Basketball move in a chess game.
After my opponent made a mistake and I won a simple exchange in the middle game, I manage to win another
pawn. Then I traded down into what I judged to be a winning end game by deliberately giving back the
I executed the win using a move that basketball players will recognize -
Picking up the action at about move 57:
With the ball, I drove hard down the middle of the key [king and pawns advance in the middle].
When I am stopped by the other team's big guy [the opponents king];
I executed the old reliable "cross-over" move to change direction; then drove down the left side of
the key for a layup, scoring to win the game. [move the king around to the queen side, win the remaining
black pawn and clear the way for my pawn to promote]
It may not have been the shortest or most elegant route to a win, but for a few moves, I was 16 years old again
and running the hardwood!
Chess is a metaphor for life.
And here is a demonstration of a cross-over in basketball.
No doubt the same basic move is made in soccer and many other sports. Get the defender turned and moving one
direction, then you go back the other way.
. . . and then there's the forward pass. . .
even more I applaud your sports metaphor for playing chess --
which, yes, is a sport;
and for those wired androids for whom chess is their born language, Caïssaic abstractions are fine;
but for me, sensory metaphors work, concrete terms work,
and sports and military metaphors work best.
And the sports metaphor that mosts helps me conceptualize a game plan in chess --
and I say "conceptualize" a plan because what is a game of chess but a battle of ideas,
a contest of strategies and their underlying concepts --
and, what is a Plan but (as Botvinnik might say) a sequencing of targets --
So the sport that helps me put together a game plan --
for offense, or for defense ("attack on defense" as Dallas Cowboys Coach Jimmy Johnson would say)
is: American Football.
It's something I realized after encountering David Bronstein's brilliant little unique primer,
THE MODERN CHESS SELF-TUTOR (with its "A chess diagram is nothing more than a battle map").
The moment Bronstein spoke of the demarcation line between the two forces,
it struck me he was talking about the scrimmage line,
and the battle for space is the battle to move that line foward, and carry the ball closer to the goal on each down --
Michael, for you chess is basketball,
for Bobby Fischer it was boxing ("Chess is knowing how to punch and when to duck."),
and for me chess is FOOTBALL.
plus hockey helps Gelfand. . .
as an analogy:
You do the exchange when one of your opponent's pieces is out of play, as in hockey.
And here's how Gelfand applies it to his chess:
"a 5 against 4 advantage is hard to convert into a goal;
with 4 against 3 it is easier,
and with 3 against 2 it is simply a piece of cake."
A good example: with White's Knight out of play, Gelfand as Black trades off the most powerful pieces, their Queens, his Queen with Shirov on moves 29-30 of Shirov-Gelfand (Chalkidiki 1993) -- the strategic turning point that won Gelfand that game.
[Event "Chalkidiki (Greece)"]
[Date "1993"] [Round "4"] [Result "0-1"]
[White "Alexey Shirov"] [Black "Boris Gelfand"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3
Be6 8.f4 exf4 9.Bxf4 Nc6 10.Qe2 Be7 11.h3 Nd7 12.O-O-O Nce5
13.Nd5 Bxd5 14.Rxd5 O-O 15.h4 Rc8 16.g4 Qc7 17.g5 Nb6 18.Rd4
a5 19.Rh3 a4 20.Na1 f6 21.Rc3 Nc6 22.Rd1 fxg5 23.Bxg5 Rce8
24.Be3 Bf6 25.Qb5 Nd7 26.Rcd3 Nc5 27.Rxd6 Nxe4 28.R6d3 Qe5
29.Ra3 QxQb5 30.BxQb5
30...Nc3 31.bxc3 Rxe3 32.Rxa4 Rxc3 33.Nb3 Ne5
34.Re4 Rfc8 35.Re2 Nc4 36.Bxc4+ R3xc4 37.h5 Rh4 38.Rd5 Bc3
39.Kb1 Rh1+ 40.Nc1 h6 41.a4 Bf6 42.Red2 Bg5 43.Rd1 Rh2 44.Rb5
Rcxc2 45.Nd3 Bf6 46.Rf1 Ra2 47.Rxf6 gxf6 48.Rxb7 Rxa4 49.Rb8+
Kf7 50.Rb7+ Ke8 51.Rb8+ 0-1