Bs"dand take with it his pawn on e4, which was protected by his horse on g5. He could have taken my horse just like that. But he didn't, in stead he chose to make a nasty horse fork on f7, his horse smacked in on f7, and forked my queen and castle.
So I told you guys about my new answer to an attempted fried liver, you know, the crazy and absurd looking answer. But I learned it from two grandmasters, so it is not as crazy as it looks. Far from it.
I got an enemy here who tried to fry liver me: https://lichess.org/9h9TOcbQQ9Jl
I played against his Italian opening the two horses defense, he threw his horse forward to g5, double attacking my f7 pawn. So in stead of me pushing my queen pawn two forward and blocking the line of sight of his bishop, I decided to take my f6 horse,
So how did that work out for him? The short story is: He resigned on move 11, and the counter was on +14 for me.
A short, hilarious, and heart warming game!
HALLELUJAH!!
http://tinyurl.com/funny-game
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 10:24:00 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesefand take with it his pawn on e4, which was protected by his horse on g5. He could have taken my horse just like that. But he didn't, in stead he chose to make a nasty horse fork on f7, his horse smacked in on f7, and forked my queen and castle.
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
So I told you guys about my new answer to an attempted fried liver, you know, the crazy and absurd looking answer. But I learned it from two grandmasters, so it is not as crazy as it looks. Far from it.
I got an enemy here who tried to fry liver me: https://lichess.org/9h9TOcbQQ9Jl
I played against his Italian opening the two horses defense, he threw his horse forward to g5, double attacking my f7 pawn. So in stead of me pushing my queen pawn two forward and blocking the line of sight of his bishop, I decided to take my f6 horse,
So how did that work out for him? The short story is: He resigned on move 11, and the counter was on +14 for me.
A short, hilarious, and heart warming game!
HALLELUJAH!!
http://tinyurl.com/funny-gameI know you like opening traps but what do you do when you have to play beyond 20 moves? The essential knowledge at that point is quite
different than in the opening.
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 10:24:00 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesefand take with it his pawn on e4, which was protected by his horse on g5. He could have taken my horse just like that. But he didn't, in stead he chose to make a nasty horse fork on f7, his horse smacked in on f7, and forked my queen and castle.
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
So I told you guys about my new answer to an attempted fried liver, you know, the crazy and absurd looking answer. But I learned it from two grandmasters, so it is not as crazy as it looks. Far from it.
I got an enemy here who tried to fry liver me: https://lichess.org/9h9TOcbQQ9Jl
I played against his Italian opening the two horses defense, he threw his horse forward to g5, double attacking my f7 pawn. So in stead of me pushing my queen pawn two forward and blocking the line of sight of his bishop, I decided to take my f6 horse,
So how did that work out for him? The short story is: He resigned on move 11, and the counter was on +14 for me.
A short, hilarious, and heart warming game!
HALLELUJAH!!
http://tinyurl.com/funny-gameI know you like opening traps but what do you do when you have to play beyond 20 moves? The essential knowledge at that point is quite
different than in the opening.
Well, when I have to play beyond the opening, or when the enemy somehow cir= >cumvents all my traps, then, unfortunately, I have to think up my moves mys= >elf. And that's usually the point when things start to go horribly wrong= >.=20
For that I sometimes practice with CT-Art 3.0, to sharpen my tactical skill= >s, and for the rest I just hope for the best. =20
I study some elementary endgames, and just to be on the safe side, I only p= >lay opponents who are weaker than I am. I think that's the key to success.=
=20
Playing it any other way is just asking for trouble.=20
After all, we play chess in order to enjoy ourselves, aren't we? =20
And I'm definitely not enjoying myself when I lose.=20
https://tinyurl.com/Aristotl
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 22:36:00 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, when I have to play beyond the opening, or when the enemy somehow cir=
cumvents all my traps, then, unfortunately, I have to think up my moves mys=
elf. And that's usually the point when things start to go horribly wrong= >.=20
For that I sometimes practice with CT-Art 3.0, to sharpen my tactical skill=
s, and for the rest I just hope for the best. =20
I study some elementary endgames, and just to be on the safe side, I only p=
lay opponents who are weaker than I am. I think that's the key to success.=
=20
Playing it any other way is just asking for trouble.=20
After all, we play chess in order to enjoy ourselves, aren't we? =20
And I'm definitely not enjoying myself when I lose.=20
https://tinyurl.com/Aristotl
Well obviously if you memorize 1200 pages of the various volumes of
ECO you will be well booked but the point of the openings is to get to
a middle game position you are comfortable playing.
Thus as black I often play Petroff against e4 (or occasionally various
d6/e6 Sicilian setups) and often play Benko against d4
You may reasonably infer a strong positional style with tactical
elements.
I used to play various e5 Sicilian systems but didn't like the sort of positions I was getting.
You may also infer safely that I'm unlikely to be found on either side
of the Slav though have done some interesting speculation (only in
speed chess so far) with various lines in the Winawer French.
The one thread all of these have in common is tactical play with solid center positions and a lot of minor piece play.
However, the strongest playing style is positional. Karpov was an extreme = >positional player, and Kasparov was a tactical player. When Kasparov met K= >arpov, Kasparov was being demolished, and he was teetering on the edge of t= >he ravine. In no time he was 5-0 behind. Only when he changed his playing = >style and started playing like Karpov, was he able to win. =20
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 03:24:14 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
However, the strongest playing style is positional. Karpov was an extreme = >positional player, and Kasparov was a tactical player. When Kasparov met K= >arpov, Kasparov was being demolished, and he was teetering on the edge of t=
he ravine. In no time he was 5-0 behind. Only when he changed his playing = >style and started playing like Karpov, was he able to win. =20
Uh my bathroom reading for most of the last month has been Bronstein's mini-book Kasparov-Karpov on their 1991 match.
