Bs"d
Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36Q
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesefshould start playing unrated games, I keep on going on with rated games and drive my rating into the ground.
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:38:53 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:55:38 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"dYou thought 8. Bb5 was a better move than 8. Qc8++?
Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36Q
Sheesh!
Bs"d
Yeah, I also do that all the time, blundering. Especially in the wee hours of the night, when I can hardly keep my eyes open, but I REALLY feel like playing chess, and despite the fact that I'm blundering like crazy, and that I think that at least I
Unrated games are just not so much fun.
At moments like that I can't see the difference between a horse and a bishop. Then I am like a blind man groping around in the darkness.
But about that game, Qc8 is sometimes a great idea, and for instance in this game I played it with a lot of enthusiasm: https://lichess.org/bx1AX5phaFU2 and it led to an immediate mate.
However, in that funny little game that you brought, the problem with 8. Qc8 is that there is an enemy bishop on g4, so in stead of a mate, it would be a queen sacrifice from my side.Oops. Yes, you're right. Sorry.
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:38:53 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:should start playing unrated games, I keep on going on with rated games and drive my rating into the ground.
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:55:38 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"dYou thought 8. Bb5 was a better move than 8. Qc8++?
Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36Q
Sheesh!
Bs"d
Yeah, I also do that all the time, blundering. Especially in the wee hours of the night, when I can hardly keep my eyes open, but I REALLY feel like playing chess, and despite the fact that I'm blundering like crazy, and that I think that at least I
Unrated games are just not so much fun.
At moments like that I can't see the difference between a horse and a bishop. Then I am like a blind man groping around in the darkness.
But about that game, Qc8 is sometimes a great idea, and for instance in this game I played it with a lot of enthusiasm: https://lichess.org/bx1AX5phaFU2 and it led to an immediate mate.
However, in that funny little game that you brought, the problem with 8. Qc8 is that there is an enemy bishop on g4, so in stead of a mate, it would be a queen sacrifice from my side.
And like I said before: I always prefer to sacrifice the pieces of the enemy.
So I thought and still think that 8. Bb5 was the way to go.
http://tinyurl.com/dont-know
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:55:38 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36QYou thought 8. Bb5 was a better move than 8. Qc8++?
Sheesh!
Bs"d
Got myself another Tennison gambit after starting with the Reti opening.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:44:19 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
Got myself another Tennison gambit after starting with the Reti opening.By the way, although some people call 1. Nf3 the Reti opening, many
others don't.
I'm one of the others who don't. To me, the Reti opening is
1. Nf3 d5
2. c4
And whether one uses your definition or mine, the problem with calling
it the Reti opening is that it can, and usually does, morph into
another opening entirely. So I don't like giving the opening a name
until a few moves later. So, for example, if the game goes
1. Nf3 d5
2. c4 e6
3. d4 Nf6
4. Nc3
I'd call it a Queen's Gambit declined, not a Reti Opening.
There are many other possibilities.
Similarly, if a game begins
1. e4 Nf6
most people would call the opening Alekhine's defense, but if it
continues
2. Nc3 e5
I'd call it the Vienna Game, and if it continues
3. Nf3 Nc6
I'd call it the Four Knights Game.
My point is that a name shouldn't be given to an opening too early.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:44:19 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
Got myself another Tennison gambit after starting with the Reti opening.By the way, although some people call 1. Nf3 the Reti opening, many
others don't.
I'm one of the others who don't. To me, the Reti opening is
1. Nf3 d5
2. c4
And whether one uses your definition or mine, the problem with calling
it the Reti opening is that it can, and usually does, morph into
another opening entirely. So I don't like giving the opening a name
until a few moves later. So, for example, if the game goes
1. Nf3 d5
2. c4 e6
3. d4 Nf6
4. Nc3
I'd call it a Queen's Gambit declined, not a Reti Opening.
There are many other possibilities.
Similarly, if a game begins
1. e4 Nf6
most people would call the opening Alekhine's defense, but if it
continues
2. Nc3 e5
I'd call it the Vienna Game, and if it continues
3. Nf3 Nc6
I'd call it the Four Knights Game.
My point is that a name shouldn't be given to an opening too early.
Bs"d
A miniature. About as short as it gets in real play. Mate on move 5.
I started with an Englund gambit, but he smelled a trap, and refused it, only to stumble into another trap:
https://lichess.org/WQhvq2UE3hko
Bs"denemy a full castle. He played on. A horse fork popped up, which costed the enemy more material, and then yet another horse fork popped up, but before I could execute that one the enemy surrendered.
This is an interesting variant of the Tennison gambit. As usual I started with a Reti, gambiteered a pawn, and the game was on:
lichess.org/emBu8UEASMPJ
After I sacrificed a pawn of mine, the enemy came out immediately with his queen, in order to protect his lone pawn. And for that eventuality I had just the right trap. The trap that the enemy fell into heels over head. The kind of trap that costed the
Horse forks are fun. Almost much fun as opening traps :D
tinyurl.com/deadly-Tennison
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 8:27:42 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:the enemy a full castle. He played on. A horse fork popped up, which costed the enemy more material, and then yet another horse fork popped up, but before I could execute that one the enemy surrendered.
