But then I saw that he set himself up for a nice little horse fork. So my horse jumped forward, forked king and queen, which were standing close together, and the enemy right away surrendered unconditionally.
Bs"dhad to part with his queen on move 8, and got in return only two light pieces. And I got the invested pawn back, plus one pawn interest, so I was 4 points ahead. He still had 4 light pieces and two castles, so there was a lot of play left for him, and I
So I switched from the Englund gambit to the Budapest gambit. It is not as spectacular as the Englund when that leads to a mate on move 8, but sometimes it works nicely. Like in this freshly played game: https://lichess.org/PDZoXjYnmQah Here the enemy
https://is.gd/trappy_gamb
Bs"d
Here a friendly neighborhood horse fork made the enemy resign: https://lichess.org/m3VhG9cCkqPg
This horse fork was funny: https://lichess.org/xB3AD2jnUDXB
On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:21:17 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here a friendly neighborhood horse fork made the enemy resign: https://lichess.org/m3VhG9cCkqPg
This horse fork was funny: https://lichess.org/xB3AD2jnUDXBAhhh! My eyes! They Burn, they Burn!!!!!!!!!!!!
In this game https://lichess.org/7b22Dl363uwr a royal fork decided the game. After the fork the enemy surrendered.
The trouble with this fork is, I had something better. I know, it is hard to believe that there is something more beautiful than a royal fork, but I had here a mate in three, which included a queen sacrifice. And THAT is beautiful!
On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:42:41 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this game https://lichess.org/7b22Dl363uwr a royal fork decided the game. After the fork the enemy surrendered.
I am shocked, you won without playing a gambit.
I know this guy. He belongs to a religious order in which one must vow never to move the king's knight. That's why he's only 1750. If he could move all his pieces he'd be a GM at least.
The trouble with this fork is, I had something better.
Emanuel Lasker's advice more than 100 years ago - when you see a good move, don't just play it, look for something
better.
Bs"d
In this game https://lichess.org/7b22Dl363uwr a royal fork decided the game. After the fork the enemy surrendered.
The trouble with this fork is, I had something better.
On 1/3/2022 3:48 PM, William Hyde wrote:
On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:42:41 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this game https://lichess.org/7b22Dl363uwr a royal fork decided the game. After the fork the enemy surrendered.
I am shocked, you won without playing a gambit.
I know this guy. He belongs to a religious order in which one must vow never to move the king's knight. That's why he's only 1750. If he could move all his pieces he'd be a GM at least.
The trouble with this fork is, I had something better.
Emanuel Lasker's advice more than 100 years ago - when you see a good move, don't just play it, look for somethingGood advice. But that advice pertains even more to Go than it does to Chess.
better.
On 1/3/2022 9:42 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
In this game https://lichess.org/7b22Dl363uwr a royal fork decided the game. After the fork the enemy surrendered.
The trouble with this fork is, I had something better. I know, it is hard to believe that there is something more beautiful than a royal fork, but I had here a mate in three, which included a queen sacrifice. And THAT is beautiful!Incredibly beautiful. It might have taken me a whole three or four
seconds to see it.
On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 1:03:29 AM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
On 1/3/2022 3:48 PM, William Hyde wrote:
On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:42:41 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Good advice. But that advice pertains even more to Go than it does to Chess.
Bs"d
In this game https://lichess.org/7b22Dl363uwr a royal fork decided the game. After the fork the enemy surrendered.
I am shocked, you won without playing a gambit.
I know this guy. He belongs to a religious order in which one must vow never to move the king's knight. That's why he's only 1750. If he could move all his pieces he'd be a GM at least.
The trouble with this fork is, I had something better.
Emanuel Lasker's advice more than 100 years ago - when you see a good move, don't just play it, look for something
better.
Bs¨d
Emanuel Lasker was a Go player??
Bs"d
Got another royal fork: https://lichess.org/xldvMAYqPyAy
The enemy limped on for 2 more moves, but then realized that all resistance was futile, en surrendered.
On 1/4/2022 3:36 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Got another royal fork: https://lichess.org/xldvMAYqPyAy
The enemy limped on for 2 more moves, but then realized that all resistance was futile, en surrendered.
It's hard to believe that you won a game against a player with such incredible skills in the opening.
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 12:51:37 AM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
On 1/4/2022 3:36 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"dIt's hard to believe that you won a game against a player with such
Got another royal fork: https://lichess.org/xldvMAYqPyAy
The enemy limped on for 2 more moves, but then realized that all resistance was futile, en surrendered.
incredible skills in the opening.
Bs"d
Also a blind chicken sometimes finds a kernel of grain.
On 1/4/2022 11:39 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 12:51:37 AM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
On 1/4/2022 3:36 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"dIt's hard to believe that you won a game against a player with such
Got another royal fork: https://lichess.org/xldvMAYqPyAy
The enemy limped on for 2 more moves, but then realized that all resistance was futile, en surrendered.
incredible skills in the opening.
Bs"d
Also a blind chicken sometimes finds a kernel of grain.
More to the point, I don't want to see the same games you post again and again and again, nor a game like this one that you won against an
obviously incompetent player who played incredibly badly. I can't speak
for everyone else here (there aren't many of us these days), but it's
hard to imagine that anyone else here wants to see your boring
repetitive games either.
If you posted a game that you won by playing extremely well against
someone who also played extremely well, and it wasn't a duplicate of
some other game that you had posted, yes, I'd be interested in seeing it (you'll never post such a game because there aren't any).
But I'm not interested in seeing the repetitive junk you post, not even
the games that contain what you laughably call "the most beautiful and devastating tactical concept" or a "royal fork."