Which may sound like it's a slam on Bronstein but that's not fair -
it's the one place in our home where I can count on 10-15 minutes for analysis without being disrupted by other family members....
I mean honestly - Bronstein's one of the strongest ever non-world
champions though of that group Keres remains my favorite chiefly
because I actually met and spoke to him. (Of world champions Fischer
and Spassky both played at different times in Vancouver while Tal was Taimanov's second in Vancouver though it is said that Tal was in big
trouble on his return home as his KGB handler reported Tal had spent a
LOT of time watching the NHL playoffs on TV - it was that time of year
- when he ought to have been analysing for Taimanov) I also met Euwe
in Vancouver when he was FIDE president. (We were making too much
noise in the skittles room at the Canadian Open which was running concurrently with the FIDE congress and Euwe took it on himself to
chew out a group of noisy 14-15 year olds....I remember one guy broke
the silence afterwards saying 'uh was that who I think it was?"
"yup!!")
I must be missing something? On move 15, Blacks Queen disappears?
Bs"d
In this game against an 1850: https://lichess.org/qL0IEXU172oX I myself tried a Fried Liver against the enemy.
Everything went fine, except on move 6, when I could smack in on f7, and sacrifice my horse there and draw the enemy king to the midst of the
board, I just didn't do it.
In stead I played d4.
This move I learned from Bobby Fischer, who said that that makes the Fried Liver attack much stronger.
On 4/6/2021 11:22 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this game against an 1850: https://lichess.org/qL0IEXU172oX I myself tried a Fried Liver against the enemy.You did not.
Everything went fine, except on move 6, when I could smack in on f7, and sacrifice my horse there and draw the enemy king to the midst of the6. Nxf7 is the move that characterizes the Fried Liver Attack. Since you didn't play that move, it was *not* a Fried Liver Attack.
board, I just didn't do it.
In stead I played d4.He certainly didn't say that, since 6. d4 has nothing to do with the
This move I learned from Bobby Fischer, who said that that makes the Fried Liver attack much stronger.
Fried Liver Attack.
Moreover 6. d4 was a well-known move well before
Fischer's time, and was thought to be a much better alternative than the Fried Liver Attack.
Is it still thought to be better? I don't know. I haven't kept up with
the theory.
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 11:07:41 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:
On 4/6/2021 11:22 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"dYou did not.
In this game against an 1850: https://lichess.org/qL0IEXU172oX I myself tried a Fried Liver against the enemy.
Everything went fine, except on move 6, when I could smack in on f7, and sacrifice my horse there and draw the enemy king to the midst of the6. Nxf7 is the move that characterizes the Fried Liver Attack. Since you
board, I just didn't do it.
didn't play that move, it was *not* a Fried Liver Attack.
Bs"d
It was a slightly modified Fried Liver.
In stead I played d4.He certainly didn't say that, since 6. d4 has nothing to do with the
This move I learned from Bobby Fischer, who said that that makes the Fried Liver attack much stronger.
Fried Liver Attack.
OK, show me the official definition of the Fried Liver attack.
Bs"d
And here yet another Boden-Kieseritzky gambit in which the enemy came out of the opening a bishop short: https://lichess.org/JKcwR6lEbnmX
https://tinyurl.com/gloeiogen
And so I did. Now the point is, that the pawn on e4 can easily be taken by an enemy horse.
Bs"dagainst Sidionio. After the game was over, I saw that he was a fanatic Caro-Kann player, and I saw that I slaughtered him three times with my Caro-Kann trap.
Just played another game against Sidonio, 1800+. He played a Caro-Kann against me, so I played my trap against him, and it didn't really go all the way according to the book. I was wondering why. Then I saw that this was the 13th game I was playing
For the connoisseur, here are the games:
https://lichess.org/xPsP3V6i#25
https://lichess.org/5LGZwtc6#25
https://lichess.org/ZkrXST2r#23
So after biting the dust three times against the same opening trap, he got the hang of it, and didn't fall for it anymore.
Still he came out of the opening with a lousy position, and I managed to take him down in 16 moves: https://lichess.org/lSNNhmba#35
All is well that ends well.
https://tinyurl.com/CaKa-trap
Bs"d
And here some Scandinavian defense players. The first one who played d5 after my e4 was RAYFRAN48, and 1800+ player. Of course I answered with a trappy gambit, namely the Tennison gambit. That costed him a full bishop and the enemy resigned on move 20.
Bs"d
After a long dry spell I was able to bag a 1940 with a Stafford gambit. In 11 moves. LOL!!
https://lichess.org/8rkGBKB1SxCb
Opening traps are terrible things when you're on the wrong side of 'm.
https://tinyurl.com/gloeiogen
On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:45:05 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
After a long dry spell I was able to bag a 1940 with a Stafford gambit. In 11 moves. LOL!!
https://lichess.org/8rkGBKB1SxCb
Opening traps are terrible things when you're on the wrong side of 'm.
https://tinyurl.com/gloeiogen
Bs"d
In the above variation the Stafford gambit goes like this: First you give the enemy a pawn, then you give him a horse, and then you slaughter him.
On 8/22/2021 11:04 PM, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:45:05 PM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
After a long dry spell I was able to bag a 1940 with a Stafford gambit. In 11 moves. LOL!!
https://lichess.org/8rkGBKB1SxCb
Opening traps are terrible things when you're on the wrong side of 'm.
https://tinyurl.com/gloeiogen
Bs"d
In the above variation the Stafford gambit goes like this: First you give the enemy a pawn, then you give him a horse, and then you slaughter him.The Greeks were the only ones to give the enemy a horse.
Bs"dagainst Sidionio. After the game was over, I saw that he was a fanatic Caro-Kann player, and I saw that I slaughtered him three times with my Caro-Kann trap.
