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:

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.

Good advice. But that advice pertains even more to Go than it does to Chess.

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"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.

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"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.

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/5IVcBp0yINqj

You 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"d

And here another game, which game to a sudden end by means of a royal fork: https://lichess.org/5IVcBp0yINqj

You won without catching someone in a memorized opening trap. Congratulations.

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

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.

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)

I 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. 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 this against a fellow expert, not without booking up.

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.

those traps are more annoying than educational.

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.

 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 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.

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)

I 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. 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 this against a fellow expert, not without booking up.

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?

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.

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..

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.

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.