| |
Main
Date: 18 Sep 2008 20:45:59
From: John Salerno
Subject: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
These tactics are two separate chapters in Seirawan's book. Is this just
his interpretation, or are these known as two separate things? From what
I'm reading, they seem to be the same thing (i.e. drawing pieces away
from where they stand as a defender, etc.)
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 11:14:41
From: Arfur Million
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
"John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> These tactics are two separate chapters in Seirawan's book. Is this just
> his interpretation, or are these known as two separate things? From what
> I'm reading, they seem to be the same thing (i.e. drawing pieces away from
> where they stand as a defender, etc.)
In The Ultimate Chess Puzzle Book, John Emms defines the two terms as
follows: a deflection lures an enemy piece *away* from defending a specific
line or square, whereas a decoy lures an enemy piece *onto* a specific line
or square.
As an example of deflection: White has Kh1, Qf1, Ng3, Pg2, Pc6, Ph2; Black
has Pg7, Ph7, Nb8, Qd8, Kh8. White plays 1 c7 forking Q and N, luring the
Black Q away from defence of the back rank (1... Qxc7 2 Qf8#).
As an example of Decoy he gives a smothered mate: white has Kg1, Nh6, Qc4;
Black has Kh8, Ph7, Pg7, Re8. White plays 1 Qg8+ luring (in this case
forcing) the Black R to g8 which means that 2 Nf7 is mate.
Regards,
Arfur
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 12:41:55
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
Arfur Million wrote:
> In The Ultimate Chess Puzzle Book, John Emms defines the two terms as
> follows: a deflection lures an enemy piece *away* from defending a specific
> line or square, whereas a decoy lures an enemy piece *onto* a specific line
> or square.
That actually makes a lot of sense too. And some of Seirawan's examples
were just like this, but I think some were a little too close to pulling
away the defender (deflection), which caused my initial confusion.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 19:38:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 18, 8:45=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> These tactics are two separate chapters in Seirawan's book. Is this just
> his interpretation, or are these known as two separate things? From what
> I'm reading, they seem to be the same thing (i.e. drawing pieces away
> from where they stand as a defender, etc.)
I notice that the examples selected by the author
are not really carefully categorized; as you pointed
out, they often appear to be the same thing in both
chapters.
Over the years, most examples I've seen where
the term /decoy/ was chosen, referred to the
deliberate offer of material in another sector of
the board, normally to lure away some key
defender so a crushing tactical blow could be
landed. In practice, this can involve stupid
moves or traps as well as sound offers.
By contrast, /deflection/ in no way involves any
trap, lure or trickery, just a methodical diverting
of some key defender from a crucial defensive
post.
If you think of hunting, a decoy is a device
used to lure in unsuspecting victims. But if
you think of a bullet speeding toward you, a
deflection is what is needed-- you don't want
to rely on clever trickery; just go with what
works ( I generally use a triple-layer Kevlar
glove, combined with a lot of cussing and
screaming after the red-hot bullet is caught).
The important thing is not that even some
grandmasters cannot get their terminology
straight, but to notice how so many chess
positions are decided by "elementary"
tactics, or else by the sort of tactics which
are difficult to see unless you look hard to
find them. As you saw in the game you
posted earlier, there was a back rank mate
-- a one mover -- which was missed by both
players! I can't begin to tell you how much
I "see" that other players miss, when my
own games are done and I stroll around
the room, glancing at the games still in
progress (or, more often than not, not in
any real progress, but in a state of
blunderful equilibrium).
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 03:51:05
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 23, 12:19=A0am, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> Not a Red Sox fan, I take it?
> > =A0 No. =A0I liked the Yankees, though...
> Me, too. =A0Can't wait to get back to Yankee Stadium to see a game.
As you may recall, it was in fact the Red Sox
that the Yankees defeated in the Spring of 1923,
back when The House That Ruth Built was
first opened. I remember it like it was yesterday;
the Babe, as he was called, hit the first homer,
racking up three runs -- precisely the margin of
victory over his former team. And as I recall,
they also won the World Series that year. I'm
told that Al Smith threw out the first pitch,
though I missed that on account of showing up
late and hungry-- I got a hot dog with ketchup
and mustard, and washed it down with a cup of
root beer... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 17:40:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 22, 2:23=A0pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 A fen is a swampy field somewhere in Europe,
> > I guess. =A0Here in the USA we don't call them that;
> Not a Red Sox fan, I take it?