Just played another game against Sidonio, 1800+. He played a Caro-Kann against me, so I played my trap against him, and it didn't really go all the way according to the book. I was wondering why. Then I saw that this was the 13th game I was playing
For the connoisseur, here are the games:
https://lichess.org/xPsP3V6i#25
https://lichess.org/5LGZwtc6#25
https://lichess.org/ZkrXST2r#23
So after biting the dust three times against the same opening trap, he got the hang of it, and didn't fall for it anymore.
Still he came out of the opening with a lousy position, and I managed to take him down in 16 moves: https://lichess.org/lSNNhmba#35
All is well that ends well.
https://tinyurl.com/CaKa-trap
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 1:06:36 AM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:against Sidionio. After the game was over, I saw that he was a fanatic Caro-Kann player, and I saw that I slaughtered him three times with my Caro-Kann trap.
Bs"d
Just played another game against Sidonio, 1800+. He played a Caro-Kann against me, so I played my trap against him, and it didn't really go all the way according to the book. I was wondering why. Then I saw that this was the 13th game I was playing
learned his lesson already three times, and had no intention to go down that same road to chess hell again. But, alas, it was in vain. He deviated in wrong way, and had to part with two pawns and a castle in the opening, and before I could relieve him ofFor the connoisseur, here are the games:
https://lichess.org/xPsP3V6i#25
https://lichess.org/5LGZwtc6#25
https://lichess.org/ZkrXST2r#23
So after biting the dust three times against the same opening trap, he got the hang of it, and didn't fall for it anymore.
Still he came out of the opening with a lousy position, and I managed to take him down in 16 moves: https://lichess.org/lSNNhmba#35
All is well that ends well.
https://tinyurl.com/CaKa-trapBs"d
It is the time of the year for Caro-Kann traps. First I slaughtered an innocent CK player who followed the book line of the trap, and he surrendered on move 12, mate on move 13 was unavoidable: https://lichess.org/ArmyoNvlvY5G
Then I was paired again with Sidionio, the hard-core Caro-Kann player, who I slaughtered already three times with that CK-trap. I only later saw that is was Sidonio, so I started my trap like usual, and on the critical point he started to deviate, he
Opening traps are horrible things.
On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 11:44:59 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:against Sidionio. After the game was over, I saw that he was a fanatic Caro-Kann player, and I saw that I slaughtered him three times with my Caro-Kann trap.
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 1:06:36 AM UTC+3, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Just played another game against Sidonio, 1800+. He played a Caro-Kann against me, so I played my trap against him, and it didn't really go all the way according to the book. I was wondering why. Then I saw that this was the 13th game I was playing
learned his lesson already three times, and had no intention to go down that same road to chess hell again. But, alas, it was in vain. He deviated in wrong way, and had to part with two pawns and a castle in the opening, and before I could relieve him ofFor the connoisseur, here are the games:
https://lichess.org/xPsP3V6i#25
https://lichess.org/5LGZwtc6#25
https://lichess.org/ZkrXST2r#23
So after biting the dust three times against the same opening trap, he got the hang of it, and didn't fall for it anymore.
Still he came out of the opening with a lousy position, and I managed to take him down in 16 moves: https://lichess.org/lSNNhmba#35
All is well that ends well.
https://tinyurl.com/CaKa-trapBs"d
It is the time of the year for Caro-Kann traps. First I slaughtered an innocent CK player who followed the book line of the trap, and he surrendered on move 12, mate on move 13 was unavoidable: https://lichess.org/ArmyoNvlvY5G
Then I was paired again with Sidionio, the hard-core Caro-Kann player, who I slaughtered already three times with that CK-trap. I only later saw that is was Sidonio, so I started my trap like usual, and on the critical point he started to deviate, he
Slow learner. He's lost by move four, and apparently you have done this to him before.
1800 rated? Please, at the club he'd have been 1100 at best.
Opening traps are horrible things.The first time you surprised him with it. But the other three times?
You can't force people to play well. Or even adequately.
Bs"dstarts out with d4, and cooperates to get the Budapest on the board.
So I slaughtered hundreds of people with the Englund gambit. It is just that lately it seems that nobody is falling for it. And the Englund is one trap that if the enemy doesn't fall for it, you end up with a rotten position.
So I thought, let's switch to the Budapest gambit for a while, and see what happens. It has a handful of traps in it, and you don't end up with a rotten position if the enemy doesn't fall for it. Like the Englund, you can only play it if the enemy
So I gave it a try. And lo and behold, the first try was a great success. No mate within 10 moves, but the opponent had to give up his queen for a horse and a bishop. On move 8. https://lichess.org/M7g5N4zgxk3e
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 7:32:36 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:starts out with d4, and cooperates to get the Budapest on the board.
Bs"d
So I slaughtered hundreds of people with the Englund gambit. It is just that lately it seems that nobody is falling for it. And the Englund is one trap that if the enemy doesn't fall for it, you end up with a rotten position.
So I thought, let's switch to the Budapest gambit for a while, and see what happens. It has a handful of traps in it, and you don't end up with a rotten position if the enemy doesn't fall for it. Like the Englund, you can only play it if the enemy
is, I think, a bit trappier. And far sounder than the Englund.So I gave it a try. And lo and behold, the first try was a great success. No mate within 10 moves, but the opponent had to give up his queen for a horse and a bishop. On move 8. https://lichess.org/M7g5N4zgxk3eA fun little trap.
Have you considered the Albin counter gambit? It's very, very tricky. I don't know if today it is regarded as absolutely satisfactory, but it was played by the likes of Lasker, so it can't be too bad. It may not be quite as sound as the Budapest, but
I can say from experience that even a 2000 player facing someone booked up in it has his work cut out for him.anyone the chance to play the BD against him.
