Bs"d

And I played another nice queen sacrifice. But unfortunately, it ended in disaster. Tragedy!

What happened was: I played a Stafford gambit, it went well, until I got to the position where I sacrifice my queen, the enemy takes my queen, and I mate the enemy in two moves, on move 8: https://lichess.org/h8vIWHunrzuo

In my mind I was already writing this win down in the thread: "Sudden death on move 8", when things went awry. First the bastard refused to take my queen, and then he played the only line which didn't give me serious advantage.

That is of course unheard of, that a queen sacrifice is refused. That is just not done. That goes against all chessiquette.

But alas, it looks like that there are under the chess players some unrefined uncultured players who play whatever suits their fancy.

But that was not the worst of it. Even though my mate in 8 slipped away, and I was forced to play chess, that was still not the worst. I played reasonable, (I think, at least better than the enemy) and soon I was 4 points ahead.

But then real tragedy struck. I was being happy with my 4 point lead, enjoying the game and slaughtering the enemy, and then it happened.

Lichess says: "Black left the game - White is victorious".

But I didn't leave the game!! It was just that my internet connection failed on me. No way I left the game!

Still I was treated as if I left the game, and the game was forfeited.

Cant' they understand I would never leave a game when I'm 4 points ahead and winning?

Don't they know that ruler who was playing chess and then his general stormed in and yelled: "The enemy has breached the walls, they're invading the city!" And the king replied: "Don't bother me, I see a mate!"

Nobody would ever leave the black side of such a game!

But it looks like Lichess doesn't want to listen to reason, and they still credit me with a loss.

Who said life is easy?

Sigh....

http://tinyurl.com/Play-they-said

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> And I played another nice queen sacrifice. But unfortunately, it ended in disaster. Tragedy!
>
> What happened was: I played a Stafford gambit, it went well, until I got to the position where I sacrifice my queen, the enemy takes my queen, and I mate the enemy in two moves, on move 8: https://lichess.org/h8vIWHunrzuo
>
> In my mind I was already writing this win down in the thread: "Sudden death on move 8", when things went awry. First the bastard refused to take my queen, and then he played the only line which didn't give me serious advantage.
>
> That is of course unheard of, that a queen sacrifice is refused. That is just not done. That goes against all chessiquette.

In the best game I ever played against someone with a real rating over 2300, I threatened three queen sacrifices. Each time he
moved so as to avoid the sacs. In no case did he see them. Quite possibly none of them were actually sound, though I've
never found a refutation for the first two.

I had a curiously parallel experience to yours yesterday. Playing against level five in the pre-dawn hours, I dropped my queen to a
two mover. Stockfish didn't take it and I went on to a thoroughly undeserved win. I usually win against five, but lately
I've been beating it with crappy play, though not this crappy.

The next game was fun too, ninety moves, ten blunders from it, ten from me - but it made the last in an utterly drawn ending.

I'm beginning to enjoy sleepless chess. Anything can happen!

William Hyde

Just played Stockfish again at level five. In a poor position it refused to recapture amid a queen trade. I gave it several takebacks but it
just wouldn't take the queen - and there was no harm in taking it. I left the queen en prise and it took it three moves later.

So I tried level six with this result:

https://lichess.org/8aTpeAk3#0

My combination with d3 and c3 is something level six could miss, so no problem there, but it played strange weak moves
like Bf1 which as far as I can tell are unusual for six.

I should ask my friend who always loses to eight if he has begun winning.

William Hyde

On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 6:51:04 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> Just played Stockfish on level 4, slaughtered him, then went for the bishop-horse mate, and messed it up, couldn't get him out of the corner.
> https://lichess.org/ii4RP7xxu5S6

Well, at least it didn't throw away a queen.

William Hyde

On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 1:53:25 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > Are you posting here through Google groups? I am. They are going to quit in 2 months. Have to get myself a Usenet client.
> >
> > Irritating. I'm not going to pay for it. Not after I'm posting 25 years for free. Why can't things stay as they are?
> Bs"d
>
> Looks I'm going to quit Usenet after 15 February. Too complicated to get a Usenet provider, and I hate paying.

