On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 11:12:35 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > So I started with the Zukertort, but the enemy, rated 1900 on Lichess, (minus one)
> > What confuses me is how you can be rated only slightly higher than this guy, who is terrible.
> Bs"d
>
> That is because I'm also terrible.
> > You must be losing a lot of games. Are there people out there who actually know the gambits you are springing on them?
> My gambits work only in a minority of cases. They look impressive, but all the times they don't work I'm not gonna post here, so you see only the good looking tip of the iceberg.

Then, since you like to win, maybe you should spend some time studying the game outside of traps. I repeat that the attack you showed a couple of weeks ago showed promise.
>
> Nowadays all those traps are out in the open on youtube. One of my traps, as explained by a GM on youtube, has 2 million hits, so about everybody knows it.
>
> Fortunately there are still plenty left who fall for the traps, and make me happy. That's what you are doing it for.
>
> But I don't think that that 1900 guy played terrible. The first piece he lost because of a trap, and the nature of a trap is that it is hard to see.
> Then he blundered with pawn fork, but one blunder doesn't make somebody a terrible player.

A trap is no excuse. That's two horrible blunders in a short game. He is terrible.

> I think 1900 Lichess are about average club players.

Not much more than 1300 in my old club, if that. I should know, at one point my rating plummeted from 1600 to 1120 (speed chess only). At that point some of those 1300 players were tough to beat. And I would definitely have fallen for every trap you ever played. Once.

William Hyde

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 1:58:09 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 11:12:35 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > Bs"d
> > > >
> > > > So I started with the Zukertort, but the enemy, rated 1900 on Lichess, (minus one)
> > > What confuses me is how you can be rated only slightly higher than this guy, who is terrible.
> > Bs"d
> >
> > That is because I'm also terrible.
> > > You must be losing a lot of games. Are there people out there who actually know the gambits you are springing on them?
> > My gambits work only in a minority of cases. They look impressive, but all the times they don't work I'm not gonna post here, so you see only the good looking tip of the iceberg.
> Then, since you like to win, maybe you should spend some time studying the game outside of traps. I repeat that the attack you showed a couple of weeks ago showed promise.
> >
> > Nowadays all those traps are out in the open on youtube. One of my traps, as explained by a GM on youtube, has 2 million hits, so about everybody knows it.
> >
> > Fortunately there are still plenty left who fall for the traps, and make me happy. That's what you are doing it for.
> >
> > But I don't think that that 1900 guy played terrible. The first piece he lost because of a trap, and the nature of a trap is that it is hard to see.
> > Then he blundered with pawn fork, but one blunder doesn't make somebody a terrible player.
> A trap is no excuse. That's two horrible blunders in a short game. He is terrible.
> > I think 1900 Lichess are about average club players.
> Not much more than 1300 in my old club, if that. I should know, at one point my rating plummeted from 1600 to 1120 (speed chess only). At that point some of those 1300 players were tough to beat. And I would definitely have fallen for every trap you ever played. Once.

Bs"d

What is that 1300 you are talking about? Is that USCF, are you in Canada, or in the UK?

I once looked in to how the lichess ratings compare to the real FIDE ratings, and I came to the conclusion that on the lower level, my level, they are about 200 points higher than the FIDE ratings, and about 100 points higher than the USCF ratings, which are about 100 points above FIDE.
On the higher end they diverge more, Carlsen who is about 2850 FIDE, is on Lichess 3100 or 3200.

But I think the UK has a totally different system, with much lower numbers, and I never looked in to how that compares to FIDE.

Anyway, it is only a number. The final yardstick is the FIDE rating, because that is the world standard. But the Lichess rating is useful to compare a player to the pack, and a 1900 is a bit above average.
So if you say that he is a terrible player, then you are saying that 90% of the players on Lichess are terrible players.
That might be true of course, but it is all a matter of perspective. For Magnus Carlsen we are all patzers, and for a 700 player we are all chess gods.
Like Einstein said: "All is relative." What matters is: Are you having fun or not?

And those traps are so funny... :D

Like this game what I posted yesterday in the horse fork thread: https://lichess.org/Ykr0JWlvviRz The enemy moves in for the fork on f7. I play a crazy looking move, Nxe4. The enemy makes the fork on f7, and forks my queen and rook, something that is normally more than enough for an easy win. And then he gets horribly punished, and comes out of the opening with a horse an a bishop behind. The guy must have been totally bewildered. This goes so against all chess logic.
I think that is absolutely hilarious, a trap like that.