Bs"d
This is an interesting variant of the Tennison gambit. As usual I started with a Reti, gambiteered a pawn, and the game was on:
lichess.org/emBu8UEASMPJ
After I sacrificed a pawn of mine, the enemy came out immediately with his queen, in order to protect his lone pawn. And for that eventuality I had just the right trap. The trap that the enemy fell into heels over head. The kind of trap that costed
Horse forks are fun. Almost much fun as opening traps :D
tinyurl.com/deadly-Tennison
Bs"d
And I got another one, same Tennison gambit, and the enemy came again out with his queen on move 3, in order to protect his pawn. I set the same trap, and on move 8, when he saw that he was going to lose a castle, he resigned:
https://lichess.org/hjHuC4G4Hpd1
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 12:49:40 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
A miniature. About as short as it gets in real play. Mate on move 5.
I started with an Englund gambit, but he smelled a trap, and refused it, only to stumble into another trap:It's incredible that you beat such a skilled player. You'll probably
https://lichess.org/WQhvq2UE3hko
be named a grandmaster soon.
Bs"d
But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
Bs"d
But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cakeIt's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't have
Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
William Hyde
Bs"dgambit against me. I played that line, but I didn't get exactly the same game, but I got a very satisfying game in which the enemy was going to lose his queen on move 12, and therefore he surrendered on move 12.
So yesterday I was going over an old game from 2009, which I hadn't looked over yet. It was a Scottish gambit, and it went like this: https://lichess.org/BScBm1yp/black#26
I never play the Scotch, get it seldom or never against me, so I had totally forgotten about that interesting line. But I really liked that game, and stored it in my memory, because it was so funny. And what happened today? YES!! I got a Scottish
I'm very happy with the help from Above I got. I mean; coincidence?? Don't think I played against a Scotch for the last 10 years, and then something like this happens?
I can only humbly and quietly shout out: HALLELUJAH!!!
https://tinyurl.com/Hallel-starry3
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cakeIt's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't have
Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
William HydeBs"d
Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?
Well, I think that the present consensus is that Zukertort refers to Nf3,
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:have to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cakeIt's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't
Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
William HydeBs"d
Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?You're not playing the Reti or the Zukertort, you're just playing the Tennison.
Well, I think that the present consensus is that Zukertort refers to Nf3,Lazy people sometimes call anything beginning with 1NF3 the Reti, the Zukertort, or the Reti-Zukertort. It isn't, any more than 1e4 is the Ruy Lopez or Scotch game. With a few exceptions it is the later moves that determine what opening is being played.
And even the exceptions have exceptions. 1f4 is the Bird, but 1f4 e5 2e4 has now become the King's gambit,
and after 2... d5 the Falkbeer counter gambit. Similarly 1c4 is the English, but it can later become the Queen's gambit, Catalan, King's gambit, or a host of others.
Does anyone ever reply g6 to your 1NF3?
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:have to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"dIt's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't
But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake
Bs"d
Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
William Hyde
Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?
You're not playing the Reti or the Zukertort, you're just playing the Tennison.
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:24:45 -0800 (PST), William Hydehave to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"dIt's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't
But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake
Bs"d
Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
William Hyde
Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?
You're not playing the Reti or the Zukertort, you're just playing the Tennison.Yes, as I essentially said in an earlier message. He persists in
calling openings by wrong names, just as he persists in calling pieces
by wrong names. Telling him about does little good; he just wants to
look ignorant.
On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:11:12 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>
wrote:
Yes, as I essentially said in an earlier message. He persists inMy old club used to have a special award called "international
calling openings by wrong names, just as he persists in calling pieces
by wrong names. Telling him about does little good; he just wants to
look ignorant.
grandpatzer" - it was given to a player who had faithfully supported
the club for years but never gained in strength which he thought to be
more than he in fact possessed.
I'm not saying but...
Yes, as I essentially said in an earlier message. He persists in
calling openings by wrong names, just as he persists in calling pieces
by wrong names. Telling him about does little good; he just wants to
look ignorant.
Bs"d
This Budapest gambit finished of the enemy in six moves: https://lichess.org/MXHREURHuMSp
I made a nasty horse fork upon his castle and queen, and the enemy realized the disasters which were about to poured out over him, and with his tail between his legs he run away after he pushed the resign button.
On move 6.
https://tinyurl.com/fab-Bud
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:06:01 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
This Budapest gambit finished of the enemy in six moves: https://lichess.org/MXHREURHuMSp
I made a nasty horse fork upon his castle and queen, and the enemy realized the disasters which were about to poured out over him, and with his tail between his legs he run away after he pushed the resign button.
On move 6.
https://tinyurl.com/fab-BudOne more for my proposition that your opponents should never push their h-pawns.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:12:56 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:06:01 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
This Budapest gambit finished of the enemy in six moves: https://lichess.org/MXHREURHuMSp
I made a nasty horse fork upon his castle and queen, and the enemy realized the disasters which were about to poured out over him, and with his tail between his legs he run away after he pushed the resign button.
On move 6.
Bs"dhttps://tinyurl.com/fab-BudOne more for my proposition that your opponents should never push their h-pawns.
The same disaster would have happened if he would have pushed his g pawn to g3.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:42:23 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:12:56 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:06:01 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
This Budapest gambit finished of the enemy in six moves: https://lichess.org/MXHREURHuMSp
I made a nasty horse fork upon his castle and queen, and the enemy realized the disasters which were about to poured out over him, and with his tail between his legs he run away after he pushed the resign button.
On move 6.