On the white side, have you considered the Blackmar-Diemer? It's not considered to be utterly sound but it has its devotees and there is quite a bit of literature on it. I had a strong friend, who, as black, always transposed to the QGD so as to deny
Bs"dagainst Sidionio. After the game was over, I saw that he was a fanatic Caro-Kann player, and I saw that I slaughtered him three times with my Caro-Kann trap.
Just played another game against Sidonio, 1800+. He played a Caro-Kann against me, so I played my trap against him, and it didn't really go all the way according to the book. I was wondering why. Then I saw that this was the 13th game I was playing
For the connoisseur, here are the games:
https://lichess.org/xPsP3V6i#25
https://lichess.org/5LGZwtc6#25
https://lichess.org/ZkrXST2r#23
So after biting the dust three times against the same opening trap, he got the hang of it, and didn't fall for it anymore.
Still he came out of the opening with a lousy position, and I managed to take him down in 16 moves: https://lichess.org/lSNNhmba#35
All is well that ends well.
https://tinyurl.com/CaKa-trap
Bs”dstarts out with d4, and cooperates to get the Budapest on the board.
On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 1:22:16 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 7:32:36 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So I slaughtered hundreds of people with the Englund gambit. It is just that lately it seems that nobody is falling for it. And the Englund is one trap that if the enemy doesn't fall for it, you end up with a rotten position.
So I thought, let's switch to the Budapest gambit for a while, and see what happens. It has a handful of traps in it, and you don't end up with a rotten position if the enemy doesn't fall for it. Like the Englund, you can only play it if the enemy
is, I think, a bit trappier. And far sounder than the Englund.So I gave it a try. And lo and behold, the first try was a great success. No mate within 10 moves, but the opponent had to give up his queen for a horse and a bishop. On move 8. https://lichess.org/M7g5N4zgxk3eA fun little trap.
Have you considered the Albin counter gambit? It's very, very tricky. I don't know if today it is regarded as absolutely satisfactory, but it was played by the likes of Lasker, so it can't be too bad. It may not be quite as sound as the Budapest, but
Bs"dd5. And it did have some succes on the club with the Budapest gambit, so I never actually caught somebody with the Albin counter gambit trap.
The Albin counter gambit was one of the first traps I learned, about 35 years ago. I tried it several times, both on the club and online, but I never was able to catch anybody with it, so I quit playing it. Also, the Englund became my favoured reply to
Bs"dMcGraw-Hill/dp/0844230502
So I bought myself a second hand chess book for next to nothing; "Teach Yourself Chess" by IM Bill Hartston, 2 times winner of the British Championship, and the first one to stack the pieces from an entire chess set on top of a single white castle.
Parts of the book looks like rats have been eating it, but everything is still very well readable, thank God.
It's a very nice book, you can teach yourself chess with it, and it has about everything, openings, endgames, tactics, history of chess, illustrative games, very nice book for a beginner or club player: https://www.amazon.com/Teach-Yourself-Chess-
So in that book I found an interesting gambit in the Italian opening, (aka giuoco piano) where you gambiteer not one, but two pawns. And it has a wonderful trap in it.some opponent turned it into the Italian opening. So I offered him a pawn, and he took it. I offered him a second pawn, and he took it. Then I offered him a castle, but he didn't take it. Didn't make a difference though, because it was too late already.
So I spent my free Saturday learning that trap with all its variations by heart, and after the sun had set, I cranked up my computer, and gave it a shot on Lichess. It took a few games, but lo and behold, after I played the bishop opening, my favorite,
And from there it was all downhill, I exchanged everything, got myself an exchange on top of it, got into and endgame with a castle more, and the enemy surrendered unconditionally.
Great trap! I want to try that more often.
https://tinyurl.com/trappish
Bs"de4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
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-
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 forfree! That's not the way it should be....
On 10/5/2021 1:57 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
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/
That's not the way it should be....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!
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.
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:19:11 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters. >> >
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/
That's not the way it should be....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!
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."
On 10/5/2021 10:31 AM, Eli Kesef wrote:e4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
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-
free! That's not the way it should be....
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
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.
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 10:07:21 PM UTC+3, Ken Blake wrote:e4/ and I bought that book, and so I learned that trap from them two grandmasters.
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-
free! That's not the way it should be....
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
There's nothing to agree with so far. I haven't made any point yet.
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:No, I did not say that. Read more carefully. What I said is that the line
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,
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.
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.
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.
On 10/14/2021 1:19 PM, 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.What a wonderful game! I'm impressed that with so little experience with
the Stafford Gambit, you played so brilliantly.
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.
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"dagainst Sidionio. After the game was over, I saw that he was a fanatic Caro-Kann player, and I saw that I slaughtered him three times with my Caro-Kann trap.
Just played another game against Sidonio, 1800+. He played a Caro-Kann against me, so I played my trap against him, and it didn't really go all the way according to the book. I was wondering why. Then I saw that this was the 13th game I was playing
For the connoisseur, here are the games:
https://lichess.org/xPsP3V6i#25
https://lichess.org/5LGZwtc6#25
https://lichess.org/ZkrXST2r#23
So after biting the dust three times against the same opening trap, he got the hang of it, and didn't fall for it anymore.
Still he came out of the opening with a lousy position, and I managed to take him down in 16 moves: https://lichess.org/lSNNhmba#35
All is well that ends well.
https://tinyurl.com/CaKa-trap
Bs"d
Got an interesting Stafford gambit, https://lichess.org/rvHDcefBDVQ9 with a line of play that is found on one of the youtubes of IM Eric Rosen. He is a big fan of the Stafford gambit, and he gave me many more trappy lines.