On the job in Holland there was chess being played in the lunch break, just 2 guys with one board. I joined in, and brought my own board.
Another colleague who couldn’t play chess, I taught him, told him what book to buy, which passages to study, (the trappy parts of course) and he worked himself in a short time up to club level.
One Monday morning he comes up to me and says: “I played my cousin in the weekend, and I caught him in a trap. It is so much fun to see somebody stepping in a trap!”

And those are the key words: “IT IS SO MUCH FUN TO SEE SOMEBODY STEPPING INTO A TRAP”.

Here is a Dutch chess player who gives away one of his traps: https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/platypus.htm

In the second sentence on that page comes the key revelation: “AMAZING WHAT FUN IT IS TO WIN A GAME WHERE YOU HAVEN’T PLAYED CHESS”. Meaning; “Amazing how much fun traps are.”

And that’s what it’s all about; having fun. And that’s why I keep on playing traps, because I’m having fun with ‘m.

 https://tinyurl.com/two-plus-two

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:35:21 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 1:58:09 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 11:12:35 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > > Bs"d
> > > > >
> > > > > So I started with the Zukertort, but the enemy, rated 1900 on Lichess, (minus one)
> > > > What confuses me is how you can be rated only slightly higher than this guy, who is terrible.
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > That is because I'm also terrible.
> > > > You must be losing a lot of games. Are there people out there who actually know the gambits you are springing on them?
> > > My gambits work only in a minority of cases. They look impressive, but all the times they don't work I'm not gonna post here, so you see only the good looking tip of the iceberg.
> > Then, since you like to win, maybe you should spend some time studying the game outside of traps. I repeat that the attack you showed a couple of weeks ago showed promise.
> > >
> > > Nowadays all those traps are out in the open on youtube. One of my traps, as explained by a GM on youtube, has 2 million hits, so about everybody knows it.
> > >
> > > Fortunately there are still plenty left who fall for the traps, and make me happy. That's what you are doing it for.
> > >
> > > But I don't think that that 1900 guy played terrible. The first piece he lost because of a trap, and the nature of a trap is that it is hard to see.
> > > Then he blundered with pawn fork, but one blunder doesn't make somebody a terrible player.
> > A trap is no excuse. That's two horrible blunders in a short game. He is terrible.
> > > I think 1900 Lichess are about average club players.
> > Not much more than 1300 in my old club, if that. I should know, at one point my rating plummeted from 1600 to 1120 (speed chess only). At that point some of those 1300 players were tough to beat. And I would definitely have fallen for every trap you ever played. Once.
> Bs"d
>
> What is that 1300 you are talking about? Is that USCF, are you in Canada, or in the UK?

This was in Canada, long ago.

Yes, those 1300 players would probably have lost to the Tennison or other of your gambits, but they did not hang queens in g/15 unless down to a few seconds.

I once played a series of games with a 1700 rated speed player who would crush any of your opponents without even trying. Mind you, he was 2200 OTB. Some people are much worse at speed than OTB, and some vice versa.

> I once looked in to how the lichess ratings compare to the real FIDE ratings, and I came to the conclusion that on the lower level, my level, they are about 200 points higher than the FIDE ratings, and about 100 points higher than the USCF ratings, which are about 100 points above FIDE.

Tragedy then, that I am past my prime. If FIDE ratings are as weak as that now, I could have broken 2300. Oh tempora!

> On the higher end they diverge more, Carlsen who is about 2850 FIDE, is on Lichess 3100 or 3200.
>
> But I think the UK has a totally different system, with much lower numbers, and I never looked in to how that compares to FIDE.
Lichess rating is useful to compare a player to the pack, and a 1900 is a bit above average.
> So if you say that he is a terrible player, then you are saying that 90% of the players on Lichess are terrible players.

More like 50%+ by the above. But there's nothing wrong with being a terrible players. I just have more fun beating somewhat less terrible players.

> That might be true of course, but it is all a matter of perspective. For Magnus Carlsen we are all patzers, and for a 700 player we are all chess gods.
> Like Einstein said: "All is relative." What matters is: Are you having fun or not?

That is true. Botvinnik once said he never played chess for fun. Made me feel sad for the old guy.

