|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| 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. |
|
| Mar-07-17 | | paavoh: <I have actually played this game: 1.g4 e5 2.f3 ♕h4#. To make things clear: I was black.> I was also on the winning side in a high school casual game. My opponent was always eager to attack and he opened with 1.f4. I replied meekly with 1.- e6. He exclaimed "More attack!" and played 2.g4. I played 2.-Qh4 and said "I agree!" |
|
Apr-30-18
 | | Richard Taylor: A beautiful and profound game. |
|
| Apr-30-18 | | Count Wedgemore: <Richard Taylor: A beautiful and profound game.> Yes, the courage shown by the black king is an inspiration to us all. Bravely, he steps up in front of all his subjects and in sheer defiance dares the white queen: "-you can take me, but spare my men!" Beautiful and profound. |
|
| Nov-07-18 | | Saniyat24: Let's play another round...I was just joking...sorry to say I have not embarrassed myself like this. I hate it when people play Sicilian Bowlder attack against me as White..not a fan of moving the queen in your first or second move, come on people I know how to play chess, you can't mate me with your Queen and Bishop...think that is Scholar's mate. Why am I writing this here? surely I will not turn into another Chris Owen...ah well...Aristotle said, There is no genius without a mixture of madness...<Richard Taylor> is to blame for my post...his comment is a <Phony Benoni> |
|
Sep-03-19
 | | Korora: Howery Pack or Norman Nathaniel Pack? |
|
| Jul-18-20 | | Tonymec: <Abdel Irada> <Also, I believe that touching rook before king in castling is permitted.> According to the curent FIDE rules (which I read yesterday) castling consists of: 1) moving the king two spaces towards the rook; 2) with the same hand, moving the rook to the square just crossed by the king. Rules used to be more lax: once upon a time, you could take the king in one hand and the rook in the other and put them on their new squares. Now (at least in FIDE competitions) you have to make your move and start your opponent's clock all with a single hand. Moving the rook next to the king is a valid _rook_ move, and at that point it is too late to castle, which has always been a _king_ move. (Ke1-g1, OTOH, is not yet a valid move of any kind, you have to move the rook from h1 to f1 to complete it.) Exception: in a game with a rook advantage, it is allowed to castle on the side of the absent rook by moving the king two squares in that direction, provided that the other conditions for castling are fulfilled. |
|
Jul-18-20
 | | OhioChessFan: I like that someone ran this through Stockfish. |
|
| Jul-19-20 | | Granny O Doul: If I sensed my opponent had played 2. Qh5 from a genuine hope of landing Scholar's mate, I'd probably play 2...Nc6, but otherwise I'd go with 2 ...Nf6, because it is psychologically important to meet contempt with contempt. |
|
Nov-08-21
| | FSR: I once was Black in an online blitz game that began 1.g4 e5 2.f4. I almost played 2...exf4, but thought better of it. A true King's Gambit. |
|
Feb-06-22
| | FSR: This was not the first recorded instance of this bizarre gamelet, which occurred under unique circumstances. According to page 548 of the Anglo-American Magazine, November 1853, the predecessor game was played between "X" and "Y" at the Café de la Régence in Paris. After 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Black (perhaps an aficionado of Damiano's Defense) played 2...f6. That move being illegal, the rules of the day compelled him to play 2...Ke7?? instead. (Shades of Lindemann vs Echtermeyer, 1893, where White was forced to play a similar howler on his third move.) You know the rest. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... (Edward Winter, Chess Note 5381). |
|
Nov-08-22
| | Korora: Forgot to say «J'adoube»? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