Bs"dhttps://tinyurl.com/fab-BudOne more for my proposition that your opponents should never push their h-pawns.
The same disaster would have happened if he would have pushed his g pawn to g3.As Tartakower said "The blunders are all there, waiting to be made".
White is behind in development and a rational developing move is called for. After which it's still a game.
Bs"d
Simple development is not going to do the job. The threat of Nxf2 followed by Bg3+ is still on the table. He has to start protecting his queen, or moving her out of the way.
If the enemy is not familiar with this tactic, then there is a big chance that he will go wrong and be slaughtered in the opening.
On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Simple development is not going to do the job. The threat of Nxf2 followed by Bg3+ is still on the table. He has to start protecting his queen, or moving her out of the way.(1) When replying quote something. No reason why I should have to hunt back days for my original post.
(2) As far as I can tell I said rational, not simple, development. But in this position virtually any sane developing move happens to prevent the threat.
If the enemy is not familiar with this tactic, then there is a big chance that he will go wrong and be slaughtered in the opening.If he's weak, yes.
Bs"d
So when the enemy with a Lichess rating of 1920, started with the Italian opening, I answered with the two horses defense,
and then his horse jumped to g5, making a double attack on f7: https://lichess.org/Elv5nwrZ4dZz
I didn't let that scare me, and I took his pawn on e4 with my horse. The trivial fact that that pawn was protected by his horse on g5 could not deter me from this brave jump.
However, the enemy didn't take my horse on e4, but decided to fork me with his horse on f7, and both my queen and castle were under attack by the enemy horse.he resigned. On move 13.
Fortunately, in the end the enemy didn't take either one of 'm, not the queen, nor the castle. But that didn't stop me from taking a good load of material from the enemy. I took his castle, and was about to relieve him from his other castle, but then
https://tinyurl.com/esc-real
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 16:55:20 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
So when the enemy with a Lichess rating of 1920, started with the Italian opening, I answered with the two horses defense,There is no opening called the "Two Horses Defense."
and then his horse jumped to g5, making a double attack on f7: https://lichess.org/Elv5nwrZ4dZz
I didn't let that scare me, and I took his pawn on e4 with my horse. The trivial fact that that pawn was protected by his horse on g5 could not deter me from this brave jump.I didn't know you were the world's bravest chess player.
he resigned. On move 13.However, the enemy didn't take my horse on e4, but decided to fork me with his horse on f7, and both my queen and castle were under attack by the enemy horse.
Fortunately, in the end the enemy didn't take either one of 'm, not the queen, nor the castle. But that didn't stop me from taking a good load of material from the enemy. I took his castle, and was about to relieve him from his other castle, but then
https://tinyurl.com/esc-real--
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer
On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:48:03 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d(1) When replying quote something. No reason why I should have to hunt back days for my original post.
Simple development is not going to do the job. The threat of Nxf2 followed by Bg3+ is still on the table. He has to start protecting his queen, or moving her out of the way.
(2) As far as I can tell I said rational, not simple, development. But in this position virtually any sane developing move happens to prevent the threat.
If the enemy is not familiar with this tactic, then there is a big chance that he will go wrong and be slaughtered in the opening.If he's weak, yes.
Bs"d
That's why it is so important to play weak opponents.
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 16:45:24 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:48:03 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d(1) When replying quote something. No reason why I should have to hunt back days for my original post.
Simple development is not going to do the job. The threat of Nxf2 followed by Bg3+ is still on the table. He has to start protecting his queen, or moving her out of the way.
(2) As far as I can tell I said rational, not simple, development. But in this position virtually any sane developing move happens to prevent the threat.
If the enemy is not familiar with this tactic, then there is a big chance that he will go wrong and be slaughtered in the opening.If he's weak, yes.
Bs"d
That's why it is so important to play weak opponents.Playing weak opponents is the *worst* thing to do. If you are content
to remain the poor player you are, sure, play weak opponents. If you
want to become a better player, play *strong* opponents.
On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 7:20:20 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 16:45:24 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 11:48:03 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:Playing weak opponents is the *worst* thing to do. If you are content
On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d(1) When replying quote something. No reason why I should have to hunt back days for my original post.
Simple development is not going to do the job. The threat of Nxf2 followed by Bg3+ is still on the table. He has to start protecting his queen, or moving her out of the way.
(2) As far as I can tell I said rational, not simple, development. But in this position virtually any sane developing move happens to prevent the threat.
If the enemy is not familiar with this tactic, then there is a big chance that he will go wrong and be slaughtered in the opening.If he's weak, yes.
Bs"d
That's why it is so important to play weak opponents.
to remain the poor player you are, sure, play weak opponents. If you
want to become a better player, play *strong* opponents.
Bs"d
I don't wanna get better, I want to WIN.
On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 7:17:57 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 16:55:20 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"dThere is no opening called the "Two Horses Defense."
So when the enemy with a Lichess rating of 1920, started with the Italian opening, I answered with the two horses defense,
Bs"d
For me there is. That is when after white plays the Italian, you throw both your horses out, to f6 and c6.
and then his horse jumped to g5, making a double attack on f7: https://lichess.org/Elv5nwrZ4dZzI didn't know you were the world's bravest chess player.
I didn't let that scare me, and I took his pawn on e4 with my horse. The trivial fact that that pawn was protected by his horse on g5 could not deter me from this brave jump.
