Bs"d

So I told you guys about the crazy looking answer to an attempted Fried Liver, which I learned from 2 grandmasters. Those 2 grandmasters wrote the book "222 Opening Traps after 1.e4": https://www.edition-olms.com/buecher/222-opening-traps-after-1-e4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.

But o horror, I saw the same trap on youtube, free for the whole world. Terrible! The genie is out of the bottle! Almost 70,000 people have watched that youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyt01xy_ytg Now everybody can learn that trap for free! That's not the way it should be....

And even worse, another trap of mine I found on youtube, it has almost TWO MILLION views! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vhu9qDkkws Looks like everybody and his mother is learning opening traps.
That must be why I have so few people falling for my opening traps lately. Terrible!
Youtube is riddled with opening traps.

Well, something good came out of it; I learned a few more good variations of that anti-Fried Liver.

But it looks like the era where you could trap people left and right with simple traps is over. Everybody is jumping on the trap train. :(

Who said life is easy....

https://tinyurl.com/lifes-fault

On 10/5/2021 1:57 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> So I told you guys about the crazy looking answer to an attempted Fried Liver, which I learned from 2 grandmasters. Those 2 grandmasters wrote the book "222 Opening Traps after 1.e4": https://www.edition-olms.com/buecher/222-opening-traps-after-1-e4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
>
> But o horror, I saw the same trap on youtube, free for the whole world. Terrible! The genie is out of the bottle! Almost 70,000 people have watched that youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyt01xy_ytg Now everybody can learn that trap for free! That's not the way it should be....

There is no Fried Liver Attack or attempted Fried Liver Attack in that game.

The fried liver attack is

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5

That move is *not* the Fried Liver Attack. It's one of the two main
lines in that position; the other is 4. d4. As far as I know, 4. Ng5
has no name.

4. ... d5
5. exd5 Nxd5

Generally considered a poor move. Fairly standard is (or at least used
to be) Na5, but Nd4 (the Fritz Variation) or g5 (the Ulvestad Variation)
are also good. I used to almost always play the Fritz.

6. Nxf7

It's *that* move, the sacrifice of the knight, that gets the name "Fried
Liver Attack" (translated from the Italian "Fegatello."

Back in my day, 5. Nxf7 was usually considered a poor move and the
correct move was instead 6. d4. I might be wrong, but I think there have
been recent improvements in the Fried Liver Attack, and it's more
playable than was thought then.

--
Ken

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:19:11 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 10/5/2021 1:57 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > So I told you guys about the crazy looking answer to an attempted Fried Liver, which I learned from 2 grandmasters. Those 2 grandmasters wrote the book "222 Opening Traps after 1.e4": https://www.edition-olms.com/buecher/222-opening-traps-after-1-e4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
> >
> > But o horror, I saw the same trap on youtube, free for the whole world. Terrible! The genie is out of the bottle! Almost 70,000 people have watched that youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyt01xy_ytg Now everybody can learn that trap for free! That's not the way it should be....

Bs"d

I'm confused here. First you say this:
> There is no Fried Liver Attack or attempted Fried Liver Attack in that game.
>
> The fried liver attack is
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. Bc4 Nf6
> 4. Ng5

So far I can agree with you.

But then you say:

> That move is *not* the Fried Liver Attack. It's one of the two main
> lines in that position; the other is 4. d4. As far as I know, 4. Ng5
> has no name.

First you say 4. Ng5 is the Fried liver, next you say: "4. Ng5 is NOT the Fried Liver, it has no name." ????

https://tinyurl.com/chess-complex

On 10/5/2021 10:31 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:19:11 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 10/5/2021 1:57 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> > Bs"d
>> >
>> > So I told you guys about the crazy looking answer to an attempted Fried Liver, which I learned from 2 grandmasters. Those 2 grandmasters wrote the book "222 Opening Traps after 1.e4": https://www.edition-olms.com/buecher/222-opening-traps-after-1-e4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
>> >
>> > But o horror, I saw the same trap on youtube, free for the whole world. Terrible! The genie is out of the bottle! Almost 70,000 people have watched that youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyt01xy_ytg Now everybody can learn that trap for free! That's not the way it should be....
>
> Bs"d
>
> I'm confused here. First you say this:
>> There is no Fried Liver Attack or attempted Fried Liver Attack in that game.
>>
>> The fried liver attack is
>>
>> 1. e4 e5
>> 2. Nf3 Nc6
>> 3. Bc4 Nf6
>> 4. Ng5
>
> So far I can agree with you.

