| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Knight Patterns1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O Bxc3 9. d5 Bf6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. Rxe4 d6 12. g4 O-O 13. g5 Be5 14. Nxe5 Bf5! 15. Re1 dxe5 16. Rxe5 Qd7 In his wonderful book on the Open Games Mihail Marin claims that 14...Bf5 is an improvement over the direct 14...dxe5 because it gains a tempo for development. As I hardly believe anything written in chess books without checking for verification (even when such outstanding writers as Marin are involved), I wondered what would happen if White tried to prove that the bishop's placement is in fact precarious, for instance by playing 17.Qf3, creating such threats as Rxe7 or, in the case of 17...Bg6, starting an attack with h4, threatening h5. The solution to this question is hinted at in the title, so have good fun solving it! |
||
|
17. Qf3 Bg4!Steve |
||
|
Qf3 Ng6 Rxf5 Nh4 |
||
|
Steve: 17.Qf3 Bg4? 18.Rxe7, and Whitw wins material. Joanna, 17.Qf3 Ng6 18.Rxf5 Nh4 is a lovely line, and exactly the direction I was thinking in, but what of 18.Qxf5, taking advantage of the fact that the black queen on d7 is temporarily unprotected? |
||
|
What about this?2. Qxf5 Nxe5 3. Qxe5 Qg4+ 4. Kf1 Qxc4+ |
||
|
Yes, very well done!Apart from illustrating the function of spotting knight patterns this example also goes to show how tactical justifications are necessary behind the scene of perfectly uneventful positional lines like 17...Ng6 18.Re1 Re8. |
||
|
Hint |