On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:54:32 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 16/03/2023 04:51, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> [... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like a
>> complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
>
> Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
>currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
>haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
>how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
>yes, it's irritating after a while.

Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level or
higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
friend's leg or just plain being annoying.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 19:02:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:54:32 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 16/03/2023 04:51, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> [... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like a
>>> complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
>>
>> Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
>>currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
>>haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
>>how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
>>yes, it's irritating after a while.
>
>Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level or
>higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
>friend's leg or just plain being annoying.

Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circles
of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."

Bs"d

And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr

I did get a good beating in the beginning, but then came the royal horse fork, and that was that. 😆

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

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
>
> I did get a good beating in the beginning,

Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.

Really, with complex tactics going on on the king side and in the centre, your king somewhat exposed, what
provoked that? You can preserve a small advantage with d6 (the win with d5 is a bit complex for a speed game,
I certainly didn't see it though I wanted to play d5) and even Kg8 preserves equality.

Luckily he went for grabbing your h pawn, which in his undeveloped state he couldn't afford to do, then compounded
the problem with the absurd Qd3.

After which you were winning.

> but then came the royal horse fork, and that was that. 😆

Though you had a winning position, it was quite tactical and you might have erred. So while I didn't think your previous win
of a queen through a knight fork mattered, this one did.

William Hyde

Ken Blake wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 19:02:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:54:32 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
> > > currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
> > > haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
> > > how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
> > > yes, it's irritating after a while.
> >
> > Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level
> > or higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
> > friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
>
> Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circles
> of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
> call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."

I'd think I was playing a five year old if they called the Knight a
"horsey"!

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:18:38 PM UTC+2, Blueshirt wrote:
> Ken Blake wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 19:02:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:54:32 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
> > > > currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
> > > > haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
> > > > how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
> > > > yes, it's irritating after a while.
> > >
> > > Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level
> > > or higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
> > > friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
> >
> > Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circles
> > of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
> > call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."
> I'd think I was playing a five year old if they called the Knight a
> "horsey"!

Bs"d

Personally I don't like "horsey". I stick with "HORSE".

https://tinyurl.com/H-not-kn

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:04:23 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
> >
> > I did get a good beating in the beginning,
> Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
> rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.

Bs"d

Why did the enemy queen smack into h7? Exactly! Because I didn't play up my pawn in front of my castle!

And he didn't sacrifice his bishop on f7, it was an equal exchange, 6 points for 6 points.

OK, everybody says it is bad, because white gets rid of two developed pieces, but still, a sacrifice is an overstatement.

Yes, it was a very tactical situation. That's why I gambiteer a pawn, because I like the tactics. Maybe not a good idea at the moment, because I play horrible at the moment, but it is a lot more fun.

https://tinyurl.com/maybe-3-people

On 18/03/2023 14:53, Ken Blake wrote:
[Horny Goat:]
>>>> [... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like a
>>>> complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
>>> Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
>>> currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
>>> haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
>>> how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
>>> yes, it's irritating after a while.
>> Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level or
>> higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
>> friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
> Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circles
> of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
> call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."

Actually, the principal circle I was referring to was Cambridge
University in the 1960s. As some of the players concerned were IMs, I
doubt whether many here are qualified to describe them as "very poor" or
not "real". I still hear it occasionally in [eg] the 4NCL. Perhaps the
UK has a different sense of humour from Left Pondia? Note that it's an
occasional, jocular usage, not a universal term as used by our forking
contributor.

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

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 22:49:20 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 18/03/2023 14:53, Ken Blake wrote:
>[Horny Goat:]
>>>>> [... C]alling them 'horseys' makes one look like a
>>>>> complete idiot. Or even 'horses'.
>>>> Actually, "horsey" [never "horse"] has long been common
>>>> currency in the UK, at least in some circles. Typical usage: "I
>>>> haven't played since before lockdown, can someone please remind me
>>>> how the horsey moves?" Faux childish rather than idiotic. But
>>>> yes, it's irritating after a while.
>>> Certainly if such a comment took place in a tournament - club level or
>>> higher the assumption would be that he/she was either pulling a
>>> friend's leg or just plain being annoying.
>> Yes, almost certainly the "some circles" he's referring to are circles
>> of non-chess players or very poor chess players. No real player would
>> call a knight a "horsey," or even a "horse."
>
> Actually, the principal circle I was referring to was Cambridge
>University in the 1960s. As some of the players concerned were IMs, I
>doubt whether many here are qualified to describe them as "very poor" or
>not "real". I still hear it occasionally in [eg] the 4NCL. Perhaps the
>UK has a different sense of humour from Left Pondia? Note that it's an
>occasional, jocular usage, not a universal term as used by our forking
>contributor.