There's nothing to agree with so far. I haven't made any point yet.

> But then you say:
>
>> That move is *not* the Fried Liver Attack. It's one of the two main
>> lines in that position; the other is 4. d4. As far as I know, 4. Ng5
>> has no name.
>
> First you say 4. Ng5 is the Fried liver,

No, I did not say that. Read more carefully. What I said is that the line

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5 Nxd5
6. Nxf7

is the Fried Liver Attack.

It's the sixth White move, Nxf7, that makes that line the Fried Liver
Attack, not 4. Ng5.

> next you say: "4. Ng5 is NOT the Fried Liver,

Correct; it's not.

> it has no name."

"...as far as I know." It's simply one of the two most common white
fourth moves in the two Knight's Defense, the other, as I said, is 4.
d4. I'll grant you the possibility that someone has given 4. Ng5 a name
that I'm not aware of.

Also note that if white plays 4. Ng5, black does not have to play 4...d5
or 4...Nxe4. Another possibility is 4...Bc5, which is called the
Wilkes-Barre Variation or the Traxler Counterattack.

--
Ken

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 10:07:21 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 10/5/2021 10:31 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:19:11 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:
> >> On 10/5/2021 1:57 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
> >> > Bs"d
> >> >
> >> > So I told you guys about the crazy looking answer to an attempted Fried Liver, which I learned from 2 grandmasters. Those 2 grandmasters wrote the book "222 Opening Traps after 1.e4": https://www.edition-olms.com/buecher/222-opening-traps-after-1-e4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
> >> >
> >> > But o horror, I saw the same trap on youtube, free for the whole world. Terrible! The genie is out of the bottle! Almost 70,000 people have watched that youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyt01xy_ytg Now everybody can learn that trap for free! That's not the way it should be....
> >
> > Bs"d
> >
> > I'm confused here. First you say this:
> >> There is no Fried Liver Attack or attempted Fried Liver Attack in that game.
> >>
> >> The fried liver attack is
> >>
> >> 1. e4 e5
> >> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> >> 3. Bc4 Nf6
> >> 4. Ng5
> >
> > So far I can agree with you.
> There's nothing to agree with so far. I haven't made any point yet.
> > But then you say:
> >
> >> That move is *not* the Fried Liver Attack. It's one of the two main
> >> lines in that position; the other is 4. d4. As far as I know, 4. Ng5
> >> has no name.
> >
> > First you say 4. Ng5 is the Fried liver,
> No, I did not say that. Read more carefully. What I said is that the line
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. Bc4 Nf6
> 4. Ng5 d5
> 5. exd5 Nxd5
> 6. Nxf7
>
> is the Fried Liver Attack.
>
> It's the sixth White move, Nxf7, that makes that line the Fried Liver
> Attack, not 4. Ng5.
> > next you say: "4. Ng5 is NOT the Fried Liver,
> Correct; it's not.
>
>
> > it has no name."
>
>
> "...as far as I know." It's simply one of the two most common white
> fourth moves in the two Knight's Defense, the other, as I said, is 4.
> d4. I'll grant you the possibility that someone has given 4. Ng5 a name
> that I'm not aware of.
>
> Also note that if white plays 4. Ng5, black does not have to play 4...d5
> or 4...Nxe4. Another possibility is 4...Bc5, which is called the
> Wilkes-Barre Variation or the Traxler Counterattack.

Bs"d

OK, I got the picture.

So I think it is reasonably safe to say it is an attempted Fried Liver. He is trying to go for it. And that's what I said in my post: "So I told you guys about the crazy looking answer to an attempted Fried Liver".

An attempted Fried Liver is I think not so wrong.

Anyway, this was not about semantics, it's about that trap when the opponent answers the two horses defense with horse g5, trying to smack in on f7.

It's a nice trap, I caught some people with it already, it's just that it is publicized on youtube, waking up the whole chess world to that trap, spoiling it for me.