It took 18 moves to make the enemy resign, but it was worth it. I sacrificed a horse, got it back, with the enemy king in the middle of the board, where he made the fatal mistake, which was going to cost him his queen, so he surrendered.
https://tinyurl.com/Deadly-Staff
Bs"dhad 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
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
https://is.gd/trappy_gamb
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
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/kB4ckXzX1nIgPlaying terrible players certainly hurts your game.
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
Bs"dAnother 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/kB4ckXzX1nIgPlaying terrible players certainly hurts your game.
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.
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
Bs"dAnother 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/kB4ckXzX1nIgPlaying terrible players certainly hurts your game.
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 weakerplayers.
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.
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
Bs"dAnother 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/kB4ckXzX1nIgPlaying terrible players certainly hurts your game.
Bs"dI 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.
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.
That would mean that the vast majority of players on lichess are terrible players.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).
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!weaker players.
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
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.
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:Bs"d
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"dCan't help you there. I'm not a psychiatrist.
Bs"dPlaying terrible players certainly hurts your game.
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
I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.
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.
That would mean that the vast majority of players on lichess are terrible players.So terrible players it is for me.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).
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.
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.
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.
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:Bs"d
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:08:56 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:Can't help you there. I'm not a psychiatrist.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote: >> > > > > Bs"dBs"d
Playing terrible players certainly hurts your game.
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
I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.
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.
That would mean that the vast majority of players on lichess are terrible players.So terrible players it is for me.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).
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.
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" is a giant exaggeration.
"No gambit works in theory, but all work in practice". With some exaggeration.
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:Bs"d
Can't help you there. I'm not a psychiatrist.On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Bs"d
Bs"dPlaying terrible players certainly hurts your game.
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
I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.
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.
That would mean that the vast majority of players on lichess are terrible players.So terrible players it is for me.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).
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.
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" is a giant exaggeration.
"No gambit works in theory, but all work in practice". With some exaggeration.
On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 9:21:17 AM UTC-5, Ken Blake wrote:game in a US championship. Larsen once took the pawn and won, but he said later "of course it is very bad") and a friend, rated 1900, beat an IM who took the Bxc7 gambit in the Grunfeld.
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:If by "mostly," you don't mean all of them, sure. The Queen's gambit,
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:Bs"d
Can't help you there. I'm not a psychiatrist.On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Bs"d
Bs"dPlaying terrible players certainly hurts your game.
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
I don't care about my game getting hurt. I do care about me getting hurt, and that's what happens when I loose.
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.
That would mean that the vast majority of players on lichess are terrible players.So terrible players it is for me.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).
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.
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.Mostly they are, no doubt about it.
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 >> >
perhaps the Marshall Attack, and a few others are counterexamples.
I think the Marshall and the Benko are sound and playable. I'm not sure if the last word on the King's gambit has been written, I'd take it to be sound at the moment. There is a sound gambit in the Queen's Indian (best known from the Denker-Pinkus
But you can do well with any gambit, especially if your opponent has read somewhere that it isn't sound, but didn't learn just why it isn't sound.
But not so bad as to be unplayable, even in serious chess, where the"No gambit" is a giant exaggeration.
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.
It was a humorous comment. Many of these are attributed to Tartakower, but in this case I think it was a British player.
Bs"don e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.
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
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 thatyoutube, 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,
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.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 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
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
Bs"don e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.
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
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 thatyoutube, 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,
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.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 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
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 Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:19:15 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:on e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.
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
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,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
and most of the time then disaster hits black hard an merciless. What you get then is an Englund gambit with reversed colors.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,
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 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
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.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.
with a bishop missing, and on move 20 it was all over: https://lichess.org/bG8u0JPzz7SJI 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-gambitBs"d
Like I said: A Tennison gambit was a rare occurrence, because not many people play the Scandinavian. But thanks to that GM in the above youtube, they are now coming thick and fast. Just slaughtered an 1828 with the Tennison. He came out of the opening
You've got to love those traps!
https://tinyurl.com/trappish
Bs"don e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.
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
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 thatyoutube, 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,
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.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 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
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 Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:19:15 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:on e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.
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
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,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
and most of the time then disaster hits black hard an merciless. What you get then is an Englund gambit with reversed colors.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,
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 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
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.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.
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-gambitBs"d
Got another Tennison gambit, thanks to that Reti opening: https://lichess.org/67gp9bRhBYoA
The enemy came out of the opening a horse short, and after that a relatively innocent horse fork, which was only going to yield me an exchange, finished him off. He committed hara kiri by pressing the resign button.
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 5:14:10 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:pawn on e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:19:15 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
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
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,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
and most of the time then disaster hits black hard an merciless. What you get then is an Englund gambit with reversed colors.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,
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 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
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.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.
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-gambitBs"d
Got another Tennison gambit, thanks to that Reti opening: https://lichess.org/67gp9bRhBYoA
The enemy came out of the opening a horse short, and after that a relatively innocent horse fork, which was only going to yield me an exchange, finished him off. He committed hara kiri by pressing the resign button.He committed suicide with Nb3. He might be about 1200 in our speed rating system.
"Resigns" was perhaps his best move in the game, though he should have played it much earlier.
Usually your games have some amusement factor, seeing how people cope with your trappy openings. But not this time. You'd beat this guy about as fast with 1a3.
I've advised a couple of (real) 1500 players I know to get on lichess. I'd like to see what ratings they wind up with. One is a big Stafford gambit fan.
William Hyde
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 3:34:59 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:pawn on e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 5:14:10 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:19:15 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
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
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...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
pawn, and most of the time then disaster hits black hard an merciless. What you get then is an Englund gambit with reversed colors.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
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 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
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.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
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-gambitBs"d
Got another Tennison gambit, thanks to that Reti opening: https://lichess.org/67gp9bRhBYoA
The enemy came out of the opening a horse short, and after that a relatively innocent horse fork, which was only going to yield me an exchange, finished him off. He committed hara kiri by pressing the resign button.He committed suicide with Nb3. He might be about 1200 in our speed rating system.
