3 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Frequently Read Blogs
-
-
5 days ago
-
10 years ago
-
20 hours ago
-
2 weeks ago
-
14 years ago
-
14 years ago
-
10 years ago
-
13 years ago
-
-
14 years ago
-
13 years ago
-
-
12 years ago
-
8 years ago
-
7 years ago
-
9 years ago
-
3 years ago
-
14 years ago
-
6 years ago
-
15 years ago
-
12 years ago
-
6 months ago
5 comments:
Would I have seen it? I'd like to think so, but ... ?
The mate in eight is nice. What about the mate in seven? :)
16. O-O (or Kf1) then 17. Nh2#.
OTOH, I was seeing a mate in six that is not there: 16. Be4 is mate...except Black has a bishop on that diagonal and can just take it. D'oh!
Yes, it is a wonderful gem of a game.
An older interesting book is Chess Secrets that I learned from the Masters that Emanuel wrote. It a combination of memories mixed in with the games.
Nice combination. I'd be curious how much is calculated. I wonder if it is something you just do with the faith that marching the king down the board would become mate.
takchess: Edward Lasker saw it and announced mate in eight:
The game below is his immortal blitz masterpiece against Sir George Thomas, in which he announced Mate in eight.
A strong player can easily calculate this. The main trick is in seeing the possibility.
Glenn: nice one on the mate in seven! But while that is the fastest mate, I do think for some reason the mate in eight looks nicer. The perfect ending, in my opinion, would have been 18.0-0-0#
tak: that book received some very good reviews at Amazon, now I might have to buy it. Damn you! :) I was wondering the same thing - do you just continue calculating at move eleven because you "feel" that there is a forced mate hidden in that position? That's pretty awesome...
Sweet! Would never have been able to spot that.
Post a Comment