And I hate facing the Traxler when I attempt the Fried Liver, even though nowadays I make it the Lollie attack, because I first play 6. d4, which according to Bobby Fischer makes the attack much stronger.

https://tinyurl.com/calm-win

On 10/5/2021 1:22 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 10:07:21 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 10/5/2021 10:31 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:19:11 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:
>> >> On 10/5/2021 1:57 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> >> > Bs"d
>> >> >
>> >> > So I told you guys about the crazy looking answer to an attempted Fried Liver, which I learned from 2 grandmasters. Those 2 grandmasters wrote the book "222 Opening Traps after 1.e4": https://www.edition-olms.com/buecher/222-opening-traps-after-1-e4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
>> >> >
>> >> > But o horror, I saw the same trap on youtube, free for the whole world. Terrible! The genie is out of the bottle! Almost 70,000 people have watched that youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyt01xy_ytg Now everybody can learn that trap for free! That's not the way it should be....
>> >
>> > Bs"d
>> >
>> > I'm confused here. First you say this:
>> >> There is no Fried Liver Attack or attempted Fried Liver Attack in that game.
>> >>
>> >> The fried liver attack is
>> >>
>> >> 1. e4 e5
>> >> 2. Nf3 Nc6
>> >> 3. Bc4 Nf6
>> >> 4. Ng5
>> >
>> > So far I can agree with you.
>> There's nothing to agree with so far. I haven't made any point yet.
>> > But then you say:
>> >
>> >> That move is *not* the Fried Liver Attack. It's one of the two main
>> >> lines in that position; the other is 4. d4. As far as I know, 4. Ng5
>> >> has no name.
>> >
>> > First you say 4. Ng5 is the Fried liver,
>> No, I did not say that. Read more carefully. What I said is that the line
>> 1. e4 e5
>> 2. Nf3 Nc6
>> 3. Bc4 Nf6
>> 4. Ng5 d5
>> 5. exd5 Nxd5
>> 6. Nxf7
>>
>> is the Fried Liver Attack.
>>
>> It's the sixth White move, Nxf7, that makes that line the Fried Liver
>> Attack, not 4. Ng5.
>> > next you say: "4. Ng5 is NOT the Fried Liver,
>> Correct; it's not.
>>
>>
>> > it has no name."
>>
>>
>> "...as far as I know." It's simply one of the two most common white
>> fourth moves in the two Knight's Defense, the other, as I said, is 4.
>> d4. I'll grant you the possibility that someone has given 4. Ng5 a name
>> that I'm not aware of.
>>
>> Also note that if white plays 4. Ng5, black does not have to play 4...d5
>> or 4...Nxe4. Another possibility is 4...Bc5, which is called the
>> Wilkes-Barre Variation or the Traxler Counterattack.
>
> Bs"d
>
> OK, I got the picture.

Good, glad to hear it.

> So I think it is reasonably safe to say it is an attempted Fried Liver.

No. There's no way you can know that. If the game goes

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5

white doesn't know what black might play next. Yes, some players might
play 5...Nx5 and give him the opportunity to play the Fried Liver
Attack, but most players with opening knowledge would play 5...Na5. And
some players (me, for example) would play 5...Nd4, the Fritz variation.
And so on.

Moreover, even if black plays 5...Nxd5, there's no way you can know that
white will reply with 6. Nxf7, the Fried Liver Attack. He might, but he
might not. He might well prefer to play the theoretically better 6. d4

> Anyway, this was not about semantics, it's about that trap when the opponent answers the two horses defense with horse g5, trying to smack in on f7.

Yes, I understood your point. I was simply commenting on your misuse of
the term "Fried Liver Attack" and trying to educate you on what that meant.

> It's a nice trap, I caught some people with it already, it's just that it is publicized on youtube, waking up the whole chess world to that trap, spoiling it for me.
>
> And I hate facing the Traxler when I attempt the Fried Liver,

Yes, the Traxler can be very dangerous.

> even though nowadays I make it the Lollie attack, because I first play 6. d4, which according to Bobby Fischer makes the attack much stronger.

As I said, 6.d4 was widely believed to be much sounder than the Fried
Liver Attack. Is it still considered better? Probably, but I'm not up on
the latest opening research so I can't be sure.

By the way, in all the years I knew Bobby Fischer, I can't remember his
ever playing 3. Bc4. Did he ever play it? Perhaps, but I either never
saw him play it or don't remember, so it certainly wasn't a standard
opening for him, so I'd be wary of putting too much credence on what he
said about lines that result from it. He was much more likely to play
the Ruy Lopez, and especially the exchange variation.