> And those are the key words: “IT IS SO MUCH FUN TO SEE SOMEBODY STEPPING INTO A TRAP”.
>
> Here is a Dutch chess player who gives away one of his traps: https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/platypus.htm

Tim Krabbe's pages are a delight. Have you read any of his novels? I've read a couple, but in English translation. When in Holland I could cobble together enough English and German parallels to at least read instructions (never did quite figure out what "geen" means, though) but that does not serve for a novel, naturally.

William Hyde

> > What is that 1300 you are talking about? Is that USCF, are you in Canada, or in the UK?
> This was in Canada, long ago.

Bs"d

Do they have in Canada that same weird rating system as in the UK where you have real low numbers? like about 500 below FIDE for equal strength?

> Yes, those 1300 players would probably have lost to the Tennison or other of your gambits, but they did not hang queens in g/15 unless down to a few seconds.
>
> I once played a series of games with a 1700 rated speed player who would crush any of your opponents without even trying. Mind you, he was 2200 OTB. Some people are much worse at speed than OTB, and some vice versa.
> > I once looked in to how the lichess ratings compare to the real FIDE ratings, and I came to the conclusion that on the lower level, my level, they are about 200 points higher than the FIDE ratings, and about 100 points higher than the USCF ratings, which are about 100 points above FIDE.
> Tragedy then, that I am past my prime. If FIDE ratings are as weak as that now, I could have broken 2300. Oh tempora!
> > On the higher end they diverge more, Carlsen who is about 2850 FIDE, is on Lichess 3100 or 3200.
> >
> > But I think the UK has a totally different system, with much lower numbers, and I never looked in to how that compares to FIDE.
> Lichess rating is useful to compare a player to the pack, and a 1900 is a bit above average.
> > So if you say that he is a terrible player, then you are saying that 90% of the players on Lichess are terrible players.
> More like 50%+ by the above. But there's nothing wrong with being a terrible players. I just have more fun beating somewhat less terrible players.

Here on this graph you can see how a 1900 Lichess compares to the rest of Lichess: https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/classical
He says that at the moment I'm better than 91% of the classical players on Lichess. I'm now 1954 on Lichess, I would say about 1750 FIDE. On Lichess a bit above average, on an average chess club about an average player I think.
> > That might be true of course, but it is all a matter of perspective. For Magnus Carlsen we are all patzers, and for a 700 player we are all chess gods.
> > Like Einstein said: "All is relative." What matters is: Are you having fun or not?
> That is true. Botvinnik once said he never played chess for fun. Made me feel sad for the old guy.
> > And those are the key words: “IT IS SO MUCH FUN TO SEE SOMEBODY STEPPING INTO A TRAP”.
> >
> > Here is a Dutch chess player who gives away one of his traps: https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/platypus.htm
> Tim Krabbe's pages are a delight. Have you read any of his novels?

No. Didn't know he is a writer.

> I've read a couple, but in English translation. When in Holland I could cobble together enough English and German parallels to at least read instructions (never did quite figure out what "geen" means, though)

There is no straightforward translation for 'geen'. It means something like: 'not', or 'has not'.

But since we are here in the Opening traps thread, the first game I played tonight, I got a Tennison gambit against a 1879 player, and he bit the dust: https://lichess.org/jrKdQp4eNlR4
I think I made a mistake somewhere in the trap, by sacrificing the bishop, and it looked like he was familiar with this trap, because several times he had a complicated refutation on premove, and he used very little time overall.
But he also blundered somewhat, and bit the dust.
End good all good.

https://tinyurl.com/pain-temp

On 19/03/2022 18:35, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Do they have in Canada that same weird rating system as in the UK
> where you have real low numbers? like about 500 below FIDE for
> equal strength?

England has, sadly, recently moved more-or-less to the FIDE
system. The former grading system, far from being "weird", was far
more sensible, not least because it was possible for players to work
out their own ratings ["grades"]. Specifically, with some exceptions,
if you played a bunch of games and scored 50%, then your new grade
was the average of the grades of your opponents [ie, you have shown
that you are the same strength as they are, on average]; and each
extra percent in your performance resulted in one extra point for
your grade. Simple!

There was a simpler process suggested by John Nunn, but AFAIK
it was never used in real life. Perhaps also worth noting that all
half-way sensible rating systems give much the same results to within
a scaling; there is no merit whatsoever in complex algorithms, such
as Elo, for this purpose. Which does not stop players from obsessing
about their ratings, way beyond what can be justified.