"Resigns" was perhaps his best move in the game, though he should have played it much earlier.
Usually your games have some amusement factor, seeing how people cope with your trappy openings. But not this time. You'd beat this guy about as fast with 1a3.Bs"d
I think you're right. It was not so much a trap as a course blunder by the enemy.
But this one is closer to a trap I think, even though it is also a good pair of blunders: https://lichess.org/cRkZCwOvcVLR
First blunder was h6,
giving me Qh5+, second blunder was resigning on move 5. Because if I would have made the fork on f7, he could play Qe8, pinning the horse on my queen, and things are not clear from there.
But be that as it may; fact is that the Tennison gambit came through for me. Again. :D
I've advised a couple of (real) 1500 players I know to get on lichess. I'd like to see what ratings they wind up with. One is a big Stafford gambit fan.
William HydeMight be interesting.
"real 1500 players", is that 1500 FIDE?
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 10:21:15 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:my pawn on e4, and the Tennison gambit is in full swing.
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 3:34:59 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 5:14:10 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:19:15 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
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
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...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
pawn, and most of the time then disaster hits black hard an merciless. What you get then is an Englund gambit with reversed colors.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
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 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
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.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
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-gambitBs"d
Got another Tennison gambit, thanks to that Reti opening: https://lichess.org/67gp9bRhBYoA
The enemy came out of the opening a horse short, and after that a relatively innocent horse fork, which was only going to yield me an exchange, finished him off. He committed hara kiri by pressing the resign button.He committed suicide with Nb3. He might be about 1200 in our speed rating system.
"Resigns" was perhaps his best move in the game, though he should have played it much earlier.
Usually your games have some amusement factor, seeing how people cope with your trappy openings. But not this time. You'd beat this guy about as fast with 1a3.Bs"d
I think you're right. It was not so much a trap as a course blunder by the enemy.
But this one is closer to a trap I think, even though it is also a good pair of blunders: https://lichess.org/cRkZCwOvcVLR
First blunder was h6,I think f5 is the first blunder. Not that it is necessarily a terrible move - I have no idea - but exposing your king like
that without any idea of what to do next is a blunder. And as he showed with h6, he had no such idea.
giving me Qh5+, second blunder was resigning on move 5. Because if I would have made the fork on f7, he could play Qe8, pinning the horse on my queen, and things are not clear from there.Actually, white has several ways of winning. Resigning is the best move here.
But be that as it may; fact is that the Tennison gambit came through for me. Again. :D
I've advised a couple of (real) 1500 players I know to get on lichess. I'd like to see what ratings they wind up with. One is a big Stafford gambit fan.
William HydeMight be interesting.
"real 1500 players", is that 1500 FIDE?USCF. I'll keep you posted if they bother.
Bs"d
The fishing pole is a golden oldie. I tried it again today, and lo and behold, the enemy took the bait, and got hooked: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321124
On move 11 it was all over, the enemy saw that mate on move 13 was inevitable, and surrendered.
https://tinyurl.com/fish-pole-trap
Bs"dhttps://lichess.org/UL2dsq3J3VFH
Thank God, the tides have turned.
I had white, so I played the Reti opening, which was advised to me by that GM. And lo and behold, the enemy played d5, after which I played e4, and there it was, yet another Tennison gambit on the board. Well, a virtual board, since I played on Lichess:
My opponent was no noob,
On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 8:27:46 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:Lichess: https://lichess.org/UL2dsq3J3VFH
Bs"d
Thank God, the tides have turned.
I had white, so I played the Reti opening, which was advised to me by that GM. And lo and behold, the enemy played d5, after which I played e4, and there it was, yet another Tennison gambit on the board. Well, a virtual board, since I played on
My opponent was no noob,Yes he was.
and 1831,
Meaningless on that server.
Bs"d
So in this game: https://lichess.org/tbJq9ykmfPd9 the enemy made an attempt to fry my liver.
After a Petrov defense
we got the position of the Italian game with the two horses defense,
and he put his horse on g5, and had a double attack on f7.
So my horse on f6 jumped forward
and took his pawn on e4, which was defended by his horse on g5. But he didn't take my horse, but went for bigger game,
and smacked in with his horse on f7, forking my queen and castle.
I saved my queen and put her on h4, threatening mate on f2, and he castled.
Now the problem was, I had totally forgotten what to play now. Now black is supposed to sacrifice his horse on f2, and go on winning the game, but I had no idea, so I was on my own.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 22:59:46 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game: https://lichess.org/tbJq9ykmfPd9 the enemy made an attempt to fry my liver.No, he did not. Assuming you are referring to the "Fried Liver
Attack," this game has nothing to do with the Fried Liver Attack. As
I think I may have explained here before, 4. Ng5 is *not* the Fried
Liver Attack (aka Fegatello Attack). The Fegatello attack is the
sacrifice of the Knight with 6. Nxf7, after 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5
(normally followed by 6. ...KxN 7. Qf3+ Kd6). If you don't play 4. ...
d5 5. exd5 Nxd5, White has no opportunity to attempt to "fry your
liver," as you put it.
After a Petrov defense
Not to say "Petrov" is wrong, but in my day, that was almost always
spelled "Petroff." Perhaps "Petrov" is now more common; I don't know.
we got the position of the Italian game with the two horses defense,No, this is not the Italian game with the two horses defense, and not
even the Italian game with the Two Knights Defense. The Italian game
(aka Giuoco Piano; in my day it was always called the Giuoco Piano,
which means "Quiet Game") is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc5 Bc5. If Black doesn't play 3...Bc5, it is not the Giuoco Piano (Italian game).
