R×g3‡

In fact, I remember I put this version here in the forum, but I could not find it back!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20614
(22) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 20:32]

a Scooby-Doo by Piotr Golovkov
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuM3TyU_VZ4
 
 
(Read Only)pid=20636
(23) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Feb 14, 2021 10:16]

@Jacques: Just thinking, is also wKg1 possible, then Sxg3 is
no longer check (and unguarding h4 suffices anyway)?
The price would be sBd8, +sPb6 and lots of distracting
R moves to c7 and d7.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20637
(24) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Feb 14, 2021 11:46]

You mean in the 2# by Leites.
I don't know if it is worth doing so.
On one hand the refutation of 1.Dc8? is softer, on the other hand the set play 1...Sxg3 is less needed.
It costs a full black pawn in a light diagram, and you don't really add any try, so...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20638
(25) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Sunday, Feb 14, 2021 22:53]

The Leites: i would invest that bPb6 to place the King in g1, if only 1...Nxg3 could still be a defense against the Novotny double threat...

@ Jacques: Isn't the Golovkov anticipated by this Study here (pointed out by Olaf Jenkner) https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P1321560
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20646
(26) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Feb 14, 2021 23:29]

Zalmen, thank you!
You are right for both things!

For the Leites of course and for the Golovkov too.
For the Golovkov, tough it is anticipated it adds a - small - point in that it shows the matrix with white to play
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20647
(27) Posted by Olaf Jenkner [Sunday, Feb 14, 2021 23:46]

Another point is: The Gallischek study is a mate in 18, but the main line has only 17 moves. So we have an improvement.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20648
(28) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Sunday, Feb 14, 2021 23:54]

@Jacques: De rien!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20649
(29) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Feb 15, 2021 06:57]

@Olaf
You are right this is also a point.

Is it possible that such a version of the Golovkov would be correct ?

Pyotr Golovkov Shachmaty 1976 - after Otto Gallischek - version JR
(= 13+6 )
18#

1.Sd7! [2.Sf8+ R×f8 3.Ra4 [4.Rh4‡] ] Rc3+ 2.d3! R×d3+ 3.Be3! R×e3+ 4.f3! R×f3+ 5.Kh2 Rh3+ 6.Kg1 Rh1+ 7.Kf2 Rf1+ 8.Ke3 Rf3+ 9.Kd2 Rd3+ 10.Kc1 Rd1+ 11.Kb2 Rb1+ 12.Kc3 R×b3+ 13.Kd2 Rd3+ 14.Ke1 Rd1+ 15.Kf2 Rf1+ 16.Kg3 Rf3+ 17.Kh2 Rh3+ 18.R×h3‡
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20651
(30) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 03:31]

there must be something in g7, otherwise you have 17...Rxf6!
So... there are tens of positions to check till perhaps one will be correct with 3 evacuation sacrifices for example something like that :
(= 13+7 )
or like that
(= 13+7 )

 
   
(Read Only)pid=20657
(31) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 04:11]

One of those two new positions is illegal due to wPe2g2 wB captured at home
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20658
(32) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 04:53]

@Jacques: In The first version above there's a mate in #19 with 17...Rf6 etc; but, before, no mate at all after 5. .Rf6! (not sure though)

** But maybe the #18 can be done without a black piece in g7, hiring a Knight in e4 to controll both f6 and g5

V
(= 13+6 )
#18
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20659
(33) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 06:47]

@andrew
Thank you! so in the 1st diagram of (30) put a knight on b3
@Zalmen
in your diagram, what happens after 17...Rxf6?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20660
(34) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 09:37]

another direction to build may be so :

(= 13+7 )
1.d8=S and so on

perhaps also :

(= 14+6 )

 
   
(Read Only)pid=20661
(35) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 12:44]

34a: should still close the d3-d8 line;

34b: seems ok, if You don't care for the trial after 17...Rxf6

('seems ok' isn't the same of 'C+' ;)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20662
(36) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 13:05]

The V-32 above: You mean 16...Rxf6 I guess. Then 17.Rh3+ Kg7 18.gxf6#; for 4...Rxf6 we have 5.gxf6! etc and a shorter mate.

**I prefer the following position (with the Knight in e5. (Not so éloigné of the scene). Matter of taste I believe... presque un je ne sais pas pourquoi

V-ii
(= 13+6 )
#18
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20663
(37) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 16:18]

Voilà, encore un petit détail (exchange d2 and g2). More harmonious

V-iii
(= 13+6 )

 
   
(Read Only)pid=20664
(38) Posted by Olaf Jenkner [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 19:04]

The last two positions are cooked:

12. Kd4 Td3+ 13. Ke5 Txd5+ 14. Kf4 Tf5+ 15. Kg3 Tf3+ 16. Kh2 Txf6 17. Th3+ Kg7 18. gxf6#
15. ... Txg5+ 16. Sxg5+ Kh6 17. Kf4 ~ 18. Th3#
15. ... Txf6 16. Sexf6+ Kg7 17. Se8+ Kh7 18. Sdf6#
14. ... Txg5 15. Sxg5+ Kh6 16. Th3#
12. ... Tb4+ 13. Ke5 Txe4+ 14. Kd6 Te6+ 15. dxe6 fxe6 16. Th3#
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20665
(39) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 21:21]

Thank You so much Olaf (oh well, there was a risk involved...)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=20666
(40) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 21:23]

Maybe with the wPd5 > d4 in both !?
 
 
(Read Only)pid=20667

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6

MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade A small video