Home 
Search 
Today's Posts 
#1




Another cook in Plaskett's book Test 3: Puzzle 10
6k1/p4r1p/2p1p1p1/2bqPp2/2bN1P2/2PpB2P/r2R1QPK/1R6 w   0 0
In the above position, from Plaskett  Tiviakov, Dhaka 1997, Plaskett in his error filled book "Can you be a Tactical Chess Genius?" (2002) awards 10 points for the dubious Nxe6?, which loses to...can you find it? I picked the obvious Rxa2, which is Fritz's first choice (even). Plaskett awards it no points, but I'm taking the full 10 points for my move. Plaskett says the best move above is: 1. Nxe6! (NOT!), then after 1...Rxd2 2. Bxc5 and if black takes queen it's mate in 3. But even here Qxg2 then the usual sequence gives black a slight advantage. Plaskett once again has a cook, with no excuses since by 2002 PCs were routine in chess analysis. RL 
#2




Another cook in Plaskett's book Test 3: Puzzle 10
On Jun 19, 8:17*am, raylopez99 wrote:
6k1/p4r1p/2p1p1p1/2bqPp2/2bN1P2/2PpB2P/r2R1QPK/1R6 w   0 0 In the above position, from Plaskett  Tiviakov, Dhaka 1997, Plaskett in his error filled book "Can you be a Tactical Chess Genius?" (2002) awards 10 points for the dubious Nxe6?, which loses to...can you find it? I picked the obvious Rxa2, which is Fritz's first choice (even). Plaskett awards it no points, but I'm taking the full 10 points for my move. Plaskett says the best move above is: 1. Nxe6! (NOT!), then after 1...Rxd2 2. Bxc5 and if black takes queen it's mate in 3. *But even here Qxg2 then the usual sequence gives black a slight advantage. Is Plaskett saying that 1.Nxe6 wins for White? If so, he would seem to be quite wrong. Rybka 3.1 says that after 1.Nxe6 Bb6 Black is better, about 1.06. I agree that 1.Rxa2 is better, but even then there seems to be no clear win at all for White. Rybka rates the position after 1.Rxa2 Bxa2 as virtually even. Plaskett once again has a cook No, this time it looks like you have an actual bust, proof that Plaskett's solution does not work. "Cook" is a problem term, meaning a position where more than one solution is available. In problem composition, this is a big nono: there should be one solution and one only. In practical play, there are often several good moves, so finding alternate winners is not a big deal. But saying 1.Nxe6 wins, when it does not, is a big deal. 
#3




Another cook in Plaskett's book Test 3: Puzzle 10
raylopez99 wrote:
I'm taking the full 10 points for my move. I'm gonna tell Jim and you can be SURE he won't agree with you having 10 points. Unless you want trouble, stick with the 0 points. 
#4




Another cook in Plaskett's book Test 3: Puzzle 10
On Jun 19, 5:00*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote: * Is Plaskett saying that 1.Nxe6 wins for White? If so, he would seem to be quite wrong. The context of the entire book is to find the winning move. In this particular position he says "White now has an opportunity to solve his problems. What is it?". Clearly his suggestion about Nxe6 is a bust, or at least a second best move to the routine natural move I suggested. But saying 1.Nxe6 wins, when it does not, is a big deal. Agreed. RL 
#5




Another cook in Plaskett's book Test 3: Puzzle 10
On Jun 19, 10:49*am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Jun 19, 5:00*pm, Taylor Kingston wrote: * Is Plaskett saying that 1.Nxe6 wins for White? If so, he would seem to be quite wrong. The context of the entire book is to find the winning move. *In this particular position he says "White now has an opportunity to solve his problems. *What is it?". *Clearly his suggestion about Nxe6 is a bust, or at least a second best move to the routine natural move I suggested. If the challenge is to find the /winning/ move, it's clear the position does not belong in the book at all. There is no win, so this is a definite bust. 
#6




Another cook in Plaskett's book Test 3: Puzzle 10
On Jun 19, 10:49*am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Jun 19, 5:00*pm, Taylor Kingston wrote: * Is Plaskett saying that 1.Nxe6 wins for White? If so, he would seem to be quite wrong. The context of the entire book is to find the winning move. *In this particular position he says "White now has an opportunity to solve his problems. *What is it?". *Clearly his suggestion about Nxe6 is a bust, or at least a second best move to the routine natural move I suggested. But saying 1.Nxe6 wins, when it does not, is a big deal. Agreed. I looked up the full game on ChessBase: 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. Bxc6 bxc6 5. f4 Bg7 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. d3 d6 8. OO OO 9. Qe1 Ne8 10. Bd2 f5 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe2 Ne6 13. Rae1 c4 14. d4 d5 15. Na4 Ba6 16. Nc5 Nxc5 17. dxc5 d4 18. c3 d3 19. Qf2 Rb8 20. Be3 e6 21. Rd1 Qd5 22. h3 Rf7 23. Rd2 Bf8 24. Kh2 Rb5 25. Nd4 Ra5 26. b3 Bxc5 27. bxc4 Bxc4 28. Rb1 Rxa2 29. Nxe6 Rxd2 30. Bxd2 Rb7 31. Nxc5 Rxb1 32. Be3 d2 01 As you can see, Plaskett actually did play 29.Nxe6 and lost. Where he really went wrong was 30.Bxd2??. Perhaps he hoped for 30...Bxf2?? 31.Rb8+ and mate, but it seems he overlooked 30...Rb7!!, winning for Black. Correct was 30.Bxc5, but then after 30...Bb5! 31.Qxd2 Qxe6 32.Ra1 a6 Black still stands better. The game still could have provided a useful quiz position, but it would have been as /Black/ to play and win at move 30, rather than White at move 29. Perhaps this loss still rankled Plaskett, and he was trying to prove he could have won, but he let wishful thinking mislead him? I had a somewhat similar experience with a game of mine, G. Terry Kingston, Cincinnati Open 1992. In this position: 4nk2/pp1b1pb1/2rpp1p1/r5P1/4PN2/1P2BP2/P1PR4/1KN4R b   0 24 I played 24...b7b5?! and eventually lost. Afterwards, analyzing without a computer, I concluded that 24...Nc7, intending 25...Nb5 with various nasty threats including 26...Na3#, would have won. But later computer analysis showed that while 24...Nc7 was indeed the best move, it would lead only to complicated equality after 25.c4. 
#7