No. I liked the Yankees, though... back when
they had Lou Gehrig and the Babe. Apart from
Joe DiMaggio and a few others, baseball seems
lately to have gone downhill, taken over by the
druggies and gamblers and whatnot.
Indeed, one fairly recent Hollywood movie
tried to equate "baseball" with tobacco spitting
and other grotesque behaviors involving itches
in strange places-- completely missing what
the game is really all about.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 23:19:03
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
help bot wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2:23 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> A fen is a swampy field somewhere in Europe,
>>> I guess. Here in the USA we don't call them that;
>
>> Not a Red Sox fan, I take it?
>
>
> No. I liked the Yankees, though...
Me, too. Can't wait to get back to Yankee Stadium to see a game.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 00:54:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 19, 9:19=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> fact, I am the one who pointed to the book
> on tactics by Yasser Seirawan that Mr.
> Salerno is studying
>
> And I love it too! :) Also, if you haven't seen it, Wolff's book is great
> for diagram's too. He has a diagram for almost every single move he
> discusses. Sometimes a diagram might show two or three moves at once, but
> never more complicated than that, so it's very easy to follow the example=
s
> he discusses.
What surprises me is that Mr.Wolff's Guide
to Chess is so highly praised. Old-timers
may recall that in the pages of Chess Life,
there once appeared a hodgepodge mixture
of rubbish, nonsense and swill under the
names of two American grandmasters, who
apparently felt they were not being paid
nearly enough to merit their "churning out"
anything worth bothering to read. Thankfully,
this claptrap was placed near the "rear end"
of the magazine-- a tiny manifestation of
poetic justice, IMO.
I've not read the book, but keep hearing
about how wonderful it is. Years ago, I
plodded my way through much of Bruce
Pandolfini's ABCs of Chess, and like Mr.
Tal, I found that rehashing the basics was
not entirely a waste of time (although in
his case, I am quite puzzled as to why).
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 00:40:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 19, 9:09 am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Over the years, most examples I've seen where
> the term /decoy/ was chosen, referred to the
> deliberate offer of material in another sector of
> the board
> Ah, so it *is* closer to my old question about diversion.
Lacking a /definitive/ chess-specific source
or dictionary, we may simply look up these
words in a standard dictionary to glean their
plain-English meanings.
A diversion is what one creates in order to
distract the adversary (or opponent) from the
key action-- an escape, or in chess, probably
an attack on the King.
Decoy is a bit tougher. Although I do recall
a game I played decades ago in which I
threatened to jump a Rook into the seventh
rank; instead of preventing this, my wily
opponent maneuvered a piece over to that
sector so that after getting in, my Rook could
no longer get back out! He then carefully
gobbled the trapped piece, much as in the
dictionary analogy of netting fouls.
But the term decoy is often used just as
is diversion-- a device to distract attention,
or to lull one's victim into thinking it's safe,
when it really isn't.
My main purpose in recommending YS
as an author was to allow you to leap over
the dogmatists, to jump beyond that
unfortunate era in the history of chessic
thinking. Many of the others who post
here no doubt were brought up on such
nonsense as was the meat and potatoes
of popular writers like Fred Reinfeld, and
they cannot help bot advise others to
follow their own footsteps-- it's a sort of
psychological weakness. I alone am
able to free myself of this nonsense, to
separate the wheat from the chaff, the
flotsam from the jetsam, escaping the
gravitational pull of that era, leaping on
to the next-- and beyond (much like
Buzz Lightyear in the movie Toy Story).
But chess /books/ themselves are a
thing of the past. It is only a matter of
time before audio-video media shove
aside this relic of the past, replacing it
with more stimulating way of learning,
an interactive medium which can be
tailored to match each individual's own
progress.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 00:35:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 19, 9:09=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 Over the years, most examples I've seen where
> the term /decoy/ was chosen, referred to the
> deliberate offer of material in another sector of
> the board
> Ah, so it *is* closer to my old question about diversion.