I am in the same situation. I have been sticking with GG out of laziness. It is not that hard (I am told) to
replace it. And most replacements will have more features than GG.

William Hyde

On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 1:53:25 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > Are you posting here through Google groups? I am. They are going to quit in 2 months. Have to get myself a Usenet client.
> > >
> > > Irritating. I'm not going to pay for it. Not after I'm posting 25 years for free. Why can't things stay as they are?
> > Bs"d
> >
> > Looks I'm going to quit Usenet after 15 February. Too complicated to get a Usenet provider, and I hate paying.
> I am in the same situation. I have been sticking with GG out of laziness. It is not that hard (I am told) to
> replace it. And most replacements will have more features than GG.
>
> William Hyde

Bs"d

This server seems to give free Usernet access: https://www.eternal-september.org/

I want to use Thunderbird to access it, but it is difficult to get it working.

Anyway, I had another queen sacrifice, and again it was refused: https://lichess.org/UAy8v51fuDGK
I hope this is not going to become the norm, that queen sacrifices are being ignored.

It was a mate of Legal, and in stead of taking my queen, he took my horse with his horse. This allowed me to take his bishop, but then the scoundrel took my bishop. This could have been very serious, like me coming out of the opening a horse down, if not for the prophylactic 4. h3 that I played first before I sacced my queen. Thanks to that h3 I was able to take his horse after him taking my bishop, and I got at least an extra pawn.
That is of course nothing compared to a mate in two on move 8, after the enemy taking my queen.
But alas, it is not every day party time.

http://tinyurl.com/Qsac-getaway

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 1:21:39 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> And I played another nice queen sacrifice. But unfortunately, it ended in disaster. Tragedy!
>
> What happened was: I played a Stafford gambit, it went well, until I got to the position where I sacrifice my queen, the enemy takes my queen, and I mate the enemy in two moves, on move 8: https://lichess.org/h8vIWHunrzuo
>
> In my mind I was already writing this win down in the thread: "Sudden death on move 8", when things went awry. First the bastard refused to take my queen, and then he played the only line which didn't give me serious advantage.

Bs"d

So I said: "and then he played the only line which didn't give me serious advantage".

But I decided to delve deeper into that. I just had another Stafford gambit, in which the enemy did accept my queen sacrifice and went mate in 2 moves, on move 8, as you can see in the topic: "Sudden death on move 8".

I went to analysis board, let him refuse the queen sacrifice, but in stead play Qe2, like in the above game, and checked what Stockfish thought about it.

Turns out also that line is absolutely and totally winning for black. I just didn't know it, and probably would never have found the winning lines without Stockfish. They are not obvious, but they are there and they are strong.

My faith in the Stafford gambit is totally restored, and I'll keep on playing it. Yes, there is a refutation, but you really must have studied it to be able to play it, and then in the worst case you're just a pawn down. No big deal.

But 9 times out of 10 the enemy doesn't know the refutation, and then I slaughter them. Most of the time anyway.

Oh how I love the Stafford gambit!

http://tinyurl.com/Short-chainsaw

Bs"d

Like I said before: "Things come in clusters." So seven hours ago I had another one of those nice mate on move 8 after a queen sacrifice: https://lichess.org/RdhurPB1p4Kh

The Stafford gambit did it again!

https://tinyurl.com/we-sing-hallel

http://tinyurl.com/Qsac-rejoices

Bs"d

Another queen sacrifice: https://lichess.org/gWWhbIKIk6Ac

The enemy thought he could chase away my queen by attacking it with a castle. To his great surprise I took his castle which was protected, with my queen. Queen sacrifice.

However this queen sacrifice was followed immediately by a Horrible Royal Horse Fork, which relieved the enemy of his queen in exchange for only a horse. And my queen had taken a castle, so I won an exchange in this little skirmish.

The Horrible Royal Horse Fork scared the enemy so much that he right away pushed the resign button.

Chalk up another one for the good guy.

https://tinyurl.com/4k-horrible