I am not the world bravest chess player.
I'm just very brave, but not the bravest.he resigned. On move 13.
However, the enemy didn't take my horse on e4, but decided to fork me with his horse on f7, and both my queen and castle were under attack by the enemy horse.
Fortunately, in the end the enemy didn't take either one of 'm, not the queen, nor the castle. But that didn't stop me from taking a good load of material from the enemy. I took his castle, and was about to relieve him from his other castle, but then
--
https://tinyurl.com/esc-real
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer
Yeah yeah, that is what all the fake Ken Blakes say.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 10:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Eli Kesef ><nastyhorsefork@gmail.com> wrote:
Playing weak opponents is the *worst* thing to do. If you are contentSimple development is not going to do the job. The threat of Nxf2 followed by Bg3+ is still on the table. He has to start protecting his queen, or moving her out of the way.(1) When replying quote something. No reason why I should have to hunt back days for my original post.
(2) As far as I can tell I said rational, not simple, development. But in this position virtually any sane developing move happens to prevent the threat.
If the enemy is not familiar with this tactic, then there is a big chance that he will go wrong and be slaughtered in the opening.If he's weak, yes.
Bs"d
That's why it is so important to play weak opponents.
to remain the poor player you are, sure, play weak opponents. If you
want to become a better player, play *strong* opponents.
Bs"d
I don't wanna get better, I want to WIN.
In that case play nobody but beginners at the game.
That's why it is so important to play weak opponents.
Playing weak opponents is the *worst* thing to do. If you are content
to remain the poor player you are, sure, play weak opponents. If you
want to become a better player, play *strong* opponents.
The point here is that what the name of the opening that is played can
often not be determined until several moves have been played.
Note that, assuming you mean what is correctly called the "Two
Knight's Defense," you can not play it after White plays the Italian
Opening (or "Giuoco Piano" as it was always called in my day).
If the game starts out
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4
that is *not* the Italian Opening (or "Giuoco Piano"). White is
*attempting* to play the Italian Opening (or "Giuoco Piano"), but
that's not what the opening is called unless Black plays 3... Bc5. The opening has no name yet, just as after 1. e4, e5, the opening has no
name yet.
I didn't let that scare me, and I took his pawn on e4 with my horse. The trivial fact that that pawn was protected by his horse on g5 could not deter me from this brave jump.I didn't know you were the world's bravest chess player.
I am not the world bravest chess player.LOL! I know, I know. "I didn't know you were the world's bravest chess player" was sarcasm.
Your opponents are mostly terrible players, your
play is often very poor, your use of the language of Chess is terrible
and often completely wrong, and your comments are usually extremely
silly.
I don't wanna get better, I want to WIN.
Eli Kesef wrote:
I don't wanna get better, I want to WIN.Isn't that always the way?
When you win, you wanted to win.
When you lose, you're trying to improve your game! ;-)
Bs"d
In this game: https://lichess.org/9VS3AWeJVvLO and 1805 rated enemy gave me the possibility to fry his liver.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 11:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
In this game: https://lichess.org/9VS3AWeJVvLO and 1805 rated enemy gave me the possibility to fry his liver.Incredible! You made a joke instead of just posting a silly stupid
game against a very poor stupid player. As usual, you won not because
of your good play, but because your opponent was even weaker than you
and blundered.
Stop posting your crap! Nobody here is interested in seeing it. I've
never seen a single post complimenting you how on well you played.
--
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer
On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:24:59 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
The point here is that what the name of the opening that is played can often not be determined until several moves have been played.Bs"d
Wrong. When somebody plays 1. Nf3, then he plays the Zukertort, no matter what other opening it turns into.
When somebody plays 1. c4, then he plays the English opening, no matter if it turns into a queens gambit, or whatever.
On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:08:26 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:what publications like the Encyclopedia of chess openings do.
On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:24:59 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
The point here is that what the name of the opening that is played can often not be determined until several moves have been played.Bs"d
Wrong. When somebody plays 1. Nf3, then he plays the Zukertort, no matter what other opening it turns into.
When somebody plays 1. c4, then he plays the English opening, no matter if it turns into a queens gambit, or whatever.We could, of course define openings in that way. It would be easy, as after the first move you normally know what to call the opening.
However, it would not be a useful system. If you want to study the Queen's Gambit, for example, it is a distinct handicap if some QGDs are filed under "English". It is more useful to file them under the opening system they eventually became. This is
After all, even the opening of the famous Tarrasch game which you followed :1f4 e5 2ef d5, was called Falkbeer counter gambit. It was never called a Bird's opening or even a From gambit.
It's a question of useful vs easy. The chess world chose useful, sloppy writers have often chosen easy.
On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:08:26 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:24:59 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
The point here is that what the name of the opening that is played canBs"d
often not be determined until several moves have been played.
Wrong. When somebody plays 1. Nf3, then he plays the Zukertort, no matter what other opening it turns into.
When somebody plays 1. c4, then he plays the English opening, no matter if it turns into a queens gambit, or whatever.
We could, of course define openings in that way. It would be easy, as after the first move you normally know what to call the opening.what publications like the Encyclopedia of chess openings do.
However, it would not be a useful system. If you want to study the Queen's Gambit, for example, it is a distinct handicap if some QGDs are filed under "English". It is more useful to file them under the opening system they eventually became. This is
After all, even the opening of the famous Tarrasch game which you followed :1f4 e5 2ef d5, was called Falkbeer counter gambit. It was never called a Bird's opening or even a From gambit.