OK, if it was meant as a joke, I can believe that.

Bs"d

And in this game: https://lichess.org/srntfXN3cSgD a nasty horse fork which was about to net me a full rook, ended the game. 😁

It makes you wonder; why does not everybody fork the opponent?

By the way: I stick to the horse, and don't stray away to "knight".

It just doesn't make sense.

THIS would be a knight fork: https://tinyurl.com/knight-fork

But does anybody see a knight in this picture? https://tinyurl.com/H-not-kn

NO!!!

Don't be afraid of change. Embrace it!

https://tinyurl.com/4k-with-u

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:04:23 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
> > >
> > > I did get a good beating in the beginning,
> > Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
> > rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.
> Bs"d
>
> Why did the enemy queen smack into h7? Exactly! Because I didn't play up my pawn in front of my castle!
>
> And he didn't sacrifice his bishop on f7, it was an equal exchange, 6 points for 6 points.

That is a dangerously simplistic view.

In the endgame a rook and pawn may be equal to two pieces, though rarely to two bishops, and a rook and two
pawns will generally constitute an advantage. C.J.S. Purdy is a big advocate of the rook in these
situations. Anyone interested in this issue should read his article, published in one of his
collections. Loath as I am to disagree with a world correspondence champion, I was
unconvinced - but there's a lot to learn there.

But as Tarrasch said "Before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game".

In the middlegame two pieces are generally worth more than a rook and pawn, and often more than a rook
and two. If the extra pawn is important, a centre pawn or a dangerous passed pawn, the rook and pawn
may be equal, but in this case his extra pawn is an extra f pawn, of no immediate threat to you.

In tournament chess I have won several games in which opponents leapt at the chance to "win" a rook
and two pawns for two pieces in the middlegame. The strongest of these opponents was over
2000 (say, 2200 at least on Lichess). We analyzed the game afterwards, and he couldn't believe
he had lost because of this trade. After all, it's seven points to six. But he made no other error
until he was in an already terrible position. The two pieces just dominated the board, and he never
got to the endgame where his pawns might have mattered.

I admit that I was worried a bit, because he was a good player, but the game practically
won itself.

It was one of those rare losses from which the loser learns something important.

Clearly, I needed to lose more such games myself.

I even had a game where the opponent had a rook and three pawns. But I was winning through
the power of the pieces.

>
> OK, everybody says it is bad, because white gets rid of two developed pieces, but still, a sacrifice is an overstatement.

Even aside from the above, the computer rates you one and a half pawns ahead afterwards.

>
> Yes, it was a very tactical situation. That's why I gambiteer a pawn, because I like the tactics.

What I said was that in tactical situations you don't have time for moves like the a6 played in
this game.

By all means go in for tactics, sacrifice pawns, play aggressively.

>Maybe not a good idea at the moment, because I play horrible at the moment,

Me too, maybe it's the season.

> but it is a lot more fun.

Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
in fact.

William Hyde

Bs"d

After a hard fought game a brutal horse fork that was going to cost the enemy dearly and also a full castle ended the game on the spot and also on move 41: https://lichess.org/KXDS30TwKZqb

Horse forks can be very nasty.... 😆

https://tinyurl.com/happy-fork

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:04:23 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > Bs"d
> > > >
> > > > And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
> > > >
> > > > I did get a good beating in the beginning,
> > > Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
> > > rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.
> > Bs"d
> >
> > Why did the enemy queen smack into h7? Exactly! Because I didn't play up my pawn in front of my castle!
> >
> > And he didn't sacrifice his bishop on f7, it was an equal exchange, 6 points for 6 points.
> That is a dangerously simplistic view.
>
> In the endgame a rook and pawn may be equal to two pieces, though rarely to two bishops, and a rook and two
> pawns will generally constitute an advantage. C.J.S. Purdy is a big advocate of the rook in these
> situations. Anyone interested in this issue should read his article, published in one of his
> collections. Loath as I am to disagree with a world correspondence champion, I was
> unconvinced - but there's a lot to learn there.
>
> But as Tarrasch said "Before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game".
>
> In the middlegame two pieces are generally worth more than a rook and pawn, and often more than a rook
> and two. If the extra pawn is important, a centre pawn or a dangerous passed pawn, the rook and pawn
> may be equal, but in this case his extra pawn is an extra f pawn, of no immediate threat to you.
>
> In tournament chess I have won several games in which opponents leapt at the chance to "win" a rook
> and two pawns for two pieces in the middlegame. The strongest of these opponents was over
> 2000 (say, 2200 at least on Lichess). We analyzed the game afterwards, and he couldn't believe
> he had lost because of this trade. After all, it's seven points to six. But he made no other error
> until he was in an already terrible position. The two pieces just dominated the board, and he never
> got to the endgame where his pawns might have mattered.
>
> I admit that I was worried a bit, because he was a good player, but the game practically
> won itself.
>
> It was one of those rare losses from which the loser learns something important.
>
> Clearly, I needed to lose more such games myself.
>
> I even had a game where the opponent had a rook and three pawns. But I was winning through
> the power of the pieces.
> >
> > OK, everybody says it is bad, because white gets rid of two developed pieces, but still, a sacrifice is an overstatement.
> Even aside from the above, the computer rates you one and a half pawns ahead afterwards.
> >
> > Yes, it was a very tactical situation. That's why I gambiteer a pawn, because I like the tactics.
> What I said was that in tactical situations you don't have time for moves like the a6 played in
> this game.
>
> By all means go in for tactics, sacrifice pawns, play aggressively.
> >Maybe not a good idea at the moment, because I play horrible at the moment,
> Me too, maybe it's the season.
> > but it is a lot more fun.
> Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
> in fact.