The
opening of your game is just called the Two Knights Defense. The Two
Knights Defense is *not* called the Two Knights Defense *to the
Italian game* or the Two Knights Defense to the Giuoco Piano.
By the way, the move normally considered best and most commonly played
after 4. Ng5 d5 is 5. ...Nh5 (avoiding the Fegatello Attack or the
perhaps better 6. d4), although back in my tournament-playing days, I
always preferred 5. ... Nd4, the Fritz Defense.
Since you like traps, I'll mention a common trap in the Fritz
Variation:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5 Nd4 (the Fritz Variation)
6. d6?? Qxd6 (much better play is 6. c3 b5)
7. Nxf7 Qc6
8. Nxh8 Qxg2
9. Rh1 Qe4+
10. Be2 Nf3++
I've played and won the black side of that game many times.
And by the way, another trappy line in the Two Knights Defense is the Wilkes-Barre Variation (aka Traxler Counterattack).
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 Bc5
You might like to look into playing that.
and he put his horse on g5, and had a double attack on f7.
So my horse on f6 jumped forwardA very agile horse. When you keep score do your write H instead of N
and C instead of R?
and took his pawn on e4, which was defended by his horse on g5. But he didn't take my horse, but went for bigger game,
and smacked in with his horse on f7, forking my queen and castle.
I saved my queen and put her on h4, threatening mate on f2, and he castled. You should be consistent in using the wrong terms and say he "rooked."
Now the problem was, I had totally forgotten what to play now. Now black is supposed to sacrifice his horse on f2, and go on winning the game, but I had no idea, so I was on my own.My opening books are very old, but the one I rely on (by Paul Keres)
says Black should play 6...Nf6 with advantage. Perhaps there are newer better choices; I don't know.
On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 8:21:35 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 22:59:46 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game: https://lichess.org/tbJq9ykmfPd9 the enemy made an attempt to fry my liver.
No, he did not. Assuming you are referring to the "Fried Liver
Attack," this game has nothing to do with the Fried Liver Attack. As
I think I may have explained here before, 4. Ng5 is *not* the Fried
Liver Attack (aka Fegatello Attack). The Fegatello attack is the
sacrifice of the Knight with 6. Nxf7, after 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5
(normally followed by 6. ...KxN 7. Qf3+ Kd6). If you don't play 4. ...
d5 5. exd5 Nxd5, White has no opportunity to attempt to "fry your
liver," as you put it.
Bs"d
Didn't we have this discussion before?
You are probably right,
but I think everybody knows what I mean,
and that is that the enemy is trying to fork me on f7.
After a Petrov defense
I have some books on the Petrov, and in at least one it is spelled as "Petroff",
but I'm not going to use 2 letters when I can use 1.
Not to say "Petrov" is wrong, but in my day, that was almost always
spelled "Petroff." Perhaps "Petrov" is now more common; I don't know.
we got the position of the Italian game with the two horses defense,No, this is not the Italian game with the two horses defense, and not
even the Italian game with the Two Knights Defense. The Italian game
(aka Giuoco Piano; in my day it was always called the Giuoco Piano,
which means "Quiet Game") is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc5 Bc5. If Black
doesn't play 3...Bc5, it is not the Giuoco Piano (Italian game).
When I type “Giuoco Piano” I always write it wrong.
For this one I used a copy & paste, otherwise I have to check it 4 to 13 times to get it right.
It is just too weird language.
“Italian opening” is so much easier.
Therefore I prefer “Spanish” over Ruy Lopez.
That is how it is done in Europe, that’s what I’m used to, and that’s what I keep on doing.
But I got your point about the Italian, but what I meant was: White played the preliminary moves for the Italian.
No, it wasn't a real Italian, but it was a real two horses defense.
The
opening of your game is just called the Two Knights Defense. The Two
Knights Defense is *not* called the Two Knights Defense *to the
Italian game* or the Two Knights Defense to the Giuoco Piano.
By the way, the move normally considered best and most commonly played
after 4. Ng5 d5 is 5. ...Nh5 (avoiding the Fegatello Attack or the
perhaps better 6. d4), although back in my tournament-playing days, I
always preferred 5. ... Nd4, the Fritz Defense.
Since you like traps, I'll mention a common trap in the Fritz
Variation:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5 Nd4 (the Fritz Variation)
6. d6?? Qxd6 (much better play is 6. c3 b5)
7. Nxf7 Qc6
8. Nxh8 Qxg2
9. Rh1 Qe4+
10. Be2 Nf3++
That's a humoristic one. I have played those, but not with the handle Carnivorum. At least I couldn't find them quickly.
Here are some of 'm:
https://lichess.org/OYQEe7Jf/black#20
https://lichess.org/WoGCaVJB/black
https://lichess.org/1TjxvsB3/black#20
I played this more often, but I don’t feel like digging them all up.
I've played and won the black side of that game many times.
And by the way, another trappy line in the Two Knights Defense is the
Wilkes-Barre Variation (aka Traxler Counterattack).
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 Bc5
You might like to look into playing that.
When it is played against me, I hate it. I lose often against it, so I try to avoid it.
and he put his horse on g5, and had a double attack on f7.
So my horse on f6 jumped forward
A very agile horse. When you keep score do your write H instead of N
and C instead of R?
No, I write P in stead of N, and T in stead of R. That’s because I use the Dutch initials, which is my native language.
P stands for “paard”, and that means horse. T stands for “toren” and that means tower.
and took his pawn on e4, which was defended by his horse on g5. But he didn't take my horse, but went for bigger game,
and smacked in with his horse on f7, forking my queen and castle.
I saved my queen and put her on h4, threatening mate on f2, and he castled. >> You should be consistent in using the wrong terms and say he "rooked."
Sometimes I mix things up. I see that above I used “castle” and also “rook”.