Bs"d
And here another game, which game to a sudden end by means of a royal fork: https://lichess.org/5IVcBp0yINqj
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here another game, which game to a sudden end by means of a royal fork: https://lichess.org/5IVcBp0yINqjYou won without catching someone in a memorized opening trap. Congratulations.
Your opponent uses the name of Tarrasch. He should know that Dr T considered the Falkbeer (which you played) to be the refutation of the king's gambit. Certainly he did nothing here to prove his namesake wrong.
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 9:41:01 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"dYou won without catching someone in a memorized opening trap. Congratulations.
And here another game, which game to a sudden end by means of a royal fork: https://lichess.org/5IVcBp0yINqj
Bs"d
Unfortunately, only in a small minority of my games I have successful opening traps.
Your opponent uses the name of Tarrasch. He should know that Dr T considered the Falkbeer (which you played) to be the refutation of the king's gambit. Certainly he did nothing here to prove his namesake wrong.
The Falkbeer is the standard answer to the kings gambit.
Really funny it gets when the enemy takes the wrong pawn, then he loses his castle.
That happens once in a while.
https://tinyurl.com/always-worse
The Falkbeer is the standard answer to the kings gambit.
Standard for you, perhaps. Not standard in general.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:17:13 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>
wrote:
The Falkbeer is the standard answer to the kings gambit.
Standard for you, perhaps. Not standard in general.
Don't tell him about Fischer's "The King's Gambit is busted" which he
wrote before he was 20.....hint: it DOESN'T involve the Falkbeer
I've played the Falkbeer in a few speed games for quarters - I
wouldn't dream of it in a serious game. (Especially since most of my
speed opponents were higher rated and I had a minus score against
them! This is the sort of things players do between rounds at
tournaments)
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 4:11:24 AM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:17:13 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
The Falkbeer is the standard answer to the kings gambit.
It was rather scary when he had this mass of central pawns and I had nothing but some developed pieces. But as you might expect, the pieces were more important. Of course he was a much lower rated player. I wouldn't have had the courage to play thisStandard for you, perhaps. Not standard in general.
Don't tell him about Fischer's "The King's Gambit is busted" which he wrote before he was 20.....hint: it DOESN'T involve the Falkbeer
I've played the Falkbeer in a few speed games for quarters - II had a friend in Texas who played the king's gambit. I knew we were to play in a few days, with him as white, so I resolved to play the Falkbeer. Not that I knew anything beyond move three, and I wasn't rational enough to actually study the opening.
wouldn't dream of it in a serious game. (Especially since most of my
speed opponents were higher rated and I had a minus score against
them! This is the sort of things players do between rounds at
tournaments)
On the other hand when the Falkbeer was played against me by a somewhat weaker opponent, I had serious trouble and was probably lost. But this was g/30 and blunders changed the logical course of the game.
The Cochrane was very popular at the time. I never played e4 in regular tournaments but ventured it in g/30 where I got the opportunity for that knight sac. Once again I wondered what the hell I had just done though it was in the end a fairly short win.I think I am just not the gambit type. Much too materialistic.
those traps are more annoying than educational.
The Cochrane was very popular at the time. I never played e4 in regular to= >urnaments but ventured it in g/30 where I got the opportunity for that knig= >ht sac. Once again I wondered what the hell I had just done though it was = >in the end a fairly short win. I think I am just not the gambit type. Muc= >h too materialistic.
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 9:28:01 AM UTC+2, The Horny Goat wrote:
those traps are more annoying than educational.Bs"d
If those traps work then they are incredibly funny!
And that's what it's all about; having fun.
those traps are more annoying than educational.
any B player or above
shouldn't fall into one of our friend's silly traps.
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 9:28:01 AM UTC+2, The Horny Goat wrote:
those traps are more annoying than educational.
Bs"d
If those traps work then they are incredibly funny!
And that's what it's all about; having fun.
I want to end this post with an adorable quote from Bobby:
https://tinyurl.com/bobby-genius
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 01:18:00 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef ><nastyhorsefork@gmail.com> wrote:
I want to end this post with an adorable quote from Bobby:
https://tinyurl.com/bobby-genius
Adorable? Not to me. That quote says he considers himself to be an
all-around genius. That's nothing but stupid bragodoccio.
I knew him very well in his early chess-playing days. Perhaps he was a
"Chess genius," but he was far from being an all-around genius. As far
as I'm concerned, despite his Chess skills, he was an all around
idiot.
To make it worse, he was very poorly educated in everything but chess.
He knew next to nothing about anything but chess.
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:53:36 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 4:11:24 AM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:17:13 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
The Falkbeer is the standard answer to the kings gambit.
It was rather scary when he had this mass of central pawns and I had nothing but some developed pieces. But as you might expect, the pieces were more important. Of course he was a much lower rated player. I wouldn't have had the courage to play thisStandard for you, perhaps. Not standard in general.
Don't tell him about Fischer's "The King's Gambit is busted" which he wrote before he was 20.....hint: it DOESN'T involve the Falkbeer
I've played the Falkbeer in a few speed games for quarters - II had a friend in Texas who played the king's gambit. I knew we were to play in a few days, with him as white, so I resolved to play the Falkbeer. Not that I knew anything beyond move three, and I wasn't rational enough to actually study the opening.
wouldn't dream of it in a serious game. (Especially since most of my speed opponents were higher rated and I had a minus score against
them! This is the sort of things players do between rounds at tournaments)
On the other hand when the Falkbeer was played against me by a somewhat weaker opponent, I had serious trouble and was probably lost. But this was g/30 and blunders changed the logical course of the game.Bs"d
What is g/30?
win. I think I am just not the gambit type. Much too materialistic.The Cochrane was very popular at the time. I never played e4 in regular tournaments but ventured it in g/30 where I got the opportunity for that knight sac. Once again I wondered what the hell I had just done though it was in the end a fairly short
I prefer to sacrifice no more than a pawn. On my patzer level that usually doesn't make a difference in the long run, and usually you do get compensation for it, either fast development or a good attack.
