Логин: Пароль:
Регистрация нового пользователя
Модератор: Walter Montego 
 Chess variants (10x8)

Sam has closed his piano and gone to bed ... now we can talk about the real stuff of life ... love, liberty and games such as
Janus, Capablanca Random, Embassy Chess & the odd mention of other 10x8 variants is welcome too


For posting:
- invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu or for particular games: Janus; Capablanca Random; or Embassy)
- information about upcoming tournaments
- disussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position
... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted while that particular game is in progress)
- links to interesting related sites (non-promotional)


Список форумов
Режим: Каждый может объявить
Поиск в сообщениях:  

18. Октября 2004, 01:30:52
Grim Reaper 
Субъект: Confusion over Bird's Board
Сделано для Grim Reaper (18. Октября 2004, 03:36:34)
Please take a look at this image.

The TRUE Bird configuration

This shows both the CORRECT and INCORRECT configurations. Someone said that Gothic Chess was merely replacing the Chancellor and Queen location on Bird's board.

Clearly this is not the case.

See page 39 of "The Adventure of Chess" written by Edward Lasker, published by Dover in 1949, 1950, and 1959 (same book, different editions.)

The confusion stems from the names of the pieces. Recall I refer to them as Chancellor and Arcbishop, whereas others, including Capablanca, have called these same pieces Marshall and Chancellor. So, the Chancellor of Bird is really my Archbishop, and his Marshall is my Chancellor. What compounds the confusion is that later on Capablanca switched his terminology, and I adopted his later designations to maintain the status quo.

It is obvious to many people that Capablanca switched the location of the Bishop and Archbishop on one side of Bird's board, and the Bishop and Chancellor on the other side. CAPABLANCA DID NOT MISS THE "OBVIOUS" SWITCHING OF THE CHANCELLOR AND QUEEN, SINCE THIS WAS NOT THE WAY BIRD PLAYED HIS GAME!

Capablanca "fixed" Bird's mate in 2 problem 1. Ch3 Nc6?? 2. Nxh7# which was an ugly blemish. But, in fixing Bird's setup, he introduced another weakness, namely, his hanging i-pawn.

Let's say you like the "Wrong Bird" version of the game, as shown in the diagram. That would feature Rook Knight Bishop Chancellor Queen King Archbishop Bishop Knight Rook.

That setup results in a very unplayable game.

1. Cc3 Nc6

White is striking against the unprotecetd c7 pawn, and Black blocks the Chancellor's rook attack by interposing the Knight.

2. Cd5?! Ce6

White hops like a knight and hits c7 anyway, and Black holds it with his Chancellor.

3. Ah3 Cd4

White kicks the Chancellor and Black dodges the attack and goes after the c2-pawn.

4. Cc3

Not 4. Cxc7? d5! [Bishop hitting Archbishop on h3 and exhausting retreats of the chancellor] 5.Cxa8 Bxh3 6. Cxe8+ Kxe8 and now if 7. Nxh3? then 7...Cxc2 forks the Queen and Rook, so 7. Na3 is forced.

So you can see you have an embarrasing form of imbalance in that setup. White should refrain from such Chancellor folly early on, true, and Black can most likely develop normally then repel it as we do 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5? but the fact that an instability of sorts has been introduced to the game should prove to be a deterent to its ultimate acceptability by the masses.

Дата и время
Друзья в сети
Любимые форумы
Клубы
Советы
Копирайт © 2002 - 2024 Филип Рахунек, все права зарезервированы.
Наверх