In chess, a decoy is a tactic that lures an enemy man off its square and away from its defensive role. Typically this means away from a square on which it defends another piece or threat. The tactic is also called a deflection. Usually the piece is decoyed to a particular square via the sacrifice of a piece on that square. A piece so sacrificed is called a decoy. When the piece decoyed or deflected is the king, the tactic is known as attraction. In general in the middlegame, the sacrifice of a decoy piece is called a diversionary sacrifice.
This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.Examples
Honfi vs. Barczay, 1977| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |              | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The game Honfi–Barczay, Kecskemet 1977, with Black to play, illustrates two separate decoys. First, the white queen is set up on c4 for a knight fork:
- 1... Rxc4! 2. Qxc4
Next, the fork is executed by removing the sole defender of the a3-square:
- 2... Qxb2!+ 3. Rxb2 Na3+ 4. Kc1
Finally, a zwischenzug decoys (attracts) the king to b2:
- 4... Bxb2+
After either 5.Kxb2 Nxc4+ 6.Kc3 Rxe4, or 5.Kd1 Nxc4, Black is two pawns ahead and should win comfortably.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In this position, after the moves 1.Rf8+ Kxf8 (forced) 2.Nd7+ Ke7 3.Nxb6, White wins the queen and the game. A similar, but more complex position is described by Huczek.
Vidmar vs. Euwe, 1929| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In the diagrammed position from Vidmar–Euwe, Carlsbad 1929, Black had just played 33...Qf4, threatening mate on h2. White now uncorks the elegant combination 34.Re8+ Bf8 (forced) 35.Rxf8+ (attraction) Kxf8 (forced) 36.Nf5+ (discovered check) Kg8 (36...Ke8 37.Qe7#) 37.Qf8+ (attraction) 1–0 Black resigns. (If 37...Kxf8 then 38.Rd8#. If 37...Kh7 then 38.Qg7#.) The combination after 33...Qf4 features two separate examples of the attraction motif.
Dementiev vs. Dzindzichashvili, 1972| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
This example shows a position from the game Dementiev–Dzindzichashvili, URS 1972. White had just played 61.g6 (with the threat 62.Qh7+ Kf8 63.Rxf5+). However, Black continued with the crushing 61...Rh1+ (attraction) 62. Kxh1 (best) Nxg3+ (the white rook is pinned) 63.Kh2 Nxh5 and White has dropped his queen to the knight fork. In the game, White resigned after 61...Rh1+.
Petrosian vs. Pachman, 1961| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Perhaps the most celebrated game featuring a decoy theme is Petrosian–Pachman, Bled 1961, which also involved a queen sacrifice. Pachman resigned after 19.Qxf6+ (attraction) Kxf6 20.Be5+ Kg5 21.Bg7! setting a mating net.
Menchik vs. Graf, 1937| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In the game Menchik–Graf, Semmering 1937, Graf resigned after 21.Rd7, deflecting Black's queen. (If 21...Qxd7, then 22.Qxh5 with mate to follow; 21.Qxh5 immediately wins only a pawn after 21...Qxh2+.)
Ivkov vs. Taimanov, 1956| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Often a wing pawn serves as a decoy in endgames. In the game Ivkov–Taimanov, Belgrade 1956, Black resigned in the position shown because White has an easy win by using his passed a2-pawn as a decoy to lure Black's king away from the center and to the queenside, allowing easy promotion of the h6-pawn.
See also
References
- Hooper & Whyld (1996), pp. 102–03. decoy.
- ^ Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 110. diversionary sacrifice.
- George Huczek (2017). A to Z Chess Tactics. Batsford. pp. 1–349. ISBN 978-1-8499-4446-5.
- "Master Games". Chess.com. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
- "Master Games". Chess.com. Retrieved 2021-02-02.
- "Petrosian vs. Pachman, Bled 1961". Chessgames.com.
- "Vera Menchik vs. Sonja Graf-Stevenson, Semmering 1937". Chessgames.com.
- Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 103.
- Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 184. Ivkov.
- "Ivkov vs. Taimanov, Yugoslavia–USSR match 1956". Chessgames.com.
Bibliography
- Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1996) . The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
| Chess | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outline | |||||||||
| Equipment | |||||||||
| History | |||||||||
| Rules | |||||||||
| Terms | |||||||||
| Tactics | |||||||||
| Strategy | |||||||||
| Openings |
| ||||||||
| Endgames | |||||||||
| Tournaments |
| ||||||||
| Art and media | |||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