Bs"d
What is g/30?A game in which each side has 30 minutes. If I am reading lichess properly, you are playing either g/5 or g/15.
I like g/15. It doesn't go on too long but you have time to do some thinking. On the whole I've done much better at g/15 than any other time control.
win. I think I am just not the gambit type. Much too materialistic.The Cochrane was very popular at the time. I never played e4 in regular tournaments but ventured it in g/30 where I got the opportunity for that knight sac. Once again I wondered what the hell I had just done though it was in the end a fairly short
I prefer to sacrifice no more than a pawn. On my patzer level that usually doesn't make a difference in the long run, and usually you do get compensation for it, either fast development or a good attack.In the Cochrane you get two pawns for the knight, and two important ones, the e and f pawns. So it is equivalent to a pawn sacrifice and your huge centre gives you good play.
However, you don't generally win in eight moves, even against weak players, so it's probably not for you.
If you ever face a stafford gambit enthusiast, though, it might be worth trying the same sacrifice, just to avoid the ignominy of being sacrificed against. Admittedly it is hard to get into a Petroff after 1Nf3.
Bs"d
And here I was in a bit of a quandary, but a royal fork saved the situation and ended the game instantly: https://lichess.org/3LtK8GIjq4Jt
Thank God for horse forks!
On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 2:13:56 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I was in a bit of a quandary, but a royal fork saved the situation and ended the game instantly: https://lichess.org/3LtK8GIjq4Jt
Thank God for horse forks!Note that once again your h6 is a terrible move. In fact you are losing after that.
On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 2:13:56 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I was in a bit of a quandary, but a royal fork saved the situation and ended the game instantly: https://lichess.org/3LtK8GIjq4Jt
Thank God for horse forks!Note that once again your h6 is a terrible move. In fact you are losing after that.
On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 1:48:20 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 2:13:56 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I was in a bit of a quandary, but a royal fork saved the situation and ended the game instantly: https://lichess.org/3LtK8GIjq4Jt
Bs"dThank God for horse forks!Note that once again your h6 is a terrible move. In fact you are losing after that.
Objectively, you are right. I looked at that with Stockfish, and before h6 he says that white is +1.0
After h6 he says white is +2.3 So yeah, it is bad. But this is one of those cases that I have no idea why it is bad,
and that even if I where to play the better move, I have no idea how to take advantage of it.
It might be very bad on world champion level, on my level it is a necessity.
Bs"d
In this game https://lichess.org/fGyuwF0w63Ur a nasty horse fork made the opponent resign immediately.
That'll teach him.
On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 6:36:13 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this game https://lichess.org/fGyuwF0w63Ur a nasty horse fork made the opponent resign immediately.
That'll teach him.Well what have the Romans ever done for us?
Bs"d
Here a game was finished on move 13 because of a nasty horsefork, forking the royal family: https://lichess.org/6ngZewwlHGL7
Horse forks are terrible things....
https://tinyurl.com/what-t4k
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:27:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here a game was finished on move 13 because of a nasty horsefork, forking the royal family: https://lichess.org/6ngZewwlHGL7Another important tactical concept is the discovered attack, which may even at times be combined with a fork.
Horse forks are terrible things....
https://tinyurl.com/what-t4k
In my new senility, I find it easy to miss. Notice how many times I missed Nxe4 in this game. I think about twenty. You were threatening a
vicious discovered attack in one of your recent games, but perhaps you could use this tactic a little more.
https://lichess.org/9jw2Vwdl#67
At times you simply cannot successfully attack the opponent's king. But as this game shows, you can get plenty of action and make
plenty of blunders attacking the queen side.
William Hyde
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:27:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here a game was finished on move 13 because of a nasty horsefork, forking the royal family: https://lichess.org/6ngZewwlHGL7Another important tactical concept is the discovered attack, which may even at times be combined with a fork.
Horse forks are terrible things....
https://tinyurl.com/what-t4k
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 9:33:50 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:27:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Bs"dHere a game was finished on move 13 because of a nasty horsefork, forking the royal family: https://lichess.org/6ngZewwlHGL7Another important tactical concept is the discovered attack, which may even at times be combined with a fork.
Horse forks are terrible things....
https://tinyurl.com/what-t4k
"A discovered attack combined with a fork". I got just that for you: https://lichess.org/LxPxkRsfrblO A fork, be it not a very potent one because the horse can be knocked off, but at the same time a discovered attack.
I saw that already on move 14, that's why I sacrificed my bishop. He also saw it, that's why he didn't take my bishop.
And therefore I was amazed when he did take my bishop on move 16, because he would fall victim to the same discovered attack.
And that's how it was. He resigned on move 17.
Why didn't he see it the second time around? But I'm not complaining. A win is a win. :D
But even if he would have seen it, then he would have realized that he could not take my bishop, and then he would have been two pieces behind = hopelessly lost.
I love chess when I win! HalleluJah!!
https://tinyurl.com/winning-only
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 8:36:27 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:because the second time I exchanged my bishop for his horse, in stead of sacrificing it for nothing.
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 9:33:50 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:27:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Bs"dHere a game was finished on move 13 because of a nasty horsefork, forking the royal family: https://lichess.org/6ngZewwlHGL7Another important tactical concept is the discovered attack, which may even at times be combined with a fork.
Horse forks are terrible things....
https://tinyurl.com/what-t4k
"A discovered attack combined with a fork". I got just that for you: https://lichess.org/LxPxkRsfrblO A fork, be it not a very potent one because the horse can be knocked off, but at the same time a discovered attack.
