davidmoodychess (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} davidmoodychess) wrote,@ 2006-05-27 11:24:00 |
|
Chess for no good reason, part 35
Chess blindness
Talking about "blindness" in chess can be a bit of a misnomer when the term is applied to mistakes in mental analysis. Since you're analyzing blindfold anyway, blaming "blindness" for blunders seems a bit strange.
But it also happens that players simply miss stuff that is physically apparent on the board. You forget about the bishop lurking on the other side of the board, the rook hanging out where you don't expect it.
My opponent in this game finds a new variety of chess blindness, much to my benefit.
Gavilas,Ted (1266) - Moody,David (1576) [C55]
U.S. Open Fairfax, Va. (2), 16.08.1976
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bc5 8.c3
If he's happy with a draw, White can consider 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 10.Kxf2 Qd4+ 11.Kf3 Qd5+ 12.Kf2 Qd4+ and Black must take the perpetual since taking the knight back gets the queen pinned.
8...Qf6 9.b4 Bb6 10.a4 a6 11.a5 Ba7 12.0–0 Bg4 13.Qb3 0–0–0 14.d4
The first sign that White is suffering from fits of blindness. He protects the d4 square twice, Black attacks it four times. Of course, this might also be a gambit; after all, White does get a little pressure for the pawn.
14...Bxf3 15.Bxf3 exd4 16.Bg4+ Kb8 17.Bb2 dxc3 18.Bxc3 Bd4 19.Rac1 h5 20.Bf3 Bxc3 21.Rxc3 Nd4 22.Qc4 Nb5
Trading on f3 loses the pawn on f7 after White recaptures with the rook.
23.Re3 Rd4 24.Qb3 Rf4 25.Qd5 c6 26.Re8+??
How can such a move be explained? Gavilas claimed later that his eyes had betrayed him; he thought his rook on f1 was actually on e1!
26...Rxe8 27.Qxh5 Re5 28.Qh8+ Ka7 29.Rd1 Rh4 30.Qc8 Qe6 31.Qxe6 Rxe6 32.g3 Rxb4 33.Bg4
More blindness, probably due to apathy brought on by Sheer Disgust.
33...Rxg4 0–1
OK, so I didn't win this one without a lot of help. But after going a whole year without winning a tournament game, I wasn't fussy!
Chess blindness
Talking about "blindness" in chess can be a bit of a misnomer when the term is applied to mistakes in mental analysis. Since you're analyzing blindfold anyway, blaming "blindness" for blunders seems a bit strange.
But it also happens that players simply miss stuff that is physically apparent on the board. You forget about the bishop lurking on the other side of the board, the rook hanging out where you don't expect it.
My opponent in this game finds a new variety of chess blindness, much to my benefit.
Gavilas,Ted (1266) - Moody,David (1576) [C55]
U.S. Open Fairfax, Va. (2), 16.08.1976
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bc5 8.c3
If he's happy with a draw, White can consider 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 10.Kxf2 Qd4+ 11.Kf3 Qd5+ 12.Kf2 Qd4+ and Black must take the perpetual since taking the knight back gets the queen pinned.
8...Qf6 9.b4 Bb6 10.a4 a6 11.a5 Ba7 12.0–0 Bg4 13.Qb3 0–0–0 14.d4
The first sign that White is suffering from fits of blindness. He protects the d4 square twice, Black attacks it four times. Of course, this might also be a gambit; after all, White does get a little pressure for the pawn.
14...Bxf3 15.Bxf3 exd4 16.Bg4+ Kb8 17.Bb2 dxc3 18.Bxc3 Bd4 19.Rac1 h5 20.Bf3 Bxc3 21.Rxc3 Nd4 22.Qc4 Nb5
Trading on f3 loses the pawn on f7 after White recaptures with the rook.
23.Re3 Rd4 24.Qb3 Rf4 25.Qd5 c6 26.Re8+??
How can such a move be explained? Gavilas claimed later that his eyes had betrayed him; he thought his rook on f1 was actually on e1!
26...Rxe8 27.Qxh5 Re5 28.Qh8+ Ka7 29.Rd1 Rh4 30.Qc8 Qe6 31.Qxe6 Rxe6 32.g3 Rxb4 33.Bg4
More blindness, probably due to apathy brought on by Sheer Disgust.
33...Rxg4 0–1
OK, so I didn't win this one without a lot of help. But after going a whole year without winning a tournament game, I wasn't fussy!