Slip of the keyboard.
Now the problem was, I had totally forgotten what to play now. Now black is supposed to sacrifice his horse on f2, and go on winning the game, but I had no idea, so I was on my own.My opening books are very old, but the one I rely on (by Paul Keres)
says Black should play 6...Nf6 with advantage. Perhaps there are newer
better choices; I don't know.
I just checked Stockfish, and he
says sacrifice your horse on f2, and he sets white on minus 3.5. So that is bad for white and as good as winning for black.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 14:56:48 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 8:21:35 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 22:59:46 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game: https://lichess.org/tbJq9ykmfPd9 the enemy made an attempt to fry my liver.
No, he did not. Assuming you are referring to the "Fried Liver
Attack," this game has nothing to do with the Fried Liver Attack.
Bs"dWhat does Bs"d mean?
But I got your point about the Italian, but what I meant was: White played the preliminary moves for the Italian.I knew what you meant, but that's not an excuse for writing the wrong
thing.
By the way, the move normally considered best and most commonly played
after 4. Ng5 d5 is 5. ...Nh5 (avoiding the Fegatello Attack or the
perhaps better 6. d4), although back in my tournament-playing days, I
always preferred 5. ... Nd4, the Fritz Defense.
Since you like traps, I'll mention a common trap in the Fritz
Variation:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5 Nd4 (the Fritz Variation)
6. d6?? Qxd6 (much better play is 6. c3 b5)
7. Nxf7 Qc6
8. Nxh8 Qxg2
9. Rh1 Qe4+
10. Be2 Nf3++
That's a humoristic one. I have played those, but not with the handle Carnivorum. At least I couldn't find them quickly.
Here are some of 'm:
https://lichess.org/OYQEe7Jf/black#20That's exactly the same game I posted above. Why did you repeat it?
https://lichess.org/WoGCaVJB/black
https://lichess.org/1TjxvsB3/black#20
And again? You had to post he same game twice in one message?
Should I have repeated the moves I posted above a dozen times or so
because I played the same game a dozen times?
Sometimes I mix things up. I see that above I used “castle” and also “rook”.You *mess* things up if you insist on not using the standard English
Slip of the keyboard.
terms. As I said above, you come across as an ignorant beginner at
chess.
I just checked Stockfish, and he"He"? That should be "it." Stockfish isn't a person.
says sacrifice your horse on f2, and he sets white on minus 3.5. So that is bad for white and as good as winning for black.OK, thanks. As I suspected, my old Keres book (I've had it for around
65 years) is out of date on that.
Bs"d
So in this game https://lichess.org/Zcjfj1iHu39C the enemy managed to avoid the Tennison trap, only to fall headlong into the fishing pole trap.
He tried to squirm out of it, but on move 18 the lone black king was mated on e3, while the whole black army was still stuck in the back.
That's what you get when you refuse to study traps.
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:10:00 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game https://lichess.org/Zcjfj1iHu39C the enemy managed to avoid the Tennison trap, only to fall headlong into the fishing pole trap.
He tried to squirm out of it, but on move 18 the lone black king was mated on e3, while the whole black army was still stuck in the back.
That's what you get when you refuse to study traps.Your opponents would do much better if someone forbid them from pushing their h pawns until the ending.
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:15:10 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:speed game I lost as a kid involved, guess what, an inauspicious h3.
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 1:01:48 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:10:00 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game https://lichess.org/Zcjfj1iHu39C the enemy managed to avoid the Tennison trap, only to fall headlong into the fishing pole trap.
He tried to squirm out of it, but on move 18 the lone black king was mated on e3, while the whole black army was still stuck in the back.
Bs"dThat's what you get when you refuse to study traps.Your opponents would do much better if someone forbid them from pushing their h pawns until the ending.
One of my books says: "Don't push your A and H pawns!", but I noticed I usually fare better if I do.There are times when it is right to use these pawns. But your opponents do so at the wrong times to such an extent that it would be better to forgo the advantage of doing this when it is right, so as to avoid the times when it is suicidal. The shortest
In the games I've seen, pretty much every move of your a-pawn is a mistake. You h-pawn moves mostly are part of the standard piece sac on g4/g5 and help you win very quickly.
But only because (a) the opponents can't seem to help grabbing the piece. If they restrain themselves the value of h5/4 is unclear, and (b) they have needlessly played h3/6 themselves in the first place.exchanged with probable loss of time. But from what I have seen you need not fear that. "A free piece!" they think - and that's all they think.
In real chess the h4/5 move is on occasion played, but the piece not taken. The other player is content to have provoked a king-side weakness. And while the piece cannot be take immediately, it will eventually be safe to do so, so it must be moved or
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 1:01:48 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:10:00 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game https://lichess.org/Zcjfj1iHu39C the enemy managed to avoid the Tennison trap, only to fall headlong into the fishing pole trap.
He tried to squirm out of it, but on move 18 the lone black king was mated on e3, while the whole black army was still stuck in the back.
Bs"dThat's what you get when you refuse to study traps.Your opponents would do much better if someone forbid them from pushing their h pawns until the ending.
One of my books says: "Don't push your A and H pawns!", but I noticed I usually fare better if I do.
Bs"d
Here is a nice example of a fishing pole trap: https://lichess.org/xKu7eq9cxYUQ
De enemy was rated 1891,
Instead he took a horse of mine with his bishop, and I could take his bishop, but I decided it would be more interesting to try to continue the trap. So I took his horse, and he played g3. He had no choice in that one, because he had to stop my queenfrom coming to h5, because then it would be all over for him. Well, at least it looked that way. Stockfish showed me he had another line which would lead to a draw, or a pawn advantage for black, but I would not have seen that, and neither did the enemy.
And that was were he went wrong.
In stead of playing the saving move Bxf