I saw that already on move 14, that's why I sacrificed my bishop. He also saw it, that's why he didn't take my bishop.
And therefore I was amazed when he did take my bishop on move 16, because he would fall victim to the same discovered attack.
And that's how it was. He resigned on move 17.
Why didn't he see it the second time around? But I'm not complaining. A win is a win. :D
But even if he would have seen it, then he would have realized that he could not take my bishop, and then he would have been two pieces behind = hopelessly lost.
I love chess when I win! HalleluJah!!
https://tinyurl.com/winning-onlyBs"d
Actually, the second time I tried for that tactic winning the queen it was better than the first time. The first time, with right play he could have gotten a horse and a bishop for his queen, but the second time he only got a horse for his queen,
Just too bad the horse fork was not a real fork. How do you call such a fake fork? An "imaginairy fork"? Maybe a "forka morgana"?
But still, the forka morgana scared him enough that he resigned right away.
Or maybe is was not the forka morgana that scared him into surrendering, but the fact that he saw that his queen was lost beyond all hope.
That will do it.
But like you said: Discovered attacks are also killers!
https://tinyurl.com/Short-kill
Bs"d
Here a cute but sneaky little horse fork: https://lichess.org/tvdt9AiLAGDa
Nothing to write home about, but nice. The opening went rotten for me,
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here a cute but sneaky little horse fork: https://lichess.org/tvdt9AiLAGDa
Nothing to write home about, but nice. The opening went rotten for me,If you're not launching one of your rapid attacks, you generally need to not block your c-pawn in d4 games. Also, don't open files
for your opponent, especially when you have not castled.
Your opponent's later play is a classic example of checking just because it's check. A good way to lose, as you showed him. But
I doubt that he is cured.
Bs"d
Here a nice royal horse fork, forking the royal pair, on move 14: https://lichess.org/UvDJ2ttezg2O
That ended the game instantly. :D
Bs"d
Cute little horse fork on move 18, which costed the enemy a castle. He played on, but when he 5 moves later lost his queen he got the picture and surrendered: https://lichess.org/3rB7v4P9PKnb
https://tinyurl.com/withu4k
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:37:20 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here a nice royal horse fork, forking the royal pair, on move 14: https://lichess.org/UvDJ2ttezg2O
That ended the game instantly. :DThe game was twice as long as it should have been.
The pin is mightier than the fork!
Bs"d
In this Falkbeer countergambit a royal horse fork made the enemy throw in the towel: https://lichess.org/vHWLN6yahWAo
You gotta love those horse forks!
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:20:36 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this Falkbeer countergambit a royal horse fork made the enemy throw in the towel: https://lichess.org/vHWLN6yahWAo
You gotta love those horse forks!Though you already had a well deserved winning position by the time of the fork. And you never pushed your
h pawn!
William Hyde
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:20:36 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this Falkbeer countergambit a royal horse fork made the enemy throw in the towel: https://lichess.org/vHWLN6yahWAo
You gotta love those horse forks!Though you already had a well deserved winning position by the time of the fork. And you never pushed your
h pawn!
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:33:29 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:20:36 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this Falkbeer countergambit a royal horse fork made the enemy throw in the towel: https://lichess.org/vHWLN6yahWAo
Bs"dYou gotta love those horse forks!Though you already had a well deserved winning position by the time of the fork. And you never pushed your
h pawn!
The pushing of the h pawn is useful
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 5:27:24?PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:33:29?PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:20:36?PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Bs"d
Bs"dThough you already had a well deserved winning position by the time of the fork. And you never pushed your
In this Falkbeer countergambit a royal horse fork made the enemy throw in the towel: https://lichess.org/vHWLN6yahWAo
You gotta love those horse forks!
h pawn!
The pushing of the h pawn is useful
Sometimes
necessary
Sometimes
prophylactic move which serves multiple purposes. I keeps horses
and bishops away from the g5 square, it provides a save haven for my bishop when it is under attack, and, most important, it gives my king an air hole, so that I don't have to worry about a back rank mate.
All of which may or may not matter.
But it does, always, waste a tempo. And it weakens your king side. Chess is a matter of weighing alternatives. Do the positives outweigh
the negatives? Generally the rook pawn advances that you play are on the whole negative. You'd be better off developing a piece.
For example simply planting a knight on g5 confers no advantage to white if you can kick it with h6 forcing it to retreat to its original square.
Now you have gained a tempo, rather than lost one. On the other hand if that knight's threat against f7 (or h7) cannot be parried, then
of course you will prevent it with h6.
Similarly if your black squared bishop is gone or stuck on the queen's side, you may want to prevent a pin with Bg5. But if you haven't castled
on the king's side such a pin is often no problem at all, or even a bad move refuted by h6 g5 and a king's side attack.
VERY important!
There are times when creating luft is correct. Not generally in the early game though.
William Hyde
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 15:22:13 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 5:27:24?PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:33:29?PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:20:36?PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Bs"d
Bs"dThough you already had a well deserved winning position by the time of the fork. And you never pushed your
In this Falkbeer countergambit a royal horse fork made the enemy throw in the towel: https://lichess.org/vHWLN6yahWAo
You gotta love those horse forks!
h pawn!
The pushing of the h pawn is useful
Sometimes
necessary
Sometimes
prophylactic move which serves multiple purposes. I keeps horsesHorses? Are you copying from him?
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 15:22:13 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 5:27:24?PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:33:29?PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:20:36?PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Bs"d
Bs"dThough you already had a well deserved winning position by the time of the fork. And you never pushed your
In this Falkbeer countergambit a royal horse fork made the enemy throw in the towel: https://lichess.org/vHWLN6yahWAo
You gotta love those horse forks!
h pawn!