It's a question of useful vs easy. The chess world chose useful, sloppy writers have often chosen easy.
Bs"d
Here an Englund gambit was the cause of a 6 move miniature: https://lichess.org/cTr1ql59xD17
https://tinyurl.com/Dodgy-Engl
Bs"dletting my f6 horse jump to e4, and remove his pawn from there.
And just now I had another one trying to fry my liver: https://lichess.org/SbvKYjwfDn85
Of course I deliberately gave him the opportunity by playing the two horses defense, just because I wanted him to try, because I have such a nice antidote against it; the Ponziani-Steinitz gambit.
Just another one of those trappy gambits. :D
https://lichess.org/SbvKYjwfDn85
When the enemy horse jumped to g5, attacking f7, which was already under fire by his bishop, and he thereby making a double attack on f7 and threatening unpleasantnesses like a horse fork on my queen and castle, then I again solved the problem by
I didn't let myself be dissuaded by small inconveniences like the fact that that e4 pawn was covered by his horse, or that he now could make a nasty horse fork on f7. I was fired on by my motto: https://tinyurl.com/dam-torp
In response to me taking his e4 pawn, the enemy horse smacked into f7, and maliciously forked my queen and castle.
That was the beginning of the end, an end which came with astonishing swiftness.
The enemy resigned on move 8 .
That will teach him!
https://tinyurl.com/Ponzi-Steini
https://tinyurl.com/KC-play-trap-gamb
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:02:19 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:letting my f6 horse jump to e4, and remove his pawn from there.
Bs"d
And just now I had another one trying to fry my liver: https://lichess.org/SbvKYjwfDn85
Of course I deliberately gave him the opportunity by playing the two horses defense, just because I wanted him to try, because I have such a nice antidote against it; the Ponziani-Steinitz gambit.
Just another one of those trappy gambits. :D
https://lichess.org/SbvKYjwfDn85
When the enemy horse jumped to g5, attacking f7, which was already under fire by his bishop, and he thereby making a double attack on f7 and threatening unpleasantnesses like a horse fork on my queen and castle, then I again solved the problem by
I didn't let myself be dissuaded by small inconveniences like the fact that that e4 pawn was covered by his horse, or that he now could make a nasty horse fork on f7. I was fired on by my motto: https://tinyurl.com/dam-torp
In response to me taking his e4 pawn, the enemy horse smacked into f7, and maliciously forked my queen and castle.
That was the beginning of the end, an end which came with astonishing swiftness.
The enemy resigned on move 8 .
That will teach him!
https://tinyurl.com/Ponzi-Steini
https://tinyurl.com/KC-play-trap-gambSuch remarkably short games. This blunderfest is the shortest I have played in a while:
https://lichess.org/mP3egSK7#60another shot
It goes against the grain to play a move like Bxh6, but when the computer follows up with Qg7 I am rewarded. I disagree
with the higher level computer assessment that I should kick the queen with Rg8. Why not let it fester on g7? I regret missing
the quicker win with Qe3, but the spectacle of white being unable to stop the unsupported advance of the a pawn was
worth it.
Sometimes when (I assume) there is a problem with available cpu time or connectivity, the machine will outright blunder material. After checking to make sure this move isn't actually a brilliancy, you can use the takeback feature to give the computer
at that move. This can make a boring win interesting again.
Bs"d
Look what just happened to me! Absolutely gut-busting!
https://lichess.org/aF5AdfGcFBYC 🤣🤣🤣
https://tinyurl.com/Zeekadettenmat
Bs"d
Look what just happened to me! Absolutely gut-busting!
https://lichess.org/aF5AdfGcFBYC 🤣🤣🤣
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:48:41 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Look what just happened to me! Absolutely gut-busting!
https://lichess.org/aF5AdfGcFBYC 🤣🤣🤣Blackburne used to play about 1000 simultaneous games per year. He generally won
a dozen or so with Legal's mate.
I see he still would today.
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 1:18:56 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:48:41 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Look what just happened to me! Absolutely gut-busting!
https://lichess.org/aF5AdfGcFBYC 🤣🤣🤣Blackburne used to play about 1000 simultaneous games per year. He generally won
a dozen or so with Legal's mate.
I see he still would today.Bs"d
That's about one in a hundred. No really much. I think my mate in five after queen sacrifice happens more often then the Legal mate.
That mate in 5 is about once a year. Legal less.
But very enjoyable.
And the enemy was an 1830. Not a raw beginner, because the average rating on Lichess is about 1550-1600.
How can somebody like that fall for it?
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 8:42:57 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 1:18:56 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:48:41 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Look what just happened to me! Absolutely gut-busting!
https://lichess.org/aF5AdfGcFBYC 🤣🤣🤣Blackburne used to play about 1000 simultaneous games per year. He generally won
a dozen or so with Legal's mate.
I see he still would today.Bs"d
That's about one in a hundred. No really much. I think my mate in five after queen sacrifice happens more often then the Legal mate.Your queen sac essentially is Legal's mate.
That mate in 5 is about once a year. Legal less.
Bs"dIntercontinental Ballistic Missile variation of the Tennison gambit against the Caro-Kann.