Bs"d

I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.

https://tinyurl.com/calm-win

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:

> > Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
> > in fact.
> Bs"d
>
> I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/calm-win

Bs"d

If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!

😡

Bs"d

Oh how Vladislav wished he had played up his castle pawn......

https://i.ibb.co/YyQDD2n/back-rank.webp

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:04:23 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > > Bs"d
> > > > >
> > > > > And here I have a four horses game which is decided by a royal fork: https://lichess.org/ANjA0qQNGQFr
> > > > >
> > > > > I did get a good beating in the beginning,
> > > > Not really. His sacrifice on f7 was inane, and you were doing well until once again your fascination with
> > > > rook pawns caused you to blunder with a6.
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > Why did the enemy queen smack into h7? Exactly! Because I didn't play up my pawn in front of my castle!
> > >
> > > And he didn't sacrifice his bishop on f7, it was an equal exchange, 6 points for 6 points.
> > That is a dangerously simplistic view.
> >
> > In the endgame a rook and pawn may be equal to two pieces, though rarely to two bishops, and a rook and two
> > pawns will generally constitute an advantage. C.J.S. Purdy is a big advocate of the rook in these
> > situations. Anyone interested in this issue should read his article, published in one of his
> > collections. Loath as I am to disagree with a world correspondence champion, I was
> > unconvinced - but there's a lot to learn there.
> >
> > But as Tarrasch said "Before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game".
> >
> > In the middlegame two pieces are generally worth more than a rook and pawn, and often more than a rook
> > and two. If the extra pawn is important, a centre pawn or a dangerous passed pawn, the rook and pawn
> > may be equal, but in this case his extra pawn is an extra f pawn, of no immediate threat to you.
> >
> > In tournament chess I have won several games in which opponents leapt at the chance to "win" a rook
> > and two pawns for two pieces in the middlegame. The strongest of these opponents was over
> > 2000 (say, 2200 at least on Lichess). We analyzed the game afterwards, and he couldn't believe
> > he had lost because of this trade. After all, it's seven points to six. But he made no other error
> > until he was in an already terrible position. The two pieces just dominated the board, and he never
> > got to the endgame where his pawns might have mattered.
> >
> > I admit that I was worried a bit, because he was a good player, but the game practically
> > won itself.
> >
> > It was one of those rare losses from which the loser learns something important.
> >
> > Clearly, I needed to lose more such games myself.
> >
> > I even had a game where the opponent had a rook and three pawns. But I was winning through
> > the power of the pieces.
> > >
> > > OK, everybody says it is bad, because white gets rid of two developed pieces, but still, a sacrifice is an overstatement.
> > Even aside from the above, the computer rates you one and a half pawns ahead afterwards.
> > >
> > > Yes, it was a very tactical situation. That's why I gambiteer a pawn, because I like the tactics.
> > What I said was that in tactical situations you don't have time for moves like the a6 played in
> > this game.
> >
> > By all means go in for tactics, sacrifice pawns, play aggressively.
> > >Maybe not a good idea at the moment, because I play horrible at the moment,
> > Me too, maybe it's the season.
> > > but it is a lot more fun.
> > Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
> > in fact.
> Bs"d
>
> I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.

The a6 move in your recent game was not as bad as some rook pawn moves I've seen here. It wasn't good and did cost
you, but not too much. The h6 move was not strictly necessary, but you were winning both before
and after this move, and at a fast time control it makes more sense to eliminate the possibility
of a back rank blunder. With plenty of time you I would not do this, but in a speed game I
probably would.

William Hyde

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
>
> > > Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
> > > in fact.
> > Bs"d
> >
> > I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/calm-win
> Bs"d
>
> If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!

I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.

