Author: Steve Schooler
Date: 00:44:17 03/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
[D]3r2k1/pr3p2/3p4/2p1ppq1/2Pn4/1PNQ2P1/P4RKP/5R2 w - - 0 1 >>>... >>>Reshevsky - Fine >>>Detroit, 1933 >>> >>>1.Rxf5! Nxf5 2.Rxf5 Qh6 (The exchange sacrifice has completely transformed >>>the situation. The imminent Nd5 leaves black without resource.) >>>3.Qe4 Re7 4.Qg4+ Kf8 5.Rh5 Qg7 6.Qh4 Ke8 7.Nd5 f5 8.Nxe7 1-0 >>>... >>... lines like this ... need a lot of explaining ... >>... >>it (chess program) likes Qg6 instead of NxR. After forcing NxR it likes Qg6 >>instead of Qh6. After forcing Qh6 , Qe4 it likes Qg6 instead of Re7? >> > ... > 1.Rxf5! clearly is white's best move in the original position. > This move was chosen by Reshevsky in the mentioned game. And this position, > with 1.Rxf5!, is used by Israeli national coach Israel Gelfer, in training > groups. The single line of moves you refer to is simply just what I wrote: > The rest of the game between Reshevsky-Fine. And it opens up for the > investigation of your choice. > I'm uncomfortable with this response. I feel it's reasonable that annotation to a posed position provide a clear resolution without requiring tremendous tactical-talent/positional-grasp. I'm uncomfortable having to subscribe to 1. Rxf5 based on hearsay (e.g. Reshevsky chose it, position given in training groups). Was Reshevsky's choice based on tactical analysis only? Since the position is used in training, I suspect the GrandMaster motivation of 1. Rxf5 is (at least partly) positional, rather than completely tactical. Assuming so, I also suspect the positional ideas (sufficient compensation for the exchange, et al) are deep. When a position + annotation is presented, I hope for either a tactical examination (e.g. 1. Rxf5 clearly wins because... and the following other plausible moves for white are insufficient because ...) or a reasonably clear discussion of the positional ideas (e.g. since white will receive the following positional compensation, the exchange sacrifice is indicated...). Unfortunately, when the above analysis is absent, it's not reasonable to expect the person posing the position to "pick up the slack". However, I feel it is reasonable for the poser to first examine the position/annotation for clarity. I feel the poser dropped the ball here because the presented annotation suggests a clarity (to average chess players) that I feel is missing.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.