[d]r3kb1r/pp1n1ppp/1q2p3/n2p4/3P1Bb1/2PB1N2/PPQ2PPP/RN2K2R w KQkq -
I never understood this one. It is obviously flawed ( we can easily see this now with current strong engines) as 1. a4 isn't the strongest move.
But what was the logic that made the move look appealing and where exactly did the logic behind it fail? I'd love to know.
The 1 hour CCR test by Kaufman/position 22
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:56 pm
-
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:40 am
- Full name: Vincent Lejeune
-
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: The 1 hour CCR test by Kaufman/position 22
The diagram is wrong; the bishop is on d7, not the knight; so a4 prevents ...Bb5. As to whether Qe2 is a better way to prevent it, it may be, but that would not be a human solution, because then Nbd2 leaves b2 unprotected, so it can only be justified with massive calculation.Peter Berger wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:44 pm [d]r3kb1r/pp1n1ppp/1q2p3/n2p4/3P1Bb1/2PB1N2/PPQ2PPP/RN2K2R w KQkq -
I never understood this one. It is obviously flawed ( we can easily see this now with current strong engines) as 1. a4 isn't the strongest move.
But what was the logic that made the move look appealing and where exactly did the logic behind it fail? I'd love to know.
Komodo rules!
-
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:56 pm
Re: The 1 hour CCR test by Kaufman/position 22
This is cool - you have published this set, and it got reposted ( or republished) forever on end. Maybe it was just that the position was wrong - please give the correct FEN now ( after like 30 years of wondering )lkaufman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:46 amThe diagram is wrong; the bishop is on d7, not the knight; so a4 prevents ...Bb5. As to whether Qe2 is a better way to prevent it, it may be, but that would not be a human solution, because then Nbd2 leaves b2 unprotected, so it can only be justified with massive calculation.Peter Berger wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:44 pm [d]r3kb1r/pp1n1ppp/1q2p3/n2p4/3P1Bb1/2PB1N2/PPQ2PPP/RN2K2R w KQkq -
I never understood this one. It is obviously flawed ( we can easily see this now with current strong engines) as 1. a4 isn't the strongest move.
But what was the logic that made the move look appealing and where exactly did the logic behind it fail? I'd love to know.
-
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:56 pm
Re: The 1 hour CCR test by Kaufman/position 22
Ah, I already knew this once - lol, I am getting old, thx Vinvin!!Vinvin wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:25 am Yes, look at here : http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 42#p609042