Talk:Combination (chess)

Addition of a word?

In the beginning of the article it states: "Combinations, in contrast to the norm, are sufficiently forcing that one can calculate exactly how advantage will be achieved against any defense." Shouldn't there be a "much" before "advantage"? I believe the original writer meant to state they can calculate the quantity of advantage that will be gained, and not the manner in which it will be gained. They might not have noticed the omission of the word. Ericobnn (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Stepanov-Romanovskij, Leningrad 1926

2.Ke4 puts the white king on a square protected by the black knight, making it an illegal move! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.184.22 (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The knight protects d4 and e5. The white king goes to e4 (two squares away from the knight diagonally), which is a square the knight does not protect. Krakatoa (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Are you sure that position on the diagram is correct? Here and here there is a pawn at f3. At [1] we can even find all moves of that game:

Stepanov G. - Romanovsky P.

Indiana Nimzowitsch E 23 Leningrado, 1926

Commenta Roberto Venturelli

1. d4 Cf6 2. c4 e6 3. Cc3 Ab4 4. Db3 c5 5. Cf3 Ce4 6. dxc5 Cc6 7. Ad2 Cxc5 8. Dc2 f5 9. a3 Axc3 10. Axc3 0-0 11. b4 Ce4 12. Ab2 Il prezzo da pagare per la coppia degli Alfieri è troppo alto: meglio sviluppare l'ala di Re. 12. ... b6 13. g4? Cxf2! La punizione per l'errore di Stepanov giunge immediata: il Re è destinato a fare un pò di ... turismo! 14. Rxf2 fxg4 15. Tg1 Dh4+ 16. Re3 Dh6+ 17. Rd3 Evidentemente il Bianco è convinto di poter vincere: 17. Rf2 Dh4+ con perpetuo. 17. ... gxf3 18. Txg7+ Dxg7 19. Axg7 Rxg7 20. exf3?? Uno splendido karakiri! 20. Db2+ Rg8 con posizione incerta. 20. ... Txf3+ 21. Re4 d5+!! Devastante: 22. Rxf3 Cd4+; 22. cxd5 exd5 23. Rxd5 Ae6+!! 24. Rd6 (24. Rxc6 Tc8+) Td8+! (0/1)

So ? pjahr 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are right. I added the pawn (but it makes no difference in the rest). Bubba73 (talk), 06:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The position still does not look right to me: according to other sources (see the game at chessgames.com) the white king is on d3 ("unfortunately", as e3 - as shown in the diagram - would have allowed a capture of the black rook on f3, which is impossible - at least as early as move "2" - in the real position). 88.238.97.14 (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That is right. The position is also missing the black queen on h6 that forced the white king from e3 to d3. So there are major problems with this, which need to be fixed. I don't know if they can be fixed with this example. I'd like for more people to weigh in. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 18:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed them. See what you think. However, the claim in the article that a combination must be at least three moves long is unsupported, and seems wrong. For instance, after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3, I would say that the fork trick 3...Nxe4 4.Nxe4 d5 is a combination, but it's only three half-moves long. Maybe the writer meant three half-moves rather than three moves? Krakatoa (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked some sources and they just say "sequence". I would take that to mean at least two moves by the first player, so at least three half-moves. Golombek's encyclopedia gives several definitions by different players. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 19:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fork mentioned is not a royal fork as it is only the king and queen involved in the fork by the knight - to be a royal fork a rook must be forked at the same time as the queen and king —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.172.35 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not according to this: glossary of chess#Royal fork. Bubba73 (talk), 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you entirely sure that Black resigned?

Stated after 2... d5+! 96.233.203.241 (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)