Yesterday I started with the Zuckertort again; 1. Nf3, and the enemy started playing the Caro-Kann against me. Fortunately, I came across the above youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhjSpXORK0E ) that explained to me that you can also play the
So I led the game into the Tennison gambit waters, and yes! he fell for it!that looks much more natural. It's easier to be lured into the trap without suspicion being aroused.
What happened was that with a different move order a Tennison gambit came on the board. The difference is that this gambit looks much more natural. There is now a reason to give that pawn away, which otherwise is not there.
If you give away a pawn in a normal situation, after which your knight is immediately attacked, that is either a terrible blunder, or there is something behind it. It will make people suspicious.
But in the Caro-Kann, if you take the pawn back, the enemy can trade queens, and White loses his castling. So there is a good reason to give up that pawn and move your horse. And that horse then immediately attacks that annoying pawn of the enemy, and
And that's what happened to the enemy in this game: https://lichess.org/d61XrZswyeED On move 8 I took the enemy queen, and on move 8 the enemy surrendered unconditionally. :D
Hallelujah!!
https://tinyurl.com/Thank4trapgamb
Bs"dthe evaluation is still totally equal, but I just don't like to play a position like that. Here is an example of a game like that: https://lichess.org/BXu2VmmwQ4bD
I stopped playing the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile variation of the Tennison gambit, because the enemies too often play h3 prematurely, and then I lose my queen. Well, the enemy also, but I also lose my castling. Stockfish says that in that case
So with the exception of me facing a Caro-Kann defense, and against that playing the Tennison ICBM variation, I play now only the variation which gives me the position on this board: https://tinyurl.com/Black-lost-Tennison I have a lot of succes withit, and when the enemy doesn't fall in the trap, then I get my pawn back with a nice game.
Here is and example of that: https://lichess.org/crdkg2jiYk3L The queen came a bit late to d4, but still it worked out fine. The enemy answered nicely wrong, and when he realised he would come out of the opening 9 points behind, he resigned. On move 10.:D
https://tinyurl.com/Deadly-Tenni
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:00:59 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:case the evaluation is still totally equal, but I just don't like to play a position like that. Here is an example of a game like that: https://lichess.org/BXu2VmmwQ4bD
Bs"d
I stopped playing the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile variation of the Tennison gambit, because the enemies too often play h3 prematurely, and then I lose my queen. Well, the enemy also, but I also lose my castling. Stockfish says that in that
Actually this is much more interesting than seeing someone fall for the same trap you have shown a dozen times. A thirty four move gameit, and when the enemy doesn't fall in the trap, then I get my pawn back with a nice game.
in which black dropped a piece on move seven or so is deadly dull. In this case you had to fight for the advantage, got it, dropped it
back (Re4 is an instructive mistake) and finally won.
So with the exception of me facing a Caro-Kann defense, and against that playing the Tennison ICBM variation, I play now only the variation which gives me the position on this board: https://tinyurl.com/Black-lost-Tennison I have a lot of succes with
10. :DHere is and example of that: https://lichess.org/crdkg2jiYk3L The queen came a bit late to d4, but still it worked out fine. The enemy answered nicely wrong, and when he realised he would come out of the opening 9 points behind, he resigned. On move
https://tinyurl.com/Deadly-TenniDeadly dull, in this case.
Bs"d
WARNING!!
It has come to my attention that looking over the same short games again and again, is deadly boring. And since I don't want to kill anybody, please make sure that you'll be able to handle those boring games without croaking on the spot.
Reading on is totally on your own risk.
Don't say I didn't warn you!
Bs"d
Here I got a beautiful Stafford gambit: https://lichess.org/7E3xQNeWhDwr
The enemy lasted all of 9 moves, and then resigned, because he was going to have to part with a castle. (or tower, that is also acceptable, this in contradistinction to "rook". That's just not an option)
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:23:01 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here I got a beautiful Stafford gambit: https://lichess.org/7E3xQNeWhDwr
The enemy lasted all of 9 moves, and then resigned, because he was going to have to part with a castle. (or tower, that is also acceptable, this in contradistinction to "rook". That's just not an option)You are writing In English in which "Rook" is perfectly acceptable, but "Tower" is not.
When speaking in other languages I use the correct words in those languages. While speaking German or French I do not talk of
Rooks or Knights. Should we ever carry on a conversation in Dutch I will say toren and paard. But first I would have to learn the language.
"Rook" is from the Persian name for the piece, meaning chariot. So named because the chariot was at that time a
powerful force on the battlefield, more powerful at the time than mere cavalry
In most European languages the word used does indeed translate to tower or bastion, but not in English. In other languages it is
"cannon" or "ship". Only English preserves the Persian name, even Persian speakers have abandoned it, possibly due to the
Arab conquest.
Apparently a word related to rook was used in central Asia for a long time. Timur was notified of the birth of a son while playing
chess. He had just forked the opponent's king and rook. He named the unfortunate son something like "Shah-rukh" in honour of this event.
On second thought maybe the name wasn't so bad. The son ruled his dad's empire for over forty years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Rukh
I guess he liked knight forks. The genocidal bastard did not live in a culture where the queen was a powerful piece, so sadly was
unable to enjoy the royal forks which so please you.