To first approximation ECF grades and FIDE ratings used to
be related by, roughly,

FIDE == 8 x ECF + 600; ECF == FIDE/8 - 75.

You can work out approximate USCF or Lichess conversions from that.
For various reasons, inc inflation and the influence of juniors,
those formulas stopped working well some years ago, but they still
give some idea. Eg, IM level [FIDE 2400] was ECF 225. Or Lichess
1800, which you reckon to be FIDE 1600 [I wouldn't know!], would be
ECF 125.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Mozart,L

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 2:35:18 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > What is that 1300 you are talking about? Is that USCF, are you in Canada, or in the UK?
> > This was in Canada, long ago.
> Bs"d
>
> Do they have in Canada that same weird rating system as in the UK where you have real low numbers? like about 500 below FIDE for equal strength?

We use the same system as FIDE and USCF. At the time a Canadian 1300 was about 14000- USCF.

> > > Here is a Dutch chess player who gives away one of his traps: https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/platypus.htm
> > Tim Krabbe's pages are a delight. Have you read any of his novels?
> No. Didn't know he is a writer.

Quite a prolific one, with over a dozen novels last I checked. His brother is an actor, sometimes seen ever over here in British and Dutch productions.

> > I've read a couple, but in English translation. When in Holland I could cobble together enough English and German parallels to at least read instructions (never did quite figure out what "geen" means, though)
> There is no straightforward translation for 'geen'. It means something like: 'not', or 'has not'.

So I thought.
>
> But since we are here in the Opening traps thread, the first game I played tonight, I got a Tennison gambit against a 1879 player, and he bit the dust: https://lichess.org/jrKdQp4eNlR4
> I think I made a mistake somewhere in the trap, by sacrificing the bishop,

I haven't analyzed the position myself, but at least the computer approves of your sacrifice. Your strangely passive Qh3 lets him back into the game.

and it looked like he was familiar with this trap, because several times he had a complicated refutation on premove, and he used very little time overall.

He fell into the trap, not noticing that the e6 pawn was pinned.

In fact, not once but twice he lost a piece on that square, for the same reason, with plenty of time on his clock. And you still think these people are not terrible?

William Hyde

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 7:00:54 PM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 19/03/2022 18:35, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Do they have in Canada that same weird rating system as in the UK
> > where you have real low numbers? like about 500 below FIDE for
> > equal strength?
> England has, sadly, recently moved more-or-less to the FIDE
> system. The former grading system, far from being "weird", was far
> more sensible, not least because it was possible for players to work
> out their own ratings ["grades"]. Specifically, with some exceptions,
> if you played a bunch of games and scored 50%, then your new grade
> was the average of the grades of your opponents [ie, you have shown
> that you are the same strength as they are, on average]; and each
> extra percent in your performance resulted in one extra point for
> your grade. Simple!
>
> There was a simpler process suggested by John Nunn, but AFAIK
> it was never used in real life. Perhaps also worth noting that all
> half-way sensible rating systems give much the same results to within
> a scaling; there is no merit whatsoever in complex algorithms, such
> as Elo, for this purpose.

For those of us who are physicists, the appeal of Elo is that the ratings of a mature pool approach a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Admittedly an abstruse point, but that's what you get when you employ physicists.

I read British chess magazines when I can get them. It's really not at all difficult to get the hang of that rating system.

People still read this group? I thought it was just the five of us!

William Hyde

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:04:40 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 2:35:18 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > What is that 1300 you are talking about? Is that USCF, are you in Canada, or in the UK?
> > > This was in Canada, long ago.
> > Bs"d
> >
> > Do they have in Canada that same weird rating system as in the UK where you have real low numbers? like about 500 below FIDE for equal strength?
> We use the same system as FIDE and USCF. At the time a Canadian 1300 was about 14000- USCF.
> > > > Here is a Dutch chess player who gives away one of his traps: https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/platypus.htm
> > > Tim Krabbe's pages are a delight. Have you read any of his novels?
> > No. Didn't know he is a writer.
> Quite a prolific one, with over a dozen novels last I checked. His brother is an actor, sometimes seen ever over here in British and Dutch productions.
> > > I've read a couple, but in English translation. When in Holland I could cobble together enough English and German parallels to at least read instructions (never did quite figure out what "geen" means, though)
> > There is no straightforward translation for 'geen'. It means something like: 'not', or 'has not'.
> So I thought.
> >
> > But since we are here in the Opening traps thread, the first game I played tonight, I got a Tennison gambit against a 1879 player, and he bit the dust: https://lichess.org/jrKdQp4eNlR4
> > I think I made a mistake somewhere in the trap, by sacrificing the bishop,
> I haven't analyzed the position myself, but at least the computer approves of your sacrifice. Your strangely passive Qh3 lets him back into the game.
> and it looked like he was familiar with this trap, because several times he had a complicated refutation on premove, and he used very little time overall.
> He fell into the trap, not noticing that the e6 pawn was pinned.
>
> In fact, not once but twice he lost a piece on that square, for the same reason, with plenty of time on his clock. And you still think these people are not terrible?