The pushing of the h pawn is useful
Sometimes
necessary
Sometimes
prophylactic move which serves multiple purposes. I keeps horsesHorses? Are you copying from him?
prophylactic move which serves multiple purposes. I keeps horses
Horses? Are you copying from him?
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 7:43:52?PM UTC-4, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 15:22:13 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 5:27:24?PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Horses? Are you copying from him?
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:33:29?PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 1:20:36?PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Bs"d
Bs"dThough you already had a well deserved winning position by the time of the fork. And you never pushed your
In this Falkbeer countergambit a royal horse fork made the enemy throw in the towel: https://lichess.org/vHWLN6yahWAo
You gotta love those horse forks!
h pawn!
The pushing of the h pawn is useful
Sometimes
necessary
Sometimes
prophylactic move which serves multiple purposes. I keeps horses
The attribution got mixed up when I split his paragraph into several parts. That was his sentence.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 16:43:50 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:
Could be worse - I have a good friend who insists on calling themprophylactic move which serves multiple purposes. I keeps horses
Horses? Are you copying from him?
k-niggets (3 syllables)
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 16:43:50 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>
wrote:
prophylactic move which serves multiple purposes. I keeps horses
Horses? Are you copying from him?
Could be worse - I have a good friend who insists on calling them
k-niggets (3 syllables)
Could be worse - I have a good friend who insists on calling them >>k-niggets (3 syllables)
Yes, that's perhaps even worse.
On the other hand, your friend undoubtedly knows the correct
pronunciation, but wants "knight" to be pronounced phonetically.
However Eli Kesef has almost single-handedly (except for some
ignorant young children) and foolishly decided that all real chess
players are wrong and his name for the piece is the only correct one.
I've probably said it here before, but it doesn't matter what the
piece looks like. Just like a rose, its name is what it is. Call it by
some other name that you prefer, and that almost no other adult uses,
and you look like a jerk.
If I remember correctly, he also call a rook a "castle. Why doesn't he
also call a bishop a "miter"?
Please forgive me for venting.
[... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like a
complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
On 16/03/2023 04:51, The Horny Goat wrote:
[... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like aActually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
yes, it's irritating after a while.
On 16/03/2023 04:51, The Horny Goat wrote:
[... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like a
complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
yes, it's irritating after a while.
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:54:32 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:
On 16/03/2023 04:51, The Horny Goat wrote:
[... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like a
complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
yes, it's irritating after a while.
Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level or
higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
Bs"d
And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
I did get a good beating in the beginning,
but then came the royal horse fork, and that was that. 😆
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 19:02:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:54:32 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:
Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
yes, it's irritating after a while.
Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level
or higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circles
of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."
Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 19:02:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:54:32 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
yes, it's irritating after a while.
Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level
or higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circlesI'd think I was playing a five year old if they called the Knight a "horsey"!
of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
I did get a good beating in the beginning,Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.
Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circlesCertainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level or[... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like aActually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
yes, it's irritating after a while.
higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."
On 18/03/2023 14:53, Ken Blake wrote:
[Horny Goat:]
Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circlesCertainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level or[... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like aActually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
yes, it's irritating after a while.
higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."
Actually, the principal circle I was referring to was Cambridge
University in the 1960s. As some of the players concerned were IMs, I
doubt whether many here are qualified to describe them as "very poor" or
not "real". I still hear it occasionally in [eg] the 4NCL. Perhaps the
UK has a different sense of humour from Left Pondia? Note that it's an >occasional, jocular usage, not a universal term as used by our forking >contributor.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:04:23 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
Bs"dI did get a good beating in the beginning,Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.
Why did the enemy queen smack into h7? Exactly! Because I didn't play up my pawn in front of my castle!
And he didn't sacrifice his bishop on f7, it was an equal exchange, 6 points for 6 points.
OK, everybody says it is bad, because white gets rid of two developed pieces, but still, a sacrifice is an overstatement.
Yes, it was a very tactical situation. That's why I gambiteer a pawn, because I like the tactics.
Maybe not a good idea at the moment, because I play horrible at the moment,
but it is a lot more fun.
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,Bs"d
in fact.
I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
https://tinyurl.com/calm-win
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:04:23 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
Bs"dI did get a good beating in the beginning,Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.
Why did the enemy queen smack into h7? Exactly! Because I didn't play up my pawn in front of my castle!
And he didn't sacrifice his bishop on f7, it was an equal exchange, 6 points for 6 points.That is a dangerously simplistic view.
In the endgame a rook and pawn may be equal to two pieces, though rarely to two bishops, and a rook and two
pawns will generally constitute an advantage. C.J.S. Purdy is a big advocate of the rook in these
situations. Anyone interested in this issue should read his article, published in one of his
collections. Loath as I am to disagree with a world correspondence champion, I was
unconvinced - but there's a lot to learn there.
But as Tarrasch said "Before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game".
In the middlegame two pieces are generally worth more than a rook and pawn, and often more than a rook
and two. If the extra pawn is important, a centre pawn or a dangerous passed pawn, the rook and pawn
may be equal, but in this case his extra pawn is an extra f pawn, of no immediate threat to you.
In tournament chess I have won several games in which opponents leapt at the chance to "win" a rook
and two pawns for two pieces in the middlegame. The strongest of these opponents was over
2000 (say, 2200 at least on Lichess). We analyzed the game afterwards, and he couldn't believe
he had lost because of this trade. After all, it's seven points to six. But he made no other error
until he was in an already terrible position. The two pieces just dominated the board, and he never
got to the endgame where his pawns might have mattered.
I admit that I was worried a bit, because he was a good player, but the game practically
won itself.
It was one of those rare losses from which the loser learns something important.
Clearly, I needed to lose more such games myself.
I even had a game where the opponent had a rook and three pawns. But I was winning through
the power of the pieces.