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:14:09 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:23:01 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here I got a beautiful Stafford gambit: https://lichess.org/7E3xQNeWhDwr
The enemy lasted all of 9 moves, and then resigned, because he was going to have to part with a castle. (or tower, that is also acceptable, this in contradistinction to "rook". That's just not an option)You are writing In English in which "Rook" is perfectly acceptable, but "Tower" is not.
When speaking in other languages I use the correct words in those languages. While speaking German or French I do not talk ofBs"d
Rooks or Knights. Should we ever carry on a conversation in Dutch I will say toren and paard. But first I would have to learn the language.
So you claim you speak English, but you insist on using a Persian word, while rejecting pure English words like "Tower".
In Dutch we say "Toren", which means "Tower".
Therefore I say: "Nothing wrong with "Tower"."
But since we already do the "castling", I think "castle" is more appropriate.
"Rook" is from the Persian name for the piece, meaning chariot. So named because the chariot was at that time a
powerful force on the battlefield, more powerful at the time than mere cavalry
In most European languages the word used does indeed translate to tower or bastion, but not in English. In other languages it isWhy on earth hang on to a Persian name when even the Persians them selves have abandoned it??
"cannon" or "ship". Only English preserves the Persian name, even Persian speakers have abandoned it, possibly due to the
Arab conquest.
We all know that a rook is a big black carrion eating bird, and a castle is a castle.
It is obvious that some adjustments have to made here in the chess language.
Apparently a word related to rook was used in central Asia for a long time. Timur was notified of the birth of a son while playing
chess. He had just forked the opponent's king and rook. He named the unfortunate son something like "Shah-rukh" in honour of this event.
On second thought maybe the name wasn't so bad. The son ruled his dad's empire for over forty years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Rukh
I guess he liked knight forks. The genocidal bastard did not live in a culture where the queen was a powerful piece, so sadly wasEven if the queen goes only one square, like the king, that should not be a reason not to fork them. If anything, it should be easier. The queen cannot get away so fast. :)
unable to enjoy the royal forks which so please you.
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 6:07:36?PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
So you claim you speak English, but you insist on using a Persian word, while rejecting pure English words like "Tower".
"Tower", by the way, came to English from old French via Latin. It seems to be related to the word "Etruscan", possibly because they
build them, so it's real origin might be wherever the Etruscans came from before they settled in Italy. Go back far enough and nothing
is native.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:22:28 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 6:07:36?PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
So you claim you speak English, but you insist on using a Persian word, while rejecting pure English words like "Tower".
"Tower", by the way, came to English from old French via Latin. It seems to be related to the word "Etruscan", possibly because theyBut it really doesn't matter how "tower" came into English, and you
build them, so it's real origin might be wherever the Etruscans came from before they settled in Italy. Go back far enough and nothing
is native.
weren't using a Persian word. You were using the correct established
English word for the name of the piece, not some childish word like
"tower" or "castle."
Bs"d
And here the intercontinental ballistic missile variation of the Budapest gambit: https://lichess.org/T36SfAkhzDw7
On move 8 the enemy had to part with his queen, and he surrendered unconditionally.
https://tinyurl.com/Bud-ICBM
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:18:53 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here the intercontinental ballistic missile variation of the Budapest gambit: https://lichess.org/T36SfAkhzDw7
On move 8 the enemy had to part with his queen, and he surrendered unconditionally.
https://tinyurl.com/Bud-ICBMRegrettably, I can no longer see your games on lichess - at least not by clicking on those links. All i get are blank boards.
But I'll take your word for it.
William Hyde
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:18:53 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here the intercontinental ballistic missile variation of the Budapest gambit: https://lichess.org/T36SfAkhzDw7
On move 8 the enemy had to part with his queen, and he surrendered unconditionally.
https://tinyurl.com/Bud-ICBMRegrettably, I can no longer see your games on lichess - at least not by clicking on those links. All i get are blank boards.
But I'll take your word for it.
William Hyde
Bs"d
And then somebody went horribly wrong with a trap in the Tennison gambit: https://lichess.org/zUV8BPC1U0GG
I prefer now this trap, all the rest seems to be too well known. This one works great!
The wise Eli Kesef enlightened me with:
Bs"d
And then somebody went horribly wrong with a trap in the Tennison gambit: https://lichess.org/zUV8BPC1U0GG
I prefer now this trap, all the rest seems to be too well known. This one works great!And if black doesn't fall for it, maybe simply something like 7... Nc6,
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+3, Mark Huizer wrote:playing it. Now I play in stead the Budapest gambit, and if the enemy doesn't fall for one of the many traps, you get your pawn back, and all is well with the world.
The wise Eli Kesef enlightened me with:
Bs"dAnd if black doesn't fall for it, maybe simply something like 7... Nc6,
And then somebody went horribly wrong with a trap in the Tennison gambit: https://lichess.org/zUV8BPC1U0GG
I prefer now this trap, all the rest seems to be too well known. This one works great!
Bs"d
There are traps with which, if they don't fall for it, you're in a bad situation. This is not one of 'm. Practically all the traps I play don't have that drawback. The only one I know which has that, is the Englund gambit, and that's why I stopped
And 7 ... Nc6 is a response I encounter many times, and it never gives me problems. Here is one example of that: https://lichess.org/IJEClZCEQ47N
The wise Eli Kesef enlightened me with:playing it. Now I play in stead the Budapest gambit, and if the enemy doesn't fall for one of the many traps, you get your pawn back, and all is well with the world.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+3, Mark Huizer wrote:
The wise Eli Kesef enlightened me with:
Bs"dAnd if black doesn't fall for it, maybe simply something like 7... Nc6,
And then somebody went horribly wrong with a trap in the Tennison gambit: https://lichess.org/zUV8BPC1U0GG
I prefer now this trap, all the rest seems to be too well known. This one works great!
