Genuinely a good read. Well done!
Thanks for the awesome article!
Still working my way through it and just wanted to point out a typo in the first sequence of moves after 24. Rfe1. In the text under 27. b3, "If black defends by playing c5, Nxd5+ becomes a powerful move." it's actually Bxc5+
Still working my way through it and just wanted to point out a typo in the first sequence of moves after 24. Rfe1. In the text under 27. b3, "If black defends by playing c5, Nxd5+ becomes a powerful move." it's actually Bxc5+
That's a very good post, and the selected example is perfect: not easy or obvious, but also not so hard that it requires black magic to work it through.
As a suggestion, other than pointing to the typo "Favorably imbalanced enagmes", I would include in the section "4. Regularly solve tactics" a good share of checkmate puzzles. Not just to find your mate in 4 in the middle of the game (a nice side-effect, anyway), but to be able to find good defensive moves and handle opponent's premature or unsound sacrifices.
As a suggestion, other than pointing to the typo "Favorably imbalanced enagmes", I would include in the section "4. Regularly solve tactics" a good share of checkmate puzzles. Not just to find your mate in 4 in the middle of the game (a nice side-effect, anyway), but to be able to find good defensive moves and handle opponent's premature or unsound sacrifices.
@sfsolomiddle said in #2:
> Genuinely a good read. Well done!
Thank you. I am trying to write on topics people ignore, but have some true gems in them. Just exploring chess, basically.
> Genuinely a good read. Well done!
Thank you. I am trying to write on topics people ignore, but have some true gems in them. Just exploring chess, basically.
@sfsolomiddle said in #2:
> Genuinely a good read. Well done!
Thanks! This simple feedback is motivating, and I appreciate it. If you ever have topic suggestions, let me know.
> Genuinely a good read. Well done!
Thanks! This simple feedback is motivating, and I appreciate it. If you ever have topic suggestions, let me know.
@Linkola said in #3:
> Thanks for the awesome article!
>
> Still working my way through it and just wanted to point out a typo in the first sequence of moves after 24. Rfe1. In the text under 27. b3, "If black defends by playing c5, Nxd5+ becomes a powerful move." it's actually Bxc5+
Oh thank you, I will go fix that right away.
UPDATE: It is fixed. Editing study links takes a while -- you have to re-create the study from scratch (a whole new study). Editing the study doesn't work and re-pasting links of a study you edited doesn't work, either.
> Thanks for the awesome article!
>
> Still working my way through it and just wanted to point out a typo in the first sequence of moves after 24. Rfe1. In the text under 27. b3, "If black defends by playing c5, Nxd5+ becomes a powerful move." it's actually Bxc5+
Oh thank you, I will go fix that right away.
UPDATE: It is fixed. Editing study links takes a while -- you have to re-create the study from scratch (a whole new study). Editing the study doesn't work and re-pasting links of a study you edited doesn't work, either.
@OctoPinky said in #4:
> That's a very good post, and the selected example is perfect: not easy or obvious, but also not so hard that it requires black magic to work it through.
>
> As a suggestion, other than pointing to the typo "Favorably imbalanced enagmes", I would include in the section "4. Regularly solve tactics" a good share of checkmate puzzles. Not just to find your mate in 4 in the middle of the game (a nice side-effect, anyway), but to be able to find good defensive moves and handle opponent's premature or unsound sacrifices.
Typo fixed.
On your other suggestion, do you mean for me to put checkmate puzzles within the article itself in section 4? Specifically, puzzles where you find the defensive move to defend yourself after accepting a sacrifice? If that is what you mean, I probably will not do that for this article; however, I do have a "Sacrifices" topic where I can make a note and do that then. I could use the "Interactive Lesson."
> That's a very good post, and the selected example is perfect: not easy or obvious, but also not so hard that it requires black magic to work it through.
>
> As a suggestion, other than pointing to the typo "Favorably imbalanced enagmes", I would include in the section "4. Regularly solve tactics" a good share of checkmate puzzles. Not just to find your mate in 4 in the middle of the game (a nice side-effect, anyway), but to be able to find good defensive moves and handle opponent's premature or unsound sacrifices.
Typo fixed.
On your other suggestion, do you mean for me to put checkmate puzzles within the article itself in section 4? Specifically, puzzles where you find the defensive move to defend yourself after accepting a sacrifice? If that is what you mean, I probably will not do that for this article; however, I do have a "Sacrifices" topic where I can make a note and do that then. I could use the "Interactive Lesson."
@RyanVelez said in #8:
> Specifically, puzzles where you find the defensive move to defend yourself after accepting a sacrifice?
Actually not, because these puzzles are very rare and difficult. I meant a "reverse approach", solving checkmate puzzles in order to be able to calculate (from the receiving side) whether the sacrifice is correct, or if you are better declining it.
> Specifically, puzzles where you find the defensive move to defend yourself after accepting a sacrifice?
Actually not, because these puzzles are very rare and difficult. I meant a "reverse approach", solving checkmate puzzles in order to be able to calculate (from the receiving side) whether the sacrifice is correct, or if you are better declining it.
@OctoPinky said in #9:
> Actually not, because these puzzles are very rare and difficult. I meant a "reverse approach", solving checkmate puzzles in order to be able to calculate (from the receiving side) whether the sacrifice is correct, or if you are better declining it.
Oh I see what you mean. I like the idea of solving puzzles from the losing side, too. Sometimes I feel like such a perspective change allows you to "anticipate threats" more. Maybe I am weird for thinking that, it clearly goes against the grain.
> Actually not, because these puzzles are very rare and difficult. I meant a "reverse approach", solving checkmate puzzles in order to be able to calculate (from the receiving side) whether the sacrifice is correct, or if you are better declining it.
Oh I see what you mean. I like the idea of solving puzzles from the losing side, too. Sometimes I feel like such a perspective change allows you to "anticipate threats" more. Maybe I am weird for thinking that, it clearly goes against the grain.