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 | |
Black to move
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 | |
Example of attraction
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.[3]
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 | |
Position after 33...Qf4
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.[4]
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 | |
Position after 61.g6
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+.[5]
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 | |
Position after 18...Rd8
Perhaps the most celebrated game featuring a decoy theme is Petrosian–Pachman, Bled 1961,[6] 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 | |
Position after 20...Ng4
In the game Menchik–Graf, Semmering 1937,[7] 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+.)[2]
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 | |
Final position after 49.h6
Often a wing pawn serves as a decoy in endgames.[8] In the game Ivkov–Taimanov, Belgrade 1956,[9][10] 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.