OK, everybody says it is bad, because white gets rid of two developed pieces, but still, a sacrifice is an overstatement.Even aside from the above, the computer rates you one and a half pawns ahead afterwards.
Yes, it was a very tactical situation. That's why I gambiteer a pawn, because I like the tactics.What I said was that in tactical situations you don't have time for moves like the a6 played in
this game.
By all means go in for tactics, sacrifice pawns, play aggressively.
Maybe not a good idea at the moment, because I play horrible at the moment, Me too, maybe it's the season.Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
but it is a lot more fun.
in fact.
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,Bs"d
in fact.
I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
https://tinyurl.com/calm-winBs"d
If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:04:23 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
Bs"dI did get a good beating in the beginning,Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.
Why did the enemy queen smack into h7? Exactly! Because I didn't play up my pawn in front of my castle!
And he didn't sacrifice his bishop on f7, it was an equal exchange, 6 points for 6 points.That is a dangerously simplistic view.
In the endgame a rook and pawn may be equal to two pieces, though rarely to two bishops, and a rook and two
pawns will generally constitute an advantage. C.J.S. Purdy is a big advocate of the rook in these
situations. Anyone interested in this issue should read his article, published in one of his
collections. Loath as I am to disagree with a world correspondence champion, I was
unconvinced - but there's a lot to learn there.
But as Tarrasch said "Before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game".
In the middlegame two pieces are generally worth more than a rook and pawn, and often more than a rook
and two. If the extra pawn is important, a centre pawn or a dangerous passed pawn, the rook and pawn
may be equal, but in this case his extra pawn is an extra f pawn, of no immediate threat to you.
In tournament chess I have won several games in which opponents leapt at the chance to "win" a rook
and two pawns for two pieces in the middlegame. The strongest of these opponents was over
2000 (say, 2200 at least on Lichess). We analyzed the game afterwards, and he couldn't believe
he had lost because of this trade. After all, it's seven points to six. But he made no other error
until he was in an already terrible position. The two pieces just dominated the board, and he never
got to the endgame where his pawns might have mattered.
I admit that I was worried a bit, because he was a good player, but the game practically
won itself.
It was one of those rare losses from which the loser learns something important.
Clearly, I needed to lose more such games myself.
I even had a game where the opponent had a rook and three pawns. But I was winning through
the power of the pieces.
OK, everybody says it is bad, because white gets rid of two developed pieces, but still, a sacrifice is an overstatement.Even aside from the above, the computer rates you one and a half pawns ahead afterwards.
Yes, it was a very tactical situation. That's why I gambiteer a pawn, because I like the tactics.What I said was that in tactical situations you don't have time for moves like the a6 played in
this game.
By all means go in for tactics, sacrifice pawns, play aggressively.Bs"d
Maybe not a good idea at the moment, because I play horrible at the moment,Me too, maybe it's the season.
but it is a lot more fun.Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
in fact.
I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,Bs"d
in fact.
I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
https://tinyurl.com/calm-winBs"d
If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
If you lose any games to bank rank mates because you didn't play h6, well, that is a burden I
think I can bear.
Bs"d
The question is of course not if you can carry that burden if I get back ranked, the question is of course: Can I carry that burden?
I'm the one who will be waking up screaming at night, drenched in sweat, for months to come, when that back ranker comes to visit me in my nightmares.
But I just might give it a try.I have heard of people, and know one, who were deeply affected by a loss.
Ivkov's career took a huge turn for the worse after one blunder. As a young player I could never understand why Ivkov was regarded
as one of the world's elite, because he clearly wasn't. But he had been only a few years before, and I suppose people expected him
to recover. He never did, though he remained a strong GM.
But never does losing a speed game cause such distress.
I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,Bs"d
in fact.
I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
https://tinyurl.com/calm-winBs"d
If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
If you lose any games to bank rank mates because you didn't play h6, well, that is a burden IBs"d
think I can bear.
The question is of course not if you can carry that burden if I get back ranked, the question is of course: Can I carry that burden?
I'm the one who will be waking up screaming at night, drenched in sweat, for months to come, when that back ranker comes to visit me in my nightmares.
But I just might give it a try.
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 3:05:14 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly moreBs"d
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
Isn't that weird? You did play up your castle pawn, something of which you tell others not to do that,I did it to break a pin. I don't recommend against that. Though it can be wrong.
and then still you get hit with a back ranker.I overlooked a move or so ahead that he could threaten the back rank with a move that also uncovered an attack on h7.
Oops.
William Hyde
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly moreBs"d
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
Isn't that weird? You did play up your castle pawn, something of which you tell others not to do that,
and then still you get hit with a back ranker.
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,Bs"d
in fact.
I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
https://tinyurl.com/calm-winBs"d
If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
If you lose any games to bank rank mates because you didn't play h6, well, that is a burden IBs"d
think I can bear.
The question is of course not if you can carry that burden if I get back ranked, the question is of course: Can I carry that burden?
I'm the one who will be waking up screaming at night, drenched in sweat, for months to come, when that back ranker comes to visit me in my nightmares.
But I just might give it a try.
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,Bs"d
in fact.
I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
https://tinyurl.com/calm-winBs"d
If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
If you lose any games to bank rank mates because you didn't play h6, well, that is a burden IBs"d
think I can bear.
The question is of course not if you can carry that burden if I get back ranked, the question is of course: Can I carry that burden?
I'm the one who will be waking up screaming at night, drenched in sweat, for months to come, when that back ranker comes to visit me in my nightmares.
But I just might give it a try.In this game:
https://lichess.org/do8zc3OL#20
I advanced both my rook pawns. The move of the a-pawn was reasonable, the move of the h pawn was a mistake, and caused trouble
later. It is not always easy to decide, especially in a speed game, whether the advance of a rook pawn is a good idea. But if you
advance them automatically you will be wrong more often than right.
