01 Feb '13 11:29>
Originally posted by WanderingKingYou should check all checks, but not necessarily play them. 😉
I don't think I can do this.
Here's me checking all checks:
[pgn]
[FEN "3r4/2q3k1/rp3bpp/2pBp3/2P1Q3/P4RP1/P2R1P1P/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
1.Qxg6+ Kxg6 2.Bf7+ Kxf7 3.Rxf6+ Kxf6 4.Rd6+ Qxd6
[/pgn]
Originally posted by RJHindsI am way out of my league here, but would like to ask - why do you think a draw is a better idea than the way he played it out? Why is a draw ever a better idea than a win? Thanks, appreciate it.
You might have tried for a draw with 59...Kg5 and then tried to trade the pawns off to reach a B + K vs K ending. He might have made a mistake and allowed you to do it.
Originally posted by WanderingKingThe point is that the whole Bf7 idea doesn't work if the rook isn't loose... This is why you have to be aware of loose pieces in the position... Just remember if you want to win any game it takes at least two weaknesses in your opponents camp. In this case the weaknesses were the exposed king, the overworked queen(defending the fork square and the other rook) and the loose rook. This is the kind of position that is winning, if you can create a loose rook and overworked queen like that in your games it is worth some investment, maybe a pawn or a tempo or two and if you can see a forced win after creating such a position then it can be worth much more.
Oh, OK, there's 3.Qb7+ forking the king and the hanging rook. Right... After Tomtom's comment for some reason I thought I needed to start over.
But I don't understand how this is "working on the loose pieces". I saw the first move not because I saw how it threatened to take the rook, but because I saw how it threatened to checkmate the king. Isn't t ...[text shortened]... of the attack on the king? If I'd been focusing on the rook, I'd never have found 1.Bf7.