Lacking a /definitive/ chess-specific source
or dictionary, we may simply look up these
words in a standard dictionary to glean their
plain-English meanings.
A diversion is what one creates in order to
distract the adversary (or opponent) from the
key action-- an escape, or in chess, probably
an attack on the King.
Decoy is a bit tougher. Although I do recall
a game I played decades ago in which I
threatened to jump a Rook into the seventh
rank; instead of preventing this, my wily
opponent maneuvered a piece over to that
sector so that after getting in, my Rook could
no longer get back out! He then carefully
gobbled the trapped piece, much as in the
dictionary analogy of netting fouls.
But the term decoy is often used just as
is diversion-- a device to distract attention,
or to lull one's victim into thinking it's safe,
when it really isn't.
My main purpose in recommending YS
as an author was to allow you to leap over
the dogmatists, to jump beyond that
unfortunate era in the history of chessic
thinking. Many of the others who post
here no doubt were brought up on such
nonsense as was the meat and potatoes
of popular writers like Fred Reinfeld, and
they cannot help bot advise others to
follow their own footsteps-- it's a sort of
psychological weakness. I alone am
able to free myself of this nonsense, to
separate the wheat from the chaff, the
flotsam from the jetsam, escaping the
gravitational pull of that era, leaping on
to the next-- and beyond (much like
Buzz Lightyear in the movie Toy Story).
But chess /books/ themselves are a
thing of the past. It is only a matter of
time before audio-video media shove
aside this relic of the past, replacing it
with more stimulating way of learning,
an interactive medium which can be
tailored to match each individual's own
progress.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 11:11:32
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 19, 7:04=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 I have no idea how an author can reliably
> differentiate between decoy, deflection and
> double attack, what with all the potential for
> overlaps. =A0
Of course you don't.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 11:10:37
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 19, 6:45=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2:50=A0am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I meant specific examples and hopefully their description as such by
> > authorities. But I forgot it was you.
>
> =A0 Maybe you also forgot about how clumsy it
> is to try and talk about such things here in
> rgc, where it is impossible to post diagrams
> of positions (something which is very easy in
> books and on Web sites).
Post a FEN, Mr. Computer Chess Expert.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 09:09:56
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ad776821-e1c8-4801-bc03-181cdfce012a@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 18, 8:45 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
---
Over the years, most examples I've seen where
the term /decoy/ was chosen, referred to the
deliberate offer of material in another sector of
the board
---
Ah, so it *is* closer to my old question about diversion.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 05:04:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 19, 3:18=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> FEN : 2Kn1b2/1R4p1/k4n2/6R1/P7/5Q2/5P2/5b2 w - - 0 1
A fen is a swampy field somewhere in Europe,
I guess. Here in the USA we don't call them that;
if a gator lunges out at you, it's a swamp. If not,
it's a field or a pasture or desert. If you're in the
desert and a gator lunges at you, it's not really a
gator, but one of those mutant lizards we created
with all our nuclear testing out west.
> I found the bot's initial assertion that there is a known difference
> between the two interesting - I think there is, but haven't found
> anyone who did this, in fact, Spielmann sort of dismisses it as not
> worth exploring in too much depth as the general mechanics are well-
> known (that is how I interpreted his text, could be wrong).
After noting Mr. Seirawan's confusing treatment,
I looked up the two words in a standard dictionary
and found that /decoy/ was often compared to a
trap in which foul are caught, while obviously the
other term involved no trickery or evil intent, but
merely described the device itself. In war, the
term /decoy/ would appear to describe those
poor saps who are sacrificed to deceive the
enemy into thinking they are being attacked
someplace besides where the main attack is
actually focused, and this generally equates to
an assault on the King in chess.