--
Ken

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 1:21:58 AM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:

> By the way, in all the years I knew Bobby Fischer, I can't remember his
> ever playing 3. Bc4. Did he ever play it? Perhaps, but I either never
> saw him play it or don't remember, so it certainly wasn't a standard
> opening for him, so I'd be wary of putting too much credence on what he
> said about lines that result from it. He was much more likely to play
> the Ruy Lopez, and especially the exchange variation.

Bs"d

Here is a game of Bobby playing the Italian opening with 4. Ng5: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=kQ3fAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT81&lpg=PT81&dq=Bobby+Fischer,+e4+e5+Nf3+Nc6+Bc4&source=bl&ots=wSRD1nyszr&sig=ACfU3U2TRPdulVrdj7Qv3phbAFbsszjm6w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwzrSWw7TzAhWymFwKHW2LC9AQ6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q=Bobby%20Fischer%2C%20e4%20e5%20Nf3%20Nc6%20Bc4&f=false

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 11:19:15 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> This could have been a sudden death on move 8, if only the enemy would have taken my queen: https://lichess.org/9pfIupxohrku
>
> He didn't take my queen, so I took his queen, on move 8, after which he resigned. Any chance that this would qualify as a "sudden death on move 8"?
>
> He died on move 8. Quite suddenly.
>
> But it wasn't mate.
>
> Difficult, difficult.
>
> Just to be on the safe side I didn't post it under "Sudden Death on move 8". I want to keep that thread pure and undiluted.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/dev-Stafford

Bs"d

For those amongst us who think that in this game https://lichess.org/9pfIupxohrku the enemy blundered horribly in taking the bishop on move 8, causing by that the loss of his queen, they are wrong. If he would have kept on protecting his queen by not taking the bishop but moving the king to e2, then Bg4+ would have followed, after which the white king has no choice than to capture the bishop on f2, and then he would have anyway lost his queen with Qxd1.
So it would only have delayed the inevitable with one move.

Just saying.

https://tinyurl.com/beerklem

Bs"d

So I switched from the Englund gambit to the Budapest gambit. It is not as spectacular as the Englund when that leads to a mate on move 8, but sometimes it works nicely. Like in this freshly played game: https://lichess..org/PDZoXjYnmQah Here the enemy had to part with his queen on move 8, and got in return only two light pieces. And I got the invested pawn back, plus one pawn interest, so I was 4 points ahead. He still had 4 light pieces and two castles, so there was a lot of play left for him, and I had to proceed with extreme caution. But simply exchanging everything I could exchange worked very well, and victory was mine. HalleluJah!!

https://is.gd/trappy_gamb

Bs"d

The Stafford gambit claimed a new victim. No mate in 8, but the enemy had to part with an exchange in the opening: https://lichess.org/sq2dRBDwBAhp
After the gambit he pushed his e pawn forward, attacking my horse. My horse jumped to e4, having a beautiful nice forward position. Unfortunately he didn't play d3, because then you can get this beautiful line in which the enemy loses his queen on move 9: https://lichess.org/wCjvJb0r/black#20

In stead of d3 he played d4, protecting his e5 pawn, after which my queen moved to h4, threatening mate on f2. Then he played the natural but horrible move g3, after which my horse smacked in on g3, winning back my gambiteerd pawn. Of course he couldn't take with hxg3, because he would immediately lose his castle on h1, so he took the longer route, and took my horse with fxg3, after which my queen checked him on e4, and next move the queen picked up the castle on h1. The rest was smooth sailing. The enemy fought on until the mate on move 79. :D

The Stafford gambit did it again!

https://tinyurl.com/keep-calm-play

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 2:21:31 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> So I switched from the Englund gambit to the Budapest gambit. It is not as spectacular as the Englund when that leads to a mate on move 8, but sometimes it works nicely. Like in this freshly played game: https://lichess.org/PDZoXjYnmQah Here the enemy had to part with his queen on move 8, and got in return only two light pieces. And I got the invested pawn back, plus one pawn interest, so I was 4 points ahead. He still had 4 light pieces and two castles, so there was a lot of play left for him, and I had to proceed with extreme caution. But simply exchanging everything I could exchange worked very well, and victory was mine. HalleluJah!!
>
> https://is.gd/trappy_gamb