If you lose any games to bank rank mates because you didn't play h6, well, that is a burden I
think I can bear.

William Hyde

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> >
> > > > Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
> > > > in fact.
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
> > >
> > > https://tinyurl.com/calm-win
> > Bs"d
> >
> > If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!
> I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
> complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
> scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
>
> If you lose any games to bank rank mates because you didn't play h6, well, that is a burden I
> think I can bear.

Bs"d

The question is of course not if you can carry that burden if I get back ranked, the question is of course: Can I carry that burden?

I'm the one who will be waking up screaming at night, drenched in sweat, for months to come, when that back ranker comes to visit me in my nightmares.

But I just might give it a try.

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

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:02:17 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:39:04 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Cut back on the pointless rook pawn moves and you will play better, and still have fun. More fun,
> > > > > in fact.
> > > > Bs"d
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to cut back on playing up the castle pawns. Let's see how it goes.
> > > >
> > > > https://tinyurl.com/calm-win
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > If I'm going to be back ranked, I'm going to blame it on you!
> > I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
> > complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
> > scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
> >
> > If you lose any games to bank rank mates because you didn't play h6, well, that is a burden I
> > think I can bear.
> Bs"d
>
> The question is of course not if you can carry that burden if I get back ranked, the question is of course: Can I carry that burden?
>
> I'm the one who will be waking up screaming at night, drenched in sweat, for months to come, when that back ranker comes to visit me in my nightmares.
>
> But I just might give it a try.

I have heard of people, and know one, who were deeply affected by a loss.

Ivkov's career took a huge turn for the worse after one blunder. As a young player I could never understand why Ivkov was regarded
as one of the world's elite, because he clearly wasn't. But he had been only a few years before, and I suppose people expected him
to recover. He never did, though he remained a strong GM.

But never does losing a speed game cause such distress.

William Hyde

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:22:00 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > The question is of course not if you can carry that burden if I get back ranked, the question is of course: Can I carry that burden?
> >
> > I'm the one who will be waking up screaming at night, drenched in sweat, for months to come, when that back ranker comes to visit me in my nightmares.
> >
> > But I just might give it a try.
> I have heard of people, and know one, who were deeply affected by a loss.
>
> Ivkov's career took a huge turn for the worse after one blunder. As a young player I could never understand why Ivkov was regarded
> as one of the world's elite, because he clearly wasn't. But he had been only a few years before, and I suppose people expected him
> to recover. He never did, though he remained a strong GM.
>
> But never does losing a speed game cause such distress.

Bs"d

A loss is and remains a terrible thing.

We all have our own ways to deal with it.

https://tinyurl.com/lose-medicate

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
> complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
> scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.

Bs"d

Isn't that weird? You did play up your castle pawn, something of which you tell others not to do that, and then still you get hit with a back ranker.

Isn't chess weird?

https://tinyurl.com/ret-plan

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 3:05:14 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
> > complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
> > scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
> Bs"d
>
> Isn't that weird? You did play up your castle pawn, something of which you tell others not to do that,

I did it to break a pin. I don't recommend against that. Though it can be wrong.

>and then still you get hit with a back ranker.

I overlooked a move or so ahead that he could threaten the back rank with a move that also uncovered an attack on h7.

Oops.

William Hyde

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 12:26:28 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 3:05:14 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 10:08:12 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > > I was subject to a back rank combination myself today. Not a one move mate, but a slightly more
> > > complex affair, even though I had played h6. Luckily I saw it early enough that I managed to
> > > scrape a draw with a little help from the opponent.
> > Bs"d
> >
> > Isn't that weird? You did play up your castle pawn, something of which you tell others not to do that,
> I did it to break a pin. I don't recommend against that. Though it can be wrong.
> >and then still you get hit with a back ranker.
> I overlooked a move or so ahead that he could threaten the back rank with a move that also uncovered an attack on h7.
>
> Oops.
>
> William Hyde

Bs"d

Well, at least you saved the day and kept the draw.

I don't like draws, but they are surely better than a loss, God forbid.

https://tinyurl.com/gent-man

Bs"d

And here: https://lichess.org/m8K7o5q1xB8f a conspicuous but relatively innocent horse fork ended the game. And it would only have netted me an exchange. But the enemy already had to part with a piece for a pawn, so now his losses apparently became to much for him to bear.

Still a nice, good looking, and enjoyable fork.

For me anyway. The enemy undoubtedly has a whole different outlook on the affair.

https://tinyurl.com/what-t4k

Bs"d

In this game: https://lichess.org/zqWWI7D8ZQie a nice horse fork was about to win me a full castle.

However, the enemy didn't wait for it, and he pressed the resign button.

https://tinyurl.com/res-no-win