Bs"d

I'm inclined to agree with you that those people, myself included, are terrible. And to those terrible people I just now lost a bunch of rating points, through blunders, one mouse slip, and just not paying attention.

Well, as long as you are having fun. Kind of.

https://tinyurl.com/esc-real

On 19/03/2022 23:13, William Hyde wrote:
> People still read this group? I thought it was just the five of us!

Personally, I still read quite a lot of groups, but these days
contribute only rarely. It used to be a rule of thumb that there are
around ten lurkers for every active poster, so we should perhaps be
grateful to Mr Kesef not only for keeping this group reasonably active
["Never mind the quality, feel the width!" -- UK saying] but also for
creating a few new readers?

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bach,CPE

Bs"d

Google has the audacity not to let me sign in in my normal account, so I made another one.
No reason to panic.

So I had a great game against somebody I had slaughtered before, and the most funny and most horrible things happened.

In this game against Sabdelazim https://lichess.org/n9Rl7nzR7pp5 I went for the Fried Liver. He countered that with a move he most likely learned from me, after my Ng5, making the double attack on f7, his horse from f6 took my e4 pawn. This is the move I always play against an attempted fried liver.
So I decided to check out how well versed he was in this opening, and I checked him with my bishop on f7. His king stepped up, after which I took his horse, and his king took my bishop. Then my queen checked him, and then he made the horrible mistake of putting his king on g8. That cost him his queen, on move 10 my horse took his queen. Then later I skewered a castle of him, and I was 10 points ahead, and then my rotten internet connection gave up on me, and I lost the game because I supposedly left the game.

I lost some more games because of my bad internet connection, and that together with some home made blunders, severely dented my rating.

But then again; who is counting?

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:44:52 PM UTC+2, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 19/03/2022 23:13, William Hyde wrote:
> > People still read this group? I thought it was just the five of us!
> Personally, I still read quite a lot of groups, but these days
> contribute only rarely. It used to be a rule of thumb that there are
> around ten lurkers for every active poster, so we should perhaps be
> grateful to Mr Kesef not only for keeping this group reasonably active
> ["Never mind the quality, feel the width!" -- UK saying] but also for
> creating a few new readers?

Bs"d

I really don't like that UK saying: "Never mind the quality, feel the width!"

It gives me the ugly impression that somewhere there is some doubt about the quality of my posts.

This is of course a totally mistaken impression, but it just doesn't sound nice.

https://tinyurl.com/castle-early

Bs"d

Here another Budapest gambit, in which the enemy resigned on move 8, after he had to part with his queen: https://lichess.org/n9Rl7nzR7pp5

https://tinyurl.com/fab-Bud

Bs"d

Here an other Ponziani-Steinitz gambit: https://lichess.org/9HTUhWKOf5Hp

I started with the Russian defense, that turned via and Italian into a two horses defense, after which the enemy moved his horse to g5, moving in for the killer horse fork on f7.

I took my horse from f6, and let it jump on the enemy pawn on e4. The enemy proceeded to plant his horse on f7, forking my queen and castle.