Bs"d

I tried the Budapest gambit quite a few times, but it just doesn't happen often enough. So I switched back to the Englund gambit, prepared to deal with the rotten positions if the enemy doesn't fall for the trap, but lo and behold, the first time I tried, the enemy did fall for the trap: https://lichess.org/4fjRvNI81RFv
The enemy was an 1876, not exactly a grandmaster, but far from a novice. And he fell for the trap.
He didn't take the shortest route, the one of the mate in 8 moves, but he had to part with a horse and a pawn in the opening anyway. So even though I started my very first move by giving him a free pawn, I ended up with a pawn more than him, and a horse to boot.
He reacted in weird way to my attack, and I had to win his horse in weird way, by me sacrificing my queen, and winning his queen two moves later, by means of horse fork. And then later I made yet another horse fork, on move 12, and then the enemy surrendered.

Those are the games I like. :D

Because of the double fork I feel forced to post this game also in the horse fork thread.

https://lichess.org/4fjRvNI81RFv

Bs"d

I moved away from the Englund gambit, because nobody was falling for it anymore. Went to the Budapest gambit, came back to the Englund, and now they are dropping like flies against the Englund. Just had a guy who didn't make it past move. On move 8 he was already 3 points behind: https://lichess.org/nSjfKJQhVUSx And he was about to lose another 8 points, making a grand total of 11, so he surrendered.

Like I said before; things come in waves. But so do dry spells. But now I'm on top of a wave with the Englund.

https://tinyurl.com/destroy-opp-Engl

Bs"d

So after watching a youtube of IM Eric Rosen on the Stafford gambit, looking for more inspiration, I got it! The more inspiration I mean.

He showed a 3 second piece not about the Stafford, but about the Englund. Off topic, so it was very short, but long enough for me.

It was a very crude trap, played early in the Englund. The first time I tried it, the enemy didn't fall for it, but now the second time, with a 1720 player, I had the premove enabled, so it looked like I was blundering a piece because of premove. The enemy took a pawn of me, and another one, then a horse of me, en then he lost his queen: https://lichess.org/aVmjXHZd4V0k

Then I wasn't paying attention and he locked in and almost won my queen, but with luck and bad play of the enemy I got out of it, with a lot more material and went on to slaughter the enemy.

https://tinyurl.com/trappish

Bs"d

And yet another innocent victim of my Caro-Kann trap: https://lichess.org/53pTreMHH8CM

Unfortunately, the enemy didn't go all the way, so no early mate around move 10, but I came out of the opening with an exchange and a pawn more, and that led to victory on move 41.

https://tinyurl.com/Op-trap-C-K

Bs"d

Another innocent victim of the fishing pole trap. A 1765 bit the dust on move 20 after I fed him a horse of mine, then took his horse, and proceeded to checkmate him: https://lichess.org/kB4ckXzX1nIg

https://tinyurl.com/fish-pole-trap

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> Another innocent victim of the fishing pole trap. A 1765 bit the dust on move 20 after I fed him a horse of mine, then took his horse, and proceeded to checkmate him: https://lichess.org/kB4ckXzX1nIg

Playing terrible players certainly hurts your game.

William Hyde

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:08:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > Another innocent victim of the fishing pole trap. A 1765 bit the dust on move 20 after I fed him a horse of mine, then took his horse, and proceeded to checkmate him: https://lichess.org/kB4ckXzX1nIg
> Playing terrible players certainly hurts your game.

Bs"d

I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.

So terrible players it is for me.

Anyway, the average rating in Lichess is between 1550 and 1600. So a 1765 is way above that. Can't call that a terrible player.

http://tinyurl.com/50-proc-math

Bs"d

I like the Tennison gambit, but the problem was, it just didn't happen too often. I had to wait with white after 1.e4, until somebody was kind enough to play the Scandinavian defense, 1... d5. Then my horse goes to f3, the enemy usually takes my pawn on e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.