I have no idea how an author can reliably
differentiate between decoy, deflection and
double attack, what with all the potential for
overlaps. It is no easy matter to ask such a
person as YS, "did you even try to separate all
these out carefully, or did you merely name
chapters and then fill them up so you could
move on to writing the next book in the
series?". Anyway, I like the one where a
Queen is offered over and over again, until
the defender finally goes crazy and throws in
the towel.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 13:23:36
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
help bot wrote:
> On Sep 19, 3:18 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> FEN : 2Kn1b2/1R4p1/k4n2/6R1/P7/5Q2/5P2/5b2 w - - 0 1
>
>
> A fen is a swampy field somewhere in Europe,
> I guess. Here in the USA we don't call them that;
Not a Red Sox fan, I take it?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 09:25:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
i note that Susan Polgar's book on tactics treats, in seperate chapters, the
subjects of
deflection/removing the guard & decoys
it seems to be she makes a useful distinction that decoys lure opponents
pieces to places where they then become vulnerable
whereas deflection [of a defending piece] away from guarding another piece
or a square has the intent of attacking the defended piece or the indicated
square
in general use the terms seem used exchangeably. if you wish to be more
precise as above, it requires this sort of distinction
phil innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 12:17:02
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> it seems to be she makes a useful distinction that decoys lure opponents
> pieces to places where they then become vulnerable
>
> whereas deflection [of a defending piece] away from guarding another piece
> or a square has the intent of attacking the defended piece or the
> indicated square
I think that's a pretty good distinction.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 16:42:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
"John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> it seems to be she makes a useful distinction that decoys lure opponents
>> pieces to places where they then become vulnerable
>>
>> whereas deflection [of a defending piece] away from guarding another
>> piece or a square has the intent of attacking the defended piece or the
>> indicated square
>
> I think that's a pretty good distinction.
yeah - she is a world champion after all, and probably world champion chess
educator too. in fact w ch karpov says she is one of the world's most
formidable tacticians
but seirawan's book is also very good, so is dan heisman's, and lots of
other titles generally addressing tactics
i also admit a liking for AC van der Tak and Frisco Nijboer, who
specifically address tactics in the opening [a series published New in Chess
(NIC)] of course you must pick your opening system, and this pair write on
probably the most complex one - the sicilian
combining tactics and openings seems sensible to me, but if you have to drop
one of those, drop openings rather than tactics\
the truth is that this will delay your chess progress - but it will provide
it with long term momentum
a couple of other general opening systems which are both strategic and
tactical are
for white; a really very good new title by david rudel and published by bob
long's superb Thinker's Press, "Zuke 'Em" - the Colle-Zukertort. my guess is
that that would both keep you out of trouble long enough to actually employ
some tactical understanding in the middle game
for black; another shocker is ray keene's "complete black defence" which
uses 1. ... Nc6 against mostly all comers.
most strong players will not recommend learning openings at all - though
they will suggest learning opening strategies and principles. the trouble
with engaging stronger players is the sense of already being sunk by move
10, no?
therefore, the urge to study openings is almost irristible, since it
immediately pays off. if you want to do that, then take care in what you
study, and certainly do not relegate general principle to specific study in
this respect - and hopefully combine with tactical studies as the main focus
of learning
otherwise one decoys oneself from the center of chess growth, and achieves a
self-deflection from recognising the important bits of hanging on to key
squares and placements, around which all happens
cordially, phil innes
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 09:16:59
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 19, 3:18 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
---
I have no idea how an author can reliably
differentiate between decoy, deflection and
double attack, what with all the potential for
overlaps.
---
Overall, I think the organization of the book is great. This is probably the
first example of redundancy or confusion so far. Although he does include
forks in the chapter on double attacks. I guess it sort of is, but I would
consider a double attack more specifically an attack by two separate pieces
against two other pieces -- a fork being something more specialized.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 04:45:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 19, 2:50=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> I meant specific examples and hopefully their description as such by
> authorities. But I forgot it was you.
Maybe you also forgot about how clumsy it
is to try and talk about such things here in
rgc, where it is impossible to post diagrams
of positions (something which is very easy in
books and on Web sites).
As someone who read many older chess
books and the magazine Chess Life, I was
not exposed to the freaky Forsythe notation
system until after it was too late; in other
words, until I was already sick and tired of
learning redundant schemes of describing
the same things. You may have noticed
(but probably not, considering...) that even
Mr. Kingston was reluctant to use that in
his old style commentary on the Qh3
brouhaha. This old style notation can get
tedious, yet it is the only style one can
reasonably expect others to understand
(if they understand chess notation at all).