Bs"d
There are traps with which, if they don't fall for it, you're in a bad situation. This is not one of 'm. Practically all the traps I play don't have that drawback. The only one I know which has that, is the Englund gambit, and that's why I stopped
And 7 ... Nc6 is a response I encounter many times, and it never gives me problems. Here is one example of that: https://lichess.org/IJEClZCEQ47NI'm not going to check each and every game you play, but I wouldn't
trust that position with white. After Nxf7 of course you don't play Kxh7
but 8... Qd4. You can't defend the bishop, because Bg4 and then Kh7
would lose a piece, so I guess 9. Nxh8 Qxc4 is forced. Nh8 will be lost, leaving you with 2 pieces for the rook. But I'd say even without that,
the black development should be OK for just an exchange.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:50:04 PM UTC-4, Mark Huizer wrote:playing it. Now I play in stead the Budapest gambit, and if the enemy doesn't fall for one of the many traps, you get your pawn back, and all is well with the world.
The wise Eli Kesef enlightened me with:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+3, Mark Huizer wrote:
The wise Eli Kesef enlightened me with:
Bs"dAnd if black doesn't fall for it, maybe simply something like 7... Nc6,
And then somebody went horribly wrong with a trap in the Tennison gambit: https://lichess.org/zUV8BPC1U0GG
I prefer now this trap, all the rest seems to be too well known. This one works great!
Bs"d
There are traps with which, if they don't fall for it, you're in a bad situation. This is not one of 'm. Practically all the traps I play don't have that drawback. The only one I know which has that, is the Englund gambit, and that's why I stopped
I've actually spent some time trying to convert Eli to the idea of playing good chess, but that'sAnd 7 ... Nc6 is a response I encounter many times, and it never gives me problems. Here is one example of that: https://lichess.org/IJEClZCEQ47NI'm not going to check each and every game you play, but I wouldn't
trust that position with white. After Nxf7 of course you don't play Kxh7 but 8... Qd4. You can't defend the bishop, because Bg4 and then Kh7
would lose a piece, so I guess 9. Nxh8 Qxc4 is forced. Nh8 will be lost, leaving you with 2 pieces for the rook. But I'd say even without that,
the black development should be OK for just an exchange.
not what he enjoys. While I'd be very happy to score an 80 move win vs a 2300 player, Eli
would be equally happy scoring a ten move wins against a patzer.
As he has said here before, he actively avoids stronger players.
When out of his gambit territory he tends to waste time by moving developed pieces twice,
putting in irrelevant rook pawn moves and the like.
On the other hand he did post a pretty decent non-gambit game, where he played the attack
well (considering that it was a speed game) and wasted no time at all. So he is capable,
perhaps, of better.
William Hyde
I've actually spent some time trying to convert Eli to the idea of playing good chess, but that's
not what he enjoys. While I'd be very happy to score an 80 move win vs a 2300 player, Eli
would be equally happy scoring a ten move wins against a patzer.
Bs"d
So I thought this morning: Let's try a Blackburn-Shilling, long time not played: https://lichess.org/iZDVV9k4PcQo
I haven't tried it in a long time, because it is so well known. But, I must say: It was an overwhelming success! The enemy was mated on move 7. HalleluJah!!
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:43:36 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So I thought this morning: Let's try a Blackburn-Shilling, long time not played: https://lichess.org/iZDVV9k4PcQo
I haven't tried it in a long time, because it is so well known. But, I must say: It was an overwhelming success! The enemy was mated on move 7. HalleluJah!!I first saw this gambit in, of all places, Scientific American. The context was an article on computer chess, but it let me win a few
speed games before people caught on.
William Hyde
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:43:36 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So I thought this morning: Let's try a Blackburn-Shilling, long time not played: https://lichess.org/iZDVV9k4PcQo
I haven't tried it in a long time, because it is so well known. But, I must say: It was an overwhelming success! The enemy was mated on move 7. HalleluJah!!I first saw this gambit in, of all places, Scientific American. The context was an article on computer chess, but it let me win a few
speed games before people caught on.
William Hyde
Bs"d
In this game Zuza007 took up the gauntlet, and he fell victim to a Tennison gambit: https://lichess.org/X3GJEArH1oKF
On move 13 the Horrible Royal Horse fork came by, and Zuza called it a day and threw in the towel.
https://tinyurl.com/Tenn-snake
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:05:12 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 4:43:36 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So I thought this morning: Let's try a Blackburn-Shilling, long time not played: https://lichess.org/iZDVV9k4PcQo
I haven't tried it in a long time, because it is so well known. But, I must say: It was an overwhelming success! The enemy was mated on move 7. HalleluJah!!I first saw this gambit in, of all places, Scientific American. The context was an article on computer chess, but it let me win a few
speed games before people caught on.
William HydeBs"d
Amazing! Scientific American dishing out trappy gambits! I think I need a subscription to SA.
This morning I looked up Blackburn
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 78:49:03 |
| Calls: | 6,695 |
| Files: | 12,229 |
| Messages: | 5,347,583 |