It is White to move. Which side has a better position? How should White proceed to win or save the game?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
- About Us
- Chess Improvement
- Chess Puzzles
- Chess Research
- College Chess
- General News
- Home
- Major Tournaments
- News
- Polgar Events
- Privacy Policy
- Scholastic Chess
- SPICE / Webster
- Susan’s Personal Blog
- Track your order
- USA Chess
- Videos
- Women’s Chess
- Contact Us
- Daily News
- My Account
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
1.Qd7 Kg7 2.Ng5 Rxh4+ 3.Kg3 Qxa4 4.Qxf7+ Kh6 5.Qxf8+ Kh5 6.f3 Rg4+ 7.fxg4+ +/-
And I forgot:
1.Qd7 Kg7
2.Ng5 Rxh4+
3.Kg1 Rf4
4.Ne6+ winning the rook.
Here’s my attempt (I prefer English description to notation when it makes more sense). As is obvious, I am a complete amateur and would prefer feedback.
Some observations (and thinking aloud):
– In terms of material, white is behind by a pawn.
– Positionally too, it is weaker as black pawns are more advanced and pieces better organized and supported.
– In the current position, pawns and the queen are under threat.
Hence, as white, I would look to save the game first.
– First move move to be get the queen away from the rook attack. This could be done by bringing the rook (under threat from pawn in d5) or knight (gets pinned and also immobilizes the queen) in between. Hence both options aren’t good. Thus the queen needs to move. Qh3, Qg3, and Qd7 are only feasible options. Qh3 and Qg3 seem too defensive to me and also queen is somewhat immobilized. I feel it is better to attack to stop black from attacking. Hence I would go with Qd7. This attacks/protects a4 and e8. There is a further threat that can be created from Ng5 later. Thus I have 1.Qd7.
– Black could play Rxa4 (stronger a file and support for Queen) or play f3 or h3 (h3 preferable) to stop Ng5. Rxa4 seems the best option as it supports Qa7 and also nets a pawn.
Thus 1. Qd7 Rxa4
2. Nd5 Qa7
3. Qd8 (looks better than Qc8) Kg7
This should eliminate black bishop and create more threats and now white is better.
Makes sense?
– Vedanta
1-Qd7 if Q*a4, 2-Qe7
if Kg7, 2-Qd8,Bc5
3-Qg8+,Kh6
4-Qg5++
if Re4 2-R*e4,d*e4
3Ng5
Computers spoiled everything about chess. Chess is practically finished. Computers simply took over. Look at the following incidents :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3280
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=693
A top GM like Mickey Adams was demolished by Hydra. We’ll see what Kramnik can do against Fritz, which is 100+ rating points below Rybka.
With all these cheaters on Internet chess sites, there is only one option : Switch to a different game where computers will not be able to excel easily because the game tree expands much faster than chess. GO is a good alternative. I’m telling my son to learn GO. Chess is over.
1 Qd7 Kg7 2.Qd8 Qb7 3.Rxf8 Qc7+
4.Qxc7 Rxc7 5.Rb8 Rc2 6.Rxb6 Rxb2
7.Kg3 Ra2 8.Rxb3 Rxa4 9.Rb5+-
“Anonymous said…
Computers spoiled everything about chess. Chess is practically finished. Computers simply took over. Look at the following incidents :”
No, that is too simplistic. It is just right now the computer programmers haven’ figured out to approach the “go problem.” Remember that many years ago the “chess problem” had two strategies. One was the so called brute force method where every legal candidate move was assessed using a formula and judged. The other was based on heuristics – similar to the idea of ‘teaching’ the program principles and ideas. When computing power was limited the latter idea seemed stronger, but as we all know computing power settled the issue firmly in favor of the first strategy. Go programming is still in its early phase. The situation maybe simpler in one respect. While the board is bigger, there is only type of piece and the pieces don’t move. There is also only one way of capturing (surround the enemy with no breathing space). With increasing power, parallel processing etc. we may also see a computer go champion in the near future. Anyone at IBM interested in sponsoring research?
“One was the so called brute force method where every legal candidate move was assessed using a formula and judged. The other was based on heuristics – similar to the idea of ‘teaching’ the program principles and ideas. When computing power was limited the latter idea seemed stronger, but as we all know computing power settled the issue firmly in favor of the first strategy.”
You definitely don’t have any idea about chess programming. You claim that every legal candidate is examined. This is definitely wrong. There is a search technique called alpha-beta pruning which prunes the tree and it’s not a heuristic. You can find a detailed analysis of it by Donald E. Knuth at Selected Papers on Analysis of Algorithms.
“as we all know computing power settled the issue firmly in favor of the first strategy.”
Well then you don’t know it right. There is a program called Rybka. It is 100+ points above its rivals.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating.htm
And it analyses one tenth of the number of positions per second its rivals does, and still beats them convincingly. This shows that at the moment better heuristics beat raw speed.
Your following comment also shows that you have no idea of computational complexity theory :
“While the board is bigger, there is only type of piece and the pieces don’t move. There is also only one way of capturing (surround the enemy with no breathing space).”
While the average number of moves a player can play at a given position is 40 for chess, it is around 180 for GO. For the initial position it is 361 for GO and 20 for chess.
These type of blogs should be a heaven for people like you. They can post whatever comes to their minds like they are experts on the subject. Most of the time it is bullshit though.
As I said before chess is over.