So I found this youtube, that speaks about the Tennison gambit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwFdW7s9I7c The GM gives another approach to the gambit, I tried it, and I like my old approach better. BUT, I got something very important out of that youtube, namely that as white I can force unsuspecting opponents into the Scandinavian defense, without them willing, wanting, or knowing it. I should start as white with the Reti opening; 1.Nf3, and most of the time the enemy then reacts with 1... d5, and then I do e4, and lo and behold; we have a Scandinavian opening on the board, and to be more precise: A Tennison gambit. And that works like a charm.
Almost always the enemy takes my e4 pawn, at the same time attacking my horse of f3. My horse then goes to g5, attacking the enemy pawn on e4, and the game is on. Most of the time they start defending the pawn, trying to hang on to their extra pawn, and most of the time then disaster hits black hard an merciless. What you get then is an Englund gambit with reversed colors.

Here is a freshly played example: https://lichess.org/H4JcKTBsT82P The enemy was slaughtered on move 10. He fell for the typical Englund gambit mate.

Here is an older game of 3 days ago, where I played the same opening against an 1822?, and he resigned on move 4: https://lichess.org/Xv7L6IngdSHZ

Here is a game of 4 days ago, in which I followed the line advocated by the GM in that youtube: https://lichess.org/fNhzQw8p0X8J I started again with the Reti opening, and forced the enemy into a Scandinvian defense. It worked, but it is not so devastating as that inverted Englund gambit. The enemy kept on resisting until move 20, and that is just too long. So I switched back to my old trap.

Here is another example from 6 days ago in which I followed the advise of the GM. It didn't work out too bad, I came out of the opening with a piece more, and went on to win: https://lichess.org/bNDweLcoxSUD But I like the other trappy line better. However, it is always good to have an alternative line in a trappy gambit, for when the opponent gets conditioned to the first trap, then you can get him with the other line.

I have had that forced Scandanivian line many more times, but not always does the opponent start to defend his pawn, and sometimes I blunder, so not every Tennison gambit is a guaranteed win, but many are.
I'm very happy with this new addition to my bag of tricks. :)

https://tinyurl.com/trappy-gambit

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:13:25 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:08:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > Another innocent victim of the fishing pole trap. A 1765 bit the dust on move 20 after I fed him a horse of mine, then took his horse, and proceeded to checkmate him: https://lichess.org/kB4ckXzX1nIg
> > Playing terrible players certainly hurts your game.
> Bs"d
>
> I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.

Can't help you there. I'm not a psychiatrist.
>
> So terrible players it is for me.
>
> Anyway, the average rating in Lichess is between 1550 and 1600. So a 1765 is way above that. Can't call that a terrible player.

Oh yes I can. Lichess ratings are terribly inflated. Your 1765 is about 1200 in the rating pools I have participated in or run (Canadian chess federation, US chess federation, world blitz chess, and so on).

You normally play fairly well, given your trappy style. I commented because in this game, unlike other games, you made two moves that were not blunders but were otherwise pretty bad.

I spent two years in a town where I was by far the strongest active player. When I returned home I was weak, weak, weak. It took me eight months to get my speed rating back where it had been, to shake all those lazy habits I had acquired beating weaker players.

Fortunately in my next small town there were some pretty strong players to keep me from decaying further.

William Hyde

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:32:43 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:13:25 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:08:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > Bs"d
> > > >
> > > > Another innocent victim of the fishing pole trap. A 1765 bit the dust on move 20 after I fed him a horse of mine, then took his horse, and proceeded to checkmate him: https://lichess.org/kB4ckXzX1nIg
> > > Playing terrible players certainly hurts your game.
> > Bs"d
> >
> > I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.
> Can't help you there. I'm not a psychiatrist.

Bs"d

That's OK, I don't need help. I already found the solution; play weak players, and you won't lose too often. It really is that simple.

> > So terrible players it is for me.
> >
> > Anyway, the average rating in Lichess is between 1550 and 1600. So a 1765 is way above that. Can't call that a terrible player.
> Oh yes I can. Lichess ratings are terribly inflated. Your 1765 is about 1200 in the rating pools I have participated in or run (Canadian chess federation, US chess federation, world blitz chess, and so on).

That would mean that the vast majority of players on lichess are terrible players. I don't think it is realistic to say that. I think that players which are far below the average can be called "terrible players", but not the majority of all players.

> You normally play fairly well, given your trappy style. I commented because in this game, unlike other games, you made two moves that were not blunders but were otherwise pretty bad.

Gambits themselves are considered bad: https://tinyurl.com/dashing-gambit

But you can have so much fun with trappy gambits!