Unlike some people here, I prefer to
point to the examples in books and
magazines, where the tactical positions
are *diagrammed* and ready to solve. In
fact, I am the one who pointed to the book
on tactics by Yasser Seirawan that Mr.
Salerno is studying, and which we were
discussing (but go ahead with your quest
to find and worship "authorities", by all
means). LOL
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 09:19:23
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:09d07925-65a3-4b95-8a9a-c35a9133c09c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 2:50 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
---
In
fact, I am the one who pointed to the book
on tactics by Yasser Seirawan that Mr.
Salerno is studying
---
And I love it too! :) Also, if you haven't seen it, Wolff's book is great
for diagram's too. He has a diagram for almost every single move he
discusses. Sometimes a diagram might show two or three moves at once, but
never more complicated than that, so it's very easy to follow the examples
he discusses.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 00:18:33
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
John here is another example of a decoy (a pulling-in of the king)
into a mating net from my failed matrix files:
FEN : 2Kn1b2/1R4p1/k4n2/6R1/P7/5Q2/5P2/5b2 w - - 0 1
Kc8 Qf3 Rb7 Rg5 Pa4 Pf2
Ka6 Bf8 Bf1 Nd8 Nf6 Pg7
White mates in four with 1. Ra7+! and if 1. ... Kxa7, taking the
decoy, then a further decoy with the queen: 2. Qa8+!, pulling the king
to a8 2. ... Kxa8 3. Ra5+ Ba6+ 4. Rxa6#.
Now lets look at a similar matrix, this time with a mate in 3.
FEN: 2Kn1b2/1R3pp1/k4n2/6R1/P1b5/5Q2/5P2/3B4 w - - 0 1
Kc8 Qf3 Rb7 Rg5 Bd1 Pa1 Pf2
Ka6 Bf8 Bc4 Nd8 Nf6 Pg7 Pf7
The key is to *deflect* the bishop from its strong control of the
diagonal.
1. Qb3! and if 1. ... Bxb3 2. Be2+! and now 2. ... Bc4 3. Bxc4#
I found the bot's initial assertion that there is a known difference
between the two interesting - I think there is, but haven't found
anyone who did this, in fact, Spielmann sort of dismisses it as not
worth exploring in too much depth as the general mechanics are well-
known (that is how I interpreted his text, could be wrong).
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 09:14:28
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a3e62c0f-a326-4bf8-bc01-6b5ef5e1c29a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> John here is another example of a decoy (a pulling-in of the king)
> into a mating net from my failed matrix files:
Ah, see, that use of decoy definitely seems different than a deflection. A
deflection (from what I understand) is when you need to move a defender away
from the square it's on, usually involving a sacrifice to do it. From your
example I gather that a decoy doesn't necessarily need to involve the
*immediate* use of the involved piece or square, it's simply putting things
into place for later.
> Spielmann sort of dismisses it as not
> worth exploring in too much depth as the general mechanics are well-
> known (that is how I interpreted his text, could be wrong).
Yeah, I wondered if it was even worth asking, since I know the premise
behind the moves, but I'd still rather get the terms straight if possible. I
think the problem was like bot said, Seirawan used what could be seen as
deflection examples in the decoy chapter (although he did use examples
similar to yours also, in which the king is pulled away to a square where it
can be mated.)
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 23:50:15
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 18, 11:41=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:50=A0pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Over the years, most examples I've seen where
> > > the term /decoy/ was chosen, referred to the
> > > deliberate offer of material in another sector of
> > > the board, normally to lure away some key
> > > defender so a crushing tactical blow could be
> > > landed. =A0 In practice, this can involve stupid
> > > moves or traps as well as sound offers.
>
> > > =A0 By contrast, /deflection/ in no way involves any
> > > trap, lure or trickery, just a methodical diverting
> > > of some key defender from a crucial defensive
> > > post.
> > Examples?
>
> =A0 Plenty. =A0 The pages of old Chess Life magazines
> are filled with them, as is the book on tactics we
> were discussing, and countless other books.