The result of this was that on move 12 I was 11 points ahead in material. But the enemy played on to the move 30, on which the situation was even more miserable for him, and then he surrendered.

https://tinyurl.com/chess-infinit

Bs"d

Here after my Zukertort opening, I got yet another Tennison gambit: https://lichess.org/rM1H0EhfVL9R

I followed the line taught to me by GM Smirnov, and it worked like a charm.
The enemy fell two times victim to the fact that his e6 pawn was pinned, and that costed him two pieces. Since I had sacrificed my horse on f7, that put me one piece ahead.
Also in this game the enemy lost 2 pieces on the same square, because of the same pin: https://lichess.org/jrKdQp4eNlR4
Isn't that incredibly funny?? :D

Then my bishop took his e6 pawn, which was protected by his queen and king, and only attacked by my queen and bishop. So he right away took my bishop with his queen.
And that was a big mistake.
Because no I could royally fork him. My horse forked both his queen and king in one jump, and the enemy run out of the game without resigning.
That's OK, I understand. https://tinyurl.com/resign-grace
On top of that, after he run away, Lichess told me that I could claim victory in 9 seconds, so there was no harm done.

Tennison in combination with my trusty horse did it again!

https://tinyurl.com/horse4k-withu

Bs"d

Here after my Zukertort opening, I got yet another Tennison gambit: https://lichess.org/rM1H0EhfVL9R

I followed the line taught to me by GM Smirnov, and it worked like a charm.
The enemy fell two times victim to the fact that his e6 pawn was pinned, and that costed him two pieces. Since I had sacrificed my horse on f7, that put me one piece ahead.
Also in this game the enemy lost 2 pieces on the same square, because of the same pin: https://lichess.org/jrKdQp4eNlR4
Isn't that incredibly funny?? :D

Then my bishop took his e6 pawn, which was protected by his queen and king, and only attacked by my queen and bishop. So he right away took my bishop with his queen.
And that was a big mistake.
Because now I could royally fork him. My horse forked both his queen and king in one jump, and the enemy run out of the game without resigning.
That's OK, I understand. https://tinyurl.com/resign-grace
On top of that, after he run away, Lichess told me that I could claim victory in 9 seconds, so there was no harm done.

Tennison in combination with my trusty horse did it again!

https://tinyurl.com/horse4k-withu

Bs"d

So in the Tennison gambit I decided to go with another trap as usual, a more simple one, one which is played sooner, and a might harder to see than the trap I previous played. And not as complicated and far removed as the one I learned from GM Smirnov.
It is about the same trap as the one in the Budapest gambit. The first time I tried it out it was a resounding success, the enemy had to part with his queen and got in return only a horse and a bishop: https://lichess.org/qZgoEYX2Gs1E

And that's an easy win.

https://tinyurl.com/Tennis-trap

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 8:46:33 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> So in the Tennison gambit I decided to go with another trap as usual, a more simple one, one which is played sooner, and a might harder to see than the trap I previous played. And not as complicated and far removed as the one I learned from GM Smirnov.
> It is about the same trap as the one in the Budapest gambit. The first time I tried it out it was a resounding success, the enemy had to part with his queen and got in return only a horse and a bishop: https://lichess.org/qZgoEYX2Gs1E
>
> And that's an easy win.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/Tennis-trap

Bs"d

And also the second time I tried it was a big success: https://lichess.org/cGMymevXVexC

The enemy had to part with his queen on move 8 in exchange for only a horse and a bishop.

I think I like this trap.

https://tinyurl.com/more-to-life

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 11:55:45 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 8:46:33 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > So in the Tennison gambit I decided to go with another trap as usual, a more simple one, one which is played sooner, and a might harder to see than the trap I previous played. And not as complicated and far removed as the one I learned from GM Smirnov.
> > It is about the same trap as the one in the Budapest gambit. The first time I tried it out it was a resounding success, the enemy had to part with his queen and got in return only a horse and a bishop: https://lichess.org/qZgoEYX2Gs1E
> >
> > And that's an easy win.
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/Tennis-trap
> Bs"d
>
> And also the second time I tried it was a big success: https://lichess.org/cGMymevXVexC
>
> The enemy had to part with his queen on move 8 in exchange for only a horse and a bishop.
>
> I think I like this trap.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/more-to-life

Bs"d

"Simplicity is the hallmark of the real thing."

Here is my third attempt with the simple version of the Tennison trap: https://lichess.org/WpFwYxRT9kfY

It was a spectacular success, ending with a resignation on move 8.

https://tinyurl.com/trappy-gambit

Bs"d

In this battle: https://lichess.org/w9qdRnhOq3He an 1832 bit the dust on move 15 after he got attacked frontally by a Stafford gambit.

https://tinyurl.com/beerklem

Bs"d

In this battle https://lichess.org/nS5Q8vm6hSCd I attacked the enemy with a Stafford gambit.