> I spent two years in a town where I was by far the strongest active player. When I returned home I was weak, weak, weak. It took me eight months to get my speed rating back where it had been, to shake all those lazy habits I had acquired beating weaker players.
>
> Fortunately in my next small town there were some pretty strong players to keep me from decaying further.

When you always play opponents equal to you or better, than chess becomes a very stressful undertaking. Play weaker ones, and you are just having fun.

I guess it's just a different approach.

https://tinyurl.com/lost-gambit

On 12/13/2021 2:28 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:

> When you always play opponents equal to you or better, than chess becomes a very stressful undertaking. Play weaker ones, and you are just having fun.

That's just great, if you enjoy winning more than improving your game.
Not me. Back when I was an active player (the late 1950s), I always
wanted to play players stronger than me, so I could learn from them and
become a better player.

If I easily beat a weak player, it was meaningless to me. If I lost to a
stronger player, I almost always learned something and it was valuable.

There were three players in my high school chess club who were stronger
than me, and they were the ones I always wanted to play. After high
school when I played at the Manhattan and Marshall clubs, except when I
cared about my score in a tournament, I always wanted to play Bill
Lombardy, Edmar Mednis, Jimmy Sherwin, Arthur Bisguier, and other strong
players so I could learn from them.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:32:43 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:13:25 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:08:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > > Bs"d
> > > > >
> > > > > Another innocent victim of the fishing pole trap. A 1765 bit the dust on move 20 after I fed him a horse of mine, then took his horse, and proceeded to checkmate him: https://lichess.org/kB4ckXzX1nIg
> > > > Playing terrible players certainly hurts your game.
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.
> > Can't help you there. I'm not a psychiatrist.
> Bs"d
>
> That's OK, I don't need help. I already found the solution; play weak players, and you won't lose too often. It really is that simple.
> > > So terrible players it is for me.
> > >
> > > Anyway, the average rating in Lichess is between 1550 and 1600. So a 1765 is way above that. Can't call that a terrible player.
> > Oh yes I can. Lichess ratings are terribly inflated. Your 1765 is about 1200 in the rating pools I have participated in or run (Canadian chess federation, US chess federation, world blitz chess, and so on).
> That would mean that the vast majority of players on lichess are terrible players.

Let us say that they are terrible compared to the ratings that they hold. We are all, of course, terrible compared to the people at the top, but some are terrible even compared to other terrible players.

> I don't think it is realistic to say that. I think that players which are far below the average can be called "terrible players", but not the majority of all players.
> > You normally play fairly well, given your trappy style. I commented because in this game, unlike other games, you made two moves that were not blunders but were otherwise pretty bad.
> Gambits themselves are considered bad: https://tinyurl.com/dashing-gambit

Mostly they are, no doubt about it. But not so bad as to be unplayable, even in serious chess, where the opponent has a long time to work out a response. As someone once said "No gambit works in theory, but all work in practice". With some exaggeration.

And in the real world, where we are all under 2600 FIDE, they definitely work better than they do in theory, especially if the opponent underestimates them.

"Do you really want that move going up on the demo board?", said a participant in a large event, who had little respect for the move in question. By move 23 the demo board showed him about to be mated. Now that actually wasn't a gambit, but the principle applies.

>
> But you can have so much fun with trappy gambits!
> > I spent two years in a town where I was by far the strongest active player. When I returned home I was weak, weak, weak. It took me eight months to get my speed rating back where it had been, to shake all those lazy habits I had acquired beating weaker players.
> >
> > Fortunately in my next small town there were some pretty strong players to keep me from decaying further.
> When you always play opponents equal to you or better, than chess becomes a very stressful undertaking. Play weaker ones, and you are just having fun.

That's the difference, I don't feel the stress. If I lose, I lose, there's another game around the corner. I even like some of my losses.

The only loss that really bothered me was from an easily won position against a master in tournament play. He'd have been the first master I beat. But the unpleasantness was greatly reduced when I beat another master two rounds later.

Now an acquaintance was really affected badly by a lost game. He was tied for first in a round-robin event, and was about to win brilliantly against his opponent (another master), when he hung his queen.
But that blunder would have lost against anyone. And it had his good side: he lost interest in chess, paid attention to his career, did well, and then returned to chess stronger than ever.

> I guess it's just a different approach.