Another cook in Plaskett's book Test 3: Puzzle 10
On Jun 19, 6:52*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote: On Jun 19, 10:49*am, raylopez99 wrote: * I looked up the full game on ChessBase: 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. Bxc6 bxc6 5. f4 Bg7 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. d3 d6 8. OO OO 9. Qe1 Ne8 10. Bd2 f5 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe2 Ne6 13. Rae1 c4 14. d4 d5 15. Na4 Ba6 16. Nc5 Nxc5 17. dxc5 d4 18. c3 d3 19. Qf2 Rb8 20. Be3 e6 21. Rd1 Qd5 22. h3 Rf7 23. Rd2 Bf8 24. Kh2 Rb5 25. Nd4 Ra5 26. b3 Bxc5 27. bxc4 Bxc4 28. Rb1 Rxa2 29. Nxe6 Rxd2 30. Bxd2 Rb7 31. Nxc5 Rxb1 32. Be3 d2 01 * As you can see, Plaskett actually did play 29.Nxe6 and lost. Where he really went wrong was 30.Bxd2??. Perhaps he hoped for 30...Bxf2?? 31.Rb8+ and mate, but it seems he overlooked 30...Rb7!!, winning for Black. Correct was 30.Bxc5, but then after 30...Bb5! 31.Qxd2 Qxe6 32.Ra1 a6 Black still stands better. No, Plaskett disagrees. He claims [FEN "6k1/p4r1p/ 2p1p1p1/2bqPp2/2bN1P2/2PpB2P/r2R1QPK/1R6 w   0 1"] 1. Nxe6 Rxd2 2. Bxc5 Bb5 3. Qxd2 Qxe6 4. Qe3 * is a draw after 32. Qe3, not that black stands better as you claim. But Fritz says +0.6, and I agree with you that Blacks stands better. * The game still could have provided a useful quiz position, but it would have been as /Black/ to play and win at move 30, rather than White at move 29. * Perhaps this loss still rankled Plaskett, and he was trying to prove he could have won, but he let wishful thinking mislead him? Right. * I had a somewhat similar experience with a game of mine, G. Terry Kingston, Cincinnati Open 1992. In this position: 4nk2/pp1b1pb1/2rpp1p1/r5P1/4PN2/1P2BP2/P1PR4/1KN4R b   0 24 I played 24...b7b5?! and eventually lost. Afterwards, analyzing without a computer, I concluded that 24...Nc7, intending 25...Nb5 with various nasty threats including 26...Na3#, would have won. But later computer analysis showed that while 24...Nc7 was indeed the best move, it would lead only to complicated equality after 25.c4. I don't see any resemblance whatsoever with Plaskett's problem, but that's maybe just me. And it's interesting that you replayed this game on your PC, but not the game you beat that highly rated expert with who captured on f6 and you delayed recapturing, until recently you never had replayed that? So you replay some games but not others? I replay all my significant game on my PC. Usually wins, not losses, as losses are too painful to recall. Here's a howler I played today: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 dxc3 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Qd5+ Kg6 8. Qf5# * I was black. Interestingly, it's actually a standard opening, but the king has to move to the back rank. RL 
#8




Another cook in Plaskett's book Test 3: Puzzle 10
On Jun 19, 5:49*pm, raylopez99 wrote:
On Jun 19, 6:52*pm, Taylor Kingston wrote: * I had a somewhat similar experience with a game of mine, G. Terry Kingston, Cincinnati Open 1992. In this position: 4nk2/pp1b1pb1/2rpp1p1/r5P1/4PN2/1P2BP2/P1PR4/1KN4R b   0 24 I played 24...b7b5?! and eventually lost. Afterwards, analyzing without a computer, I concluded that 24...Nc7, intending 25...Nb5 with various nasty threats including 26...Na3#, would have won. But later computer analysis showed that while 24...Nc7 was indeed the best move, it would lead only to complicated equality after 25.c4. I don't see any resemblance whatsoever with Plaskett's problem, but that's maybe just me. The resemblance lies in the fact that at first I thought I had found a winning improvement, but it turned out only to be good enough for equality. Just as Plaskett thought 29.Nxe6 would win, but it does not against best play. *And it's interesting that you replayed this game on your PC, but not the game you beat that highly rated expert with who captured on f6 and you delayed recapturing, until recently you never had replayed that? *So you replay some games but not others? * Ray, I've been playing "serious" (i.e. recorded, rated) chess for nearly 40 years. The great majority of my games were played before I ever had a PC or good chess software — heck, many before PCs even existed — and I felt no urge to go back through them all systematically. Now and then I take a look, but there are many old games yet unanalyzed. I replay all my significant game on my PC. *Usually wins, not losses, as losses are too painful to recall. The conventional wisdom is that one learns more from losses than wins. As a friend of mine wrote in the Burlington club newsletter, "MIstakes are my friends." Here's a howler I played today: *1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 dxc3 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Qd5+ Kg6 8. Qf5# * Case in point, perhaps. 
Reply 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Forum  
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess  alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group)  
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)  
Books?  rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)  
The cheating IBM  rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 