I meant specific examples and hopefully their description as such by
authorities. But I forgot it was you.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 21:41:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 18, 11:50=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 Over the years, most examples I've seen where
> > the term /decoy/ was chosen, referred to the
> > deliberate offer of material in another sector of
> > the board, normally to lure away some key
> > defender so a crushing tactical blow could be
> > landed. =A0 In practice, this can involve stupid
> > moves or traps as well as sound offers.
>
> > =A0 By contrast, /deflection/ in no way involves any
> > trap, lure or trickery, just a methodical diverting
> > of some key defender from a crucial defensive
> > post.
> Examples?
Plenty. The pages of old Chess Life magazines
are filled with them, as is the book on tactics we
were discussing, and countless other books.
By and large, a crazy, non-forcing offer of
material gain in some far region of the board is
chosen to demonstrate the term decoy, and
invariably the offer shown was accepted and
the poor fellow lost as a result.
Mr. Seirawan seemed to have trouble deciding
"what was what" here, mixing deflections and
other things at random.
Popular writers like Andy Soltis, Larry Evans
and Bruce Pandolfini loved these things, as can
be seen in their frequent use of diagrammed
positions in which some form of this tactic was
displayed. But in many of these examples, the
material grab was optional-- as well as unwise.
I can't post a diagram here in rgc, but if you
look at the discussion of the famous game in
which it was claimed that the move Qh3 wins
for White (Mr. Taimanov), you will find a score
of deflections, such as the one at the end of
this line:
20. Qh3 Rf6
21. Bc4 f4
22. Qf3 hxg5
23. Rxf6 Bg4
24. Rh6+
Here, the Black Bishop is /deflected/ from
protecting the e5 pawn, which will later be
attacked by White's Queen.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 20:50:21
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 18, 9:38=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 Over the years, most examples I've seen where
> the term /decoy/ was chosen, referred to the
> deliberate offer of material in another sector of
> the board, normally to lure away some key
> defender so a crushing tactical blow could be
> landed. =A0 In practice, this can involve stupid
> moves or traps as well as sound offers.
>
> =A0 By contrast, /deflection/ in no way involves any
> trap, lure or trickery, just a methodical diverting
> of some key defender from a crucial defensive
> post.
Examples?
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 18:14:42
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
On Sep 18, 7:45=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> These tactics are two separate chapters in Seirawan's book. Is this just
> his interpretation, or are these known as two separate things? From what
> I'm reading, they seem to be the same thing (i.e. drawing pieces away
> from where they stand as a defender, etc.)
You asked a similar question awhile back. In the English language
version of Spielmann I have, they are used together and Spielmann is
in this case, the man!
I posted the following position:
Kf2 Qa6 Rc3 Rh8 Be8 Ng3 Pf3
Kd1 Re7 Bc2 Pa5 Pa3 Pd2
FEN: 4B2R/4r3/Q7/p7/8/p1R2PN1/2bp1K2/3k4 w - - 0 1
White mates in 4 with 3 consecutive sacrifices:
1. Qg6! Bxg6 2. Ne4! Rxe4 3. Ba4+! Rxa4 4. Rh1#
How would you classify those three sacrifices?
1. Qg6 is a decoy or deflection to bring the Bc2 away from the king.
2. Ne4 is an obstructive (block) sacrifice to prevent the bishop from
getting back to defend
3. Ba4+ is a decoy or deflection to remove the rook's control of e1.
It is possible because of 2. Ne4; the black rook had to capture under
penalty of mate in one, blocking its own bishop.
I prefer the German terms as used by Vukovic and Treppner (Das Buch
vom Opfer) - Hinlenkung and Weglenkung - to draw in or pull out. One
reason is to differentiate between pulling the king into a mating net
or pulling a piece away from the defense - both of which can be called
decoy or deflection.
In Hinlenkung they divide this into three categories - king
diversion , a "pulling in" of the king (hineinziehung), and the king
hunt.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 09:08:14
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Difference between deflection and decoy?
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 18, 7:45 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
---
You asked a similar question awhile back.
---
I asked if there was such a thing as "diversionary" tactics, the definition
of which I made up myself. I was aware of deflection at that time but I
considered my idea to be something different. A decoy doesn't seem to fit my
original idea either, since it doesn't really involve doing something
altogether different elsewhere on the board.
|
|