You won't find any forks or other spectacular tactics in the rest of the game. Under positional pressure the machine just surrenders
material.
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 12:28:27 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,Bs"d
in fact.
I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
https://tinyurl.com/calm-winBs"d
If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
If you lose any games to bank rank mates because you didn't play h6, well, that is a burden IBs"d
think I can bear.
The question is of course not if you can carry that burden if I get back ranked, the question is of course: Can I carry that burden?
I'm the one who will be waking up screaming at night, drenched in sweat, for months to come, when that back ranker comes to visit me in my nightmares.
But I just might give it a try.In this game:
https://lichess.org/do8zc3OL#20
I advanced both my rook pawns. The move of the a-pawn was reasonable, the move of the h pawn was a mistake, and caused trouble
later. It is not always easy to decide, especially in a speed game, whether the advance of a rook pawn is a good idea. But if you
advance them automatically you will be wrong more often than right.
You won't find any forks or other spectacular tactics in the rest of the game. Under positional pressure the machine just surrendersBs"d
material.
So you murdered Stockfish on level 6. Congrats! I don't go above level 5, difficult enough for me.
And you played up your a pawn. Of course! You don't want horses coming to there.
And with your h pawn you chased away the bishop, so that was all good.
I think you are totally right about not playing up the castle pawns. That is, if you are an IM or higher.
On patzer level, which is where I'm holding, I think it is better to play up your rook pawns. Or at least one of 'm, according to the necessities of the position.
I get in problems if I don't play them up. Maybe if I should start studying a ton of openings, and start playing only exactly by the book in every opening,
then not playing up the castle pawns my benefit me. But before I reach that level, which is probably never going to happen, then I'm better off playing up my castle pawns whenever I feel like it.
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is a saying in English which I failed to heed (and in this case it really is horse, not rook).
I think you are totally right about not playing up the castle pawns. That is, if you are an IM or higher.
On patzer level, which is where I'm holding, I think it is better to play up your rook pawns. Or at least one of 'm, according to the necessities of the position.
I get in problems if I don't play them up. Maybe if I should start studying a ton of openings, and start playing only exactly by the book in every opening,That would be no fun. And at our level it is not required.
then not playing up the castle pawns my benefit me. But before I reach that level, which is probably never going to happen, then I'm better off playing up my castle pawns whenever I feel like it.A good rule of thumb, when there' s nothing that obviously needs doing, is to improve the position of your worst piece. That worst piece is rarely
a rook pawn. You are an attacking player, and for an attack you need developed pieces. True, if the opponents fall for one of your traps you need
only develop three or four pieces, but if they avoid that you will need more, as in a couple of longer attacking games you have posted
here some time ago.
If in the opening you watch out for tactics, develop your pieces briskly (in open games, in closed games you can dawdle a bit) and avoid creating
weaknesses, you will do well at our level without memorizing openings.
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:46:44 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is a saying in English which I failed to heed (and in this case it really is horse, not rook).Bs"d
I guess the "rook" here should have been a "knight".
I think you are totally right about not playing up the castle pawns. That is, if you are an IM or higher.
On patzer level, which is where I'm holding, I think it is better to play up your rook pawns. Or at least one of 'm, according to the necessities of the position.
I get in problems if I don't play them up. Maybe if I should start studying a ton of openings, and start playing only exactly by the book in every opening,That would be no fun. And at our level it is not required.
then not playing up the castle pawns my benefit me. But before I reach that level, which is probably never going to happen, then I'm better off playing up my castle pawns whenever I feel like it.A good rule of thumb, when there' s nothing that obviously needs doing, is to improve the position of your worst piece. That worst piece is rarely
a rook pawn. You are an attacking player, and for an attack you need developed pieces. True, if the opponents fall for one of your traps you need
only develop three or four pieces, but if they avoid that you will need more, as in a couple of longer attacking games you have posted
here some time ago.
If in the opening you watch out for tactics, develop your pieces briskly (in open games, in closed games you can dawdle a bit) and avoid creatingHere is a game, played 15 hours ago, in which I did not play up my a pawn, and regretted it terribly. I got a doubled pawn on the b line, lost my bishop, in short: Disaster struck.
weaknesses, you will do well at our level without memorizing openings.
Thanks to a blunder of the enemy I could still win, but not playing up my castle pawn costed me dearly.
Here is a famous chess player who wished he would have played up his castle pawn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPef1NZrK_0
Don't make an air hole and you'll pay the price.
Here is a game, played 15 hours ago, in which I did not play up my a pawn, and regretted it terribly. I got a doubled pawn on the b line, lost my bishop, in short: Disaster struck.
Thanks to a blunder of the enemy I could still win, but not playing up my castle pawn costed me dearly.What game?
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:47:01 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
Here is a game, played 15 hours ago, in which I did not play up my a pawn, and regretted it terribly. I got a doubled pawn on the b line, lost my bishop, in short: Disaster struck.
Bs"dThanks to a blunder of the enemy I could still win, but not playing up my castle pawn costed me dearly.What game?
This one: https://lichess.org/MmYDoEENw8h8
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 3:09:15 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:47:01 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
Here is a game, played 15 hours ago, in which I did not play up my a pawn, and regretted it terribly. I got a doubled pawn on the b line, lost my bishop, in short: Disaster struck.
Bs"dThanks to a blunder of the enemy I could still win, but not playing up my castle pawn costed me dearly.What game?
This one: https://lichess.org/MmYDoEENw8h8In this game you did play h6 - and it wasn't as good as developing - but you won anyway as the opponent absolutely refused
to develop his queenside.
