< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Apr-04-11|| ||keypusher: Black evidently didn't know about the powerful anti-Parham system beginning with 1....Nf6!.|
|Jun-24-11|| ||Winston Smith: I live close to Port Washington, NY and I have never noticed skittles there. Maybe M&Ms.|
|Jun-24-11|| ||TheFocus: In Japan they have green tea M&Ms. Very good.
In Hawaii, we got coconut M&Ms.
|Jun-25-11|| ||Eric Schiller: The player of the Black side went on to become a fine journalist bu never became a rated player. It was a real, if casual, game and I soon abandoned 2.Qh5 for the Ruy Lopez.|
|Jun-25-11|| ||FSR: <Eric Schiller: ... bu never became a rated player.>|
Yes he did! Bu Xiangzhi
|Oct-09-11|| ||Oceanlake: This game was played complete in a WW II game: Tojo versus Hitler (different names). Tojo took the e5 pawn and announced mate. With scorn, Hitler moved Ke7xe5 and pointed out that he would never allow a female such a privilege. Tojo resigned.|
|Oct-09-11|| ||Rook e2: 2.Qh5,Schiller: hey Howery Pack, I put a coin under your king! Howery: where? Schiller: touch-move!|
|Oct-09-11|| ||Oceanlake: P. L. Rothenberg penned the story for the December 1941 Chess Review.|
|Oct-10-11|| ||FSR: Howery Pack evidently works for the Dallas Morning News. http://www.spoke.com/info/pWwVzYO/H...|
|Jan-31-12|| ||rogl: I have actually played this game: 1.g4 e5 2.f3 h4#. To make things clear: I was black.|
|Feb-17-12|| ||Nemesistic: A 3 move chess game in this sites DB !!!
I'll learn more from Gizmo's efforts, i think i may upload one of mine for him to chew on, the bearded rascal lol
Seriously though chessgames.com, what purpose does this game serve being here, forgetting the name of one of the players involved!
|Apr-02-12|| ||rrrttt: Hey look your king has a magnet on it!|
|Aug-28-12|| ||FSR: Cf. L Palau vs S Kalabar, 1927.|
|Oct-09-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <rogl: I have actually played this game: 1.g4 e5 2.f3 h4#. To make things clear: I was black.>|
I think all of us have been on the black side of that game at least once.
But, although statistically some of us must also have been on the white side, I doubt we'll see anyone admit it.
|Oct-09-12|| ||JohnBoy: <Once: ...he accidentally touches his Bc1 instead...if you touched a piece that cannot move you must instead play a move with your king.> I once was reaching for a piece when my sleeve hit another piece and knocked it over. Both my opponent and I were 1500 newbs and I consented, moving the "touched" piece and promptly lost major material.|
Next time (if there is such) I will pull a Kasparov. The point of the rule is, of course, touch with intent.
|Oct-09-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Apropos of touch-move, this reminds me of an incident when I was in high school. We were playing qualifier matches to select members for our team for an upcoming interscholastic tournament, and I was two moves from mating one of my opponents when he complained that, ten moves before, I'd touched my rook before my king when castling.|
There was no faculty advisor on hand, so the matter was left to the club officers to decide. Unfortunately, none of them really understood the rules applying to this sort of situation, so they ultimately forced me to back up ten moves and move my rook instead of castling. This changed the position just enough that my opponent escaped with a perpetual check.
As it turned out, it didn't matter. My results were still good enough that I made the team. As for how I played on that team ... let's just say that it's not a good idea to play too many blitz games between rounds.
|Dec-31-12|| ||FSR: As I understand it, in Lindemann-Echtermayer White didn't just bump the bishop by accident. He actually played 3.Bc3.|
<Adbel Irada> Surely there is a "statute of limitations" for touch-move claims. You shouldn't get to see how the game develops and, if it develops badly for you, claim "touch-move" a zillion years after the fact.
|May-27-13|| ||Abdel Irada: <<Adbel Irada> Surely there is a "statute of limitations" for touch-move claims. You shouldn't get to see how the game develops and, if it develops badly for you, claim "touch-move" a zillion years after the fact.>|
To be sure there is: I think one has to claim a touch-move violation before making a move in reply. But I didn't know that at the time, or at any rate couldn't prove it.
(Also, I believe that touching rook before king in castling is permitted. In an excess of caution, however, I have always been sure since that incident to touch the king first.)
|May-27-13|| ||Abdel Irada: Black's idea was logical, if a tempo too slow.
The king *almost* defends the e-pawn. ;-)
|Aug-06-13|| ||GumboGambit: According to Rybka, things started going downhill for Black with Ke7.|
|Aug-06-13|| ||alexmagnus: <But, although statistically some of us must also have been on the white side, I doubt we'll see anyone admit it.>|
Didn't some of the world champs (Tal? Petrosian?) admit to have lost his very first game by Fool's Mate? Which is quite a distinguishment, as most beginners record their first mating loss to the other short mate, the Scholar's one.
|Aug-06-13|| ||perfidious: <alexmagnus>: Believe Tal mentioned in an interview that he came to an end in his very first game by Scholar's Mate.|
|Oct-11-13|| ||Domdaniel: I got mated in six moves in my first game for my school team - a version of Scholar's Mate, as I recall. I only scraped back onto the team for the next match because somebody was ill -- but I won it, and won all my other games, and was top board by the end of the season.
Maybe I should've quit while I was (just one) behind.|
|Oct-20-13|| ||kramputz: Waste of space|
|Mar-07-14|| ||FSR: Bronstein remarks, "The most pleasant variation of the Queen's Attack for White is as follows: 2.Q-R5 K-K2 3.QxKP mate." <200 Open Games>, p. 1.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·