His reply was all wrong, and I got the triple attack on f2. He took the easiest way out and only lost an exchange, but that was enough to force his surrender.

The Stafford keeps on hitting hard.

http://tiny.cc/never-2-old

Bs"d

In this game: https://lichess.org/mXHFpy8cA6UB I started with the Zukertort, and got a Tennison gambit on the board.

I went right away for the jugular and also for the quick and efficient trap in which you give up a horse and a bishop in exchange for the enemy queen.

That worked quite well, so well that he forgot to capture my bishop which checked him on move 7 and g6, and deflected the king away from the queen, so the enemy queen was ripe for the taking.

After he lost his queen, on move 8, he surrendered.

Tennison hit again.

And then he wanted revanche. So I obliged. This time I had black, he started with d4, so I did e5, and we had an Englund gambit on the board: https://lichess.org/JvRMwLfuhcma

That trappy gambit was responsible for the enemy being a full castle down on move 8, but he limped on until move 23 before he run out of the game without resigning.

Where would we be without opening traps?

https://tinyurl.com/gloeiogen

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:19:19 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> In this game: https://lichess.org/mXHFpy8cA6UB I started with the Zukertort, and got a Tennison gambit on the board.
>
> I went right away for the jugular and also for the quick and efficient trap in which you give up a horse and a bishop in exchange for the enemy queen.
>
> That worked quite well, so well that he forgot to capture my bishop which checked him on move 7 and g6, and deflected the king away from the queen, so the enemy queen was ripe for the taking.
>
> After he lost his queen, on move 8, he surrendered.
>
> Tennison hit again.
>
> And then he wanted revanche. So I obliged. This time I had black, he started with d4, so I did e5, and we had an Englund gambit on the board: https://lichess.org/JvRMwLfuhcma
>
> That trappy gambit was responsible for the enemy being a full castle down on move 8, but he limped on until move 23 before he run out of the game without resigning.
>
> Where would we be without opening traps?

In the past I disliked online chess, but age, alcohol abuse, senility or your example has made a convert of me and I've been playing a bit on lichess.

First thing to note, I blunder incessantly. Against stockfish the question is not will I drop a piece, but when. If I drop it late enough I might have enough advantage to win anyway.

The following was an early attempt against stockfish at level five. This is just a test to see if I can import it, it's not a great game even at g5+8, but at least I didn't drop a piece.

https://lichess.org/dPtSO802#88

It goes on far too long. Stockfish doesn't resign.

Notably, I moved both rook pawns.

William Hyde

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:41:33 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:19:19 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > In this game: https://lichess.org/mXHFpy8cA6UB I started with the Zukertort, and got a Tennison gambit on the board.
> >
> > I went right away for the jugular and also for the quick and efficient trap in which you give up a horse and a bishop in exchange for the enemy queen.
> >
> > That worked quite well, so well that he forgot to capture my bishop which checked him on move 7 and g6, and deflected the king away from the queen, so the enemy queen was ripe for the taking.
> >
> > After he lost his queen, on move 8, he surrendered.
> >
> > Tennison hit again.
> >
> > And then he wanted revanche. So I obliged. This time I had black, he started with d4, so I did e5, and we had an Englund gambit on the board: https://lichess.org/JvRMwLfuhcma
> >
> > That trappy gambit was responsible for the enemy being a full castle down on move 8, but he limped on until move 23 before he run out of the game without resigning.
> >
> > Where would we be without opening traps?
> In the past I disliked online chess, but age, alcohol abuse, senility or your example has made a convert of me and I've been playing a bit on lichess.
>
> First thing to note, I blunder incessantly.

Bs"d

So do I, so you're not the only one. I'm having a particular bad episode at the moment, I think mainly because I'm tired of playing so much chess, and don't want to think anymore. I play incredibly fast, the enemy thinks very long, and I get slaughtered.
I sunk into the 1700's, I started to play much shorter time controls, so I don't give the enemy time to think. I played 10/10, 8/8, up till 5/5, but nothing helps.
I considered stopping to play for a few months, but I can't stop.
So I just struggle on.

> Against stockfish the question is not will I drop a piece, but when. If I drop it late enough I might have enough advantage to win anyway.

If you didn't play for a long time, then it is to be expected that you play bad. Train more and especially in the beginning, you'll improve very fast.
>
> The following was an early attempt against stockfish at level five. This is just a test to see if I can import it, it's not a great game even at g5+8, but at least I didn't drop a piece.
>
> https://lichess.org/dPtSO802#88
>
> It goes on far too long. Stockfish doesn't resign.