This cannot be the game you were referring to.
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 12:19:21 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 3:09:15 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:47:01 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
Here is a game, played 15 hours ago, in which I did not play up my a pawn, and regretted it terribly. I got a doubled pawn on the b line, lost my bishop, in short: Disaster struck.
Bs"dThanks to a blunder of the enemy I could still win, but not playing up my castle pawn costed me dearly.What game?
This one: https://lichess.org/MmYDoEENw8h8In this game you did play h6 - and it wasn't as good as developing - but you won anyway as the opponent absolutely refused
to develop his queenside.
This cannot be the game you were referring to.Bs"d
It is the right game, I played up my h pawn, but not my a pawn, because of which I lost my bishop and got double pawns on the b line. I also lost my pin on his f2 pawn, in short: It was disaster.
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 3:05:14 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly moreBs"d
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
Isn't that weird? You did play up your castle pawn, something of which you tell others not to do that,I did it to break a pin. I don't recommend against that. Though it can be wrong.
and then still you get hit with a back ranker.I overlooked a move or so ahead that he could threaten the back rank with a move that also uncovered an attack on h7.
On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 12:26:28 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 3:05:14 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly moreBs"d
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
Bs"dIsn't that weird? You did play up your castle pawn, something of which you tell others not to do that,I did it to break a pin. I don't recommend against that. Though it can be wrong.
and then still you get hit with a back ranker.I overlooked a move or so ahead that he could threaten the back rank with a move that also uncovered an attack on h7.
Talking about back rankers, I just had one: https://lichess.org/9LMZ5WrAJlZT
The only catch was: It wasn't the king who was mated on the back rank, but the queen.
Still, it also ended the game on the spot.
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 4:47:32 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Talking about back rankers, I just had one: https://lichess.org/9LMZ5WrAJlZT
The only catch was: It wasn't the king who was mated on the back rank, but the queen.
Still, it also ended the game on the spot.A cute finish indeed.
I like the way you played after you lost your queen. In speed games I have lost many a queen along that c5-g1
diagonal. I never seem to learn.
Still, that Nh4 move threw away most of a huge plus. When you have an advantage that large there is generally a good
way of dealing with the threats the underdeveloped player makes.
I'm a bit surprised that you castled. It's a natural move, but I would think it more in your style to let him grab the
g pawn. A huge lead in development plus the open g file would be worth far more than a pawn.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:00:14 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:happily exchanged pieces.
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 4:47:32 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Talking about back rankers, I just had one: https://lichess.org/9LMZ5WrAJlZT
The only catch was: It wasn't the king who was mated on the back rank, but the queen.
Still, it also ended the game on the spot.A cute finish indeed.
I like the way you played after you lost your queen. In speed games I have lost many a queen along that c5-g1Bs"d
diagonal. I never seem to learn.
Totally didn't see that skewer coming. But I got a castle and a bishop for my queen and a pawn, so the damage was limited. And I still was 4 points ahead in material, so I was still in good spirits and confident in the outcome. That was also why I
Still, that Nh4 move threw away most of a huge plus. When you have an advantage that large there is generally a goodThat's one of those cases why I don't understand why Stockfish makes such a big deal about me putting my horse on the edge for attacking his queen.
way of dealing with the threats the underdeveloped player makes.
OK, a horse on the side is misapplied, but still, distracting 5 points for that is just too much.
But of course, Stockfish will have it's reasons, it is just that they are beyond my grasp, and I can't play like Stockfish.
I'm a bit surprised that you castled. It's a natural move, but I would think it more in your style to let him grab theCastling was just putting my king safe, and protecting my pawn. I think it didn't work out too bad.
g pawn. A huge lead in development plus the open g file would be worth far more than a pawn.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:07:56 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:happily exchanged pieces.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:00:14 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 4:47:32 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Talking about back rankers, I just had one: https://lichess.org/9LMZ5WrAJlZT
The only catch was: It wasn't the king who was mated on the back rank, but the queen.
Still, it also ended the game on the spot.A cute finish indeed.
I like the way you played after you lost your queen. In speed games I have lost many a queen along that c5-g1Bs"d
diagonal. I never seem to learn.
Totally didn't see that skewer coming. But I got a castle and a bishop for my queen and a pawn, so the damage was limited. And I still was 4 points ahead in material, so I was still in good spirits and confident in the outcome. That was also why I
It's not that this line was so bad for you, but that the other was so good. The dislocation of the knight didn't cost you five pointsStill, that Nh4 move threw away most of a huge plus. When you have an advantage that large there is generally a goodThat's one of those cases why I don't understand why Stockfish makes such a big deal about me putting my horse on the edge for attacking his queen.
way of dealing with the threats the underdeveloped player makes.
OK, a horse on the side is misapplied, but still, distracting 5 points for that is just too much.
in itself, but the failure to take advantage of the weakness at c7 did. As if you decided to win a pawn instead of taking a rook.
Bs"d
In this game my horse didn't need to make a fork. The threat of the fork was enough to make the enemy resign: https://lichess.org/kgLCB7UUH1P7
https://tinyurl.com/threat-stronger
https://lichess.org/38EeaI0wQ5rE
Carlo XYZ wrote:
Eli Kesef schrieb am 07.02.24 um 16:45:
https://lichess.org/38EeaI0wQ5rE
I can't see this. Nor any other lichess diagram posted here.
Would I need to sign in for that?
Is there a way to see the position without a lichess account?
You don't need a lichess account. I played and watched other people's
games for months before I signed up.
Your problem is probably with your browser. Links like the above do
not work for me in Seamonkey, for example, but do work in Firefox.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 75:49:55 |
| Calls: | 6,695 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,228 |
| Messages: | 5,347,208 |
| Posted today: | 2 |