Exactly. I'd get bored beating the people you are playing, you'd be bored playing my (former) opponents. We don't play to be bored.

But you do have to be careful that repeated playing with weak opponents doesn't make your play routine, as it did mine.

William Hyde

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 6:45:55 PM UTC-5, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 2:28 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
>
> > When you always play opponents equal to you or better, than chess becomes a very stressful undertaking. Play weaker ones, and you are just having fun.
> That's just great, if you enjoy winning more than improving your game.
> Not me. Back when I was an active player (the late 1950s), I always
> wanted to play players stronger than me, so I could learn from them and
> become a better player.
>
> If I easily beat a weak player, it was meaningless to me. If I lost to a
> stronger player, I almost always learned something and it was valuable.
>
> There were three players in my high school chess club who were stronger
> than me, and they were the ones I always wanted to play. After high
> school when I played at the Manhattan and Marshall clubs, except when I
> cared about my score in a tournament, I always wanted to play Bill
> Lombardy, Edmar Mednis, Jimmy Sherwin, Arthur Bisguier, and other strong
> players so I could learn from them.

I am now in a state of serious envy.

William Hyde

On 12/16/2021 10:41 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 6:45:55 PM UTC-5, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 12/13/2021 2:28 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
>>
>> > When you always play opponents equal to you or better, than chess becomes a very stressful undertaking. Play weaker ones, and you are just having fun.
>> That's just great, if you enjoy winning more than improving your game.
>> Not me. Back when I was an active player (the late 1950s), I always
>> wanted to play players stronger than me, so I could learn from them and
>> become a better player.
>>
>> If I easily beat a weak player, it was meaningless to me. If I lost to a
>> stronger player, I almost always learned something and it was valuable.
>>
>> There were three players in my high school chess club who were stronger
>> than me, and they were the ones I always wanted to play. After high
>> school when I played at the Manhattan and Marshall clubs, except when I
>> cared about my score in a tournament, I always wanted to play Bill
>> Lombardy, Edmar Mednis, Jimmy Sherwin, Arthur Bisguier, and other strong
>> players so I could learn from them.
>
> I am now in a state of serious envy.

I knew Lombardy (and Fischer) very well. I played both many times. I
almost always beat Fischer when he was 13 and under (before he became
very strong), but I never beat Lombardy. I played Mednis, Sherwin, and
Biguier much less often, and I don't think I ever beat any of them either.

On 12/16/2021 10:39 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:32:43 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
>> > On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:13:25 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:08:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> > > > > Bs"d
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Another innocent victim of the fishing pole trap. A 1765 bit the dust on move 20 after I fed him a horse of mine, then took his horse, and proceeded to checkmate him: https://lichess.org/kB4ckXzX1nIg
>> > > > Playing terrible players certainly hurts your game.
>> > > Bs"d
>> > >
>> > > I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.
>> > Can't help you there. I'm not a psychiatrist.
>> Bs"d
>>
>> That's OK, I don't need help. I already found the solution; play weak players, and you won't lose too often. It really is that simple.
>> > > So terrible players it is for me.
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, the average rating in Lichess is between 1550 and 1600. So a 1765 is way above that. Can't call that a terrible player.
>> > Oh yes I can. Lichess ratings are terribly inflated. Your 1765 is about 1200 in the rating pools I have participated in or run (Canadian chess federation, US chess federation, world blitz chess, and so on).
>> That would mean that the vast majority of players on lichess are terrible players.
>
> Let us say that they are terrible compared to the ratings that they hold. We are all, of course, terrible compared to the people at the top, but some are terrible even compared to other terrible players.
>
>> I don't think it is realistic to say that. I think that players which are far below the average can be called "terrible players", but not the majority of all players.
>> > You normally play fairly well, given your trappy style. I commented because in this game, unlike other games, you made two moves that were not blunders but were otherwise pretty bad.
>> Gambits themselves are considered bad: https://tinyurl.com/dashing-gambit
>
> Mostly they are, no doubt about it.

If by "mostly," you don't mean all of them, sure. The Queen's gambit,
perhaps the Marshall Attack, and a few others are counterexamples.

> But not so bad as to be unplayable, even in serious chess, where the
> opponent has a long time to work out a response. As someone once said
> "No gambit works in theory, but all work in practice". With some
> exaggeration.

"No gambit" is a giant exaggeration.