Nobody ever won by resigning. And congrats, you beat the silicon monster!

If you have problems beating it, just play it on a weaker level.

But anyway, playing against humans is much more fun than playing against a comp. When you beat a comp you cannot feel its pain. And humans, like yourself, and like me, we blunder. Comps don't, and that gives them an unfair advantage.

> Notably, I moved both rook pawns.

But not in the forbidden way. The first one, the h pawn, was part of a king side attack, no problem there. And when you moved the a pawn, you attacked an enemy bishop, who was forced to move, so also no problem there.
The problem with playing the castle pawns is that you are wasting time in the opening. But when you attack an enemy piece in the opening with your castle pawn, that problem doesn't exist, because yes, you lose a move, but so does the enemy who has to move a piece twice in the opening, so that evens out.

https://tinyurl.com/adv-age-magic

Bs"d

In this battle: https://lichess.org/SbfnuUyMFcEv the enemy was not familiar with the fishing pole trap.

He surrendered on move 14, mate in a few moves being unavoidable.

https://rb.gy/ln1tsa

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:27:11 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:41:33 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:19:19 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > In this game: https://lichess.org/mXHFpy8cA6UB I started with the Zukertort, and got a Tennison gambit on the board.
> > >
> > > I went right away for the jugular and also for the quick and efficient trap in which you give up a horse and a bishop in exchange for the enemy queen.
> > >
> > > That worked quite well, so well that he forgot to capture my bishop which checked him on move 7 and g6, and deflected the king away from the queen, so the enemy queen was ripe for the taking.
> > >
> > > After he lost his queen, on move 8, he surrendered.
> > >
> > > Tennison hit again.
> > >
> > > And then he wanted revanche. So I obliged. This time I had black, he started with d4, so I did e5, and we had an Englund gambit on the board: https://lichess.org/JvRMwLfuhcma
> > >
> > > That trappy gambit was responsible for the enemy being a full castle down on move 8, but he limped on until move 23 before he run out of the game without resigning.
> > >
> > > Where would we be without opening traps?
> > In the past I disliked online chess, but age, alcohol abuse, senility or your example has made a convert of me and I've been playing a bit on lichess.
> >
> > First thing to note, I blunder incessantly.
> Bs"d
>
> So do I, so you're not the only one. I'm having a particular bad episode at the moment, I think mainly because I'm tired of playing so much chess, and don't want to think anymore. I play incredibly fast, the enemy thinks very long, and I get slaughtered.
> I sunk into the 1700's, I started to play much shorter time controls, so I don't give the enemy time to think. I played 10/10, 8/8, up till 5/5, but nothing helps.
> I considered stopping to play for a few months, but I can't stop.
> So I just struggle on.
> > Against stockfish the question is not will I drop a piece, but when. If I drop it late enough I might have enough advantage to win anyway.
> If you didn't play for a long time, then it is to be expected that you play bad. Train more and especially in the beginning, you'll improve very fast.
> >
> > The following was an early attempt against stockfish at level five. This is just a test to see if I can import it, it's not a great game even at g5+8, but at least I didn't drop a piece.
> >
> > https://lichess.org/dPtSO802#88
> >
> > It goes on far too long. Stockfish doesn't resign.
> Nobody ever won by resigning. And congrats, you beat the silicon monster!
>
> If you have problems beating it, just play it on a weaker level.

Not my style.

I've moved up a level since then. I still blunder too much, but not quite as often. I was getting a plus score against level six, until yesterday when I went 2.5/7. I played some strange sacrifices which were at best almost sound. Might have won against level five.

Level six still has two weaknesses, the horizon effect can let you win material, and it is horrible at complex king and pawn endings. It can't see far enough ahead and wastes time with pointless king moves. It's good at knight and queen endgames, or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I'm bad at those. It's not good at rook endings, either.
>
> But anyway, playing against humans is much more fun than playing against a comp. When you beat a comp you cannot feel its pain. And humans, like yourself, and like me, we blunder. Comps don't, and that gives them an unfair advantage.

But it is good training in not blundering, when you play someone/thing who will catch every blunder of yours. My chess brain is a machine almost seized up with rust. I'm hoping stockfish will knock some of the rust off.

William Hyde