Oct-24-03
 | | kevin86: the last move is mate;quickest knockout by pro vs NN |
 |
Oct-24-03
 | | Eggman: I think it would have been advisable for Cornelissen to go down as the the "NN" here! |
|
May-22-04
 | | Vischer: what would happen after 5...g6 6.Nxg6 Nf6 7.Qh4? I think black would still be alive. |
|
Aug-17-04
 | | Whitehat1963: Eggman has a valid point. Who the heck is Cornelissen? |
|
| Mar-06-05 | | DanielBryant: He has no other games in the database. |
|
| Mar-17-05 | | Mate Hunter: A helpmate???
5...g6 is better. Instead of 4...d6 black could defence the trap with the move 4...g6. |
|
| Dec-01-05 | | DeepBlade: The same mate pattern, over and over again |
|
Mar-20-06
| | MorphyMatt: For the quickest knockout by NN see NN vs E Fossan, 1991 |
|
Jul-10-06
 | | Landman: Back when I was NN, I actually got to play 1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4++ in a (very) casual game. My opponent also went by NN, but we were actually different people. |
|
Sep-24-07
| | centercounter: Usually the loser of such a "masterpiece" is the one who requests anonyminity. |
|
| Nov-30-08 | | WhiteRook48: Go NN! I wonder when TheGreatNN is going to kibitz here... |
|
| Dec-22-08 | | WhiteRook48: Yay for NN! |
|
| Dec-24-08 | | WhiteRook48: rare thing for NN to pull of a stunt like this. You'd think this trap would happen to NN. Poor Cornelissen...
:) |
|
| Dec-24-08 | | WhiteRook48: Is Cornelissen related to NN? |
|
| Jul-14-10 | | TheTamale: This reminds me of when the 1-2-3 Kid, after a near endless string of humiliating losses, pulled off a mighty upset defeat of the mighty Razor Ramon. It wasn't long after that the Kid went on to defeat The Million Dollar Man and launch a long and successful career. Who knows... perhaps NN will produce great things in the future. |
|
Jul-14-10
 | | Phony Benoni: The <WannaBe> Gambit Deferred! |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | Tigranny: Who in the world would play the Latvian Gambit if it places the king in great danger? |
|
Jun-26-11
 | | FSR: The Latvian Gambit is a very dangerous opening, and I would be surprised if it doesn't (with perfect play by both sides) lose by force. But Black's play here was flatly suicidal. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: The most solid way to refute the Latvian is 3.Nxe5. The main line continues 3...Qf6 4.Nc4 (Leonhardt variation). 4...fxe4 5.Nc3 Where White is a pawn up in an open position. Black's best try is probably 5...Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3 (Nxe4 is playable but complicated).. http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_o... |
|
Jun-27-11
 | | shivasuri4: <Colonel Mortimer: The most solid way to refute the Latvian is 3.Nxe5. The main line continues 3...Qf6 4.Nc4 (Leonhardt variation). 4...fxe4 5.Nc3 Where White is a pawn up in an open position.> Huh,don't both sides have 7 pawns after your 5th move?Does anyone here know if the Elephant-Latvian Gambit is playable?
The opening is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 with the main line being 3.Nxe5 Bd6 4.d4 dxe4?I commonly use this opening as black in lightning games to confuse my opening theory bound opponents. |
|
Jun-27-11
| | FSR: <shivasuri4> The Elephant Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5) is considered unsound, but if you like it, go for it. I have been known to play the Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5?) in blitz games and once even in a tournament game, so I'm not going to throw stones. |
|
| Jun-27-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: <Huh,don't both sides have 7 pawns after your 5th move?> Yeah sorry, the pawn up situation is achieved further down the track, even if White doesn't choose 7. Nxe4. |
|
Jun-27-11
| | shivasuri4: Thank you,<FSR>.Do you know why it is unsound? <Colonel Mortimer>,it doesn't matter,I guess.White has a large lead in development and will most probably win.What do the engines say? |
|
Jun-27-11
| | FSR: <shivasuri4> The main line is 3.exd5 e4 4.Qe2. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elepha... - though it's not too well organized. |
|
Jun-27-11
| | shivasuri4: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...
Nevertheless the wide range of options has attracted from analysts> What does that mean?Maybe you could edit the page to make it crisper,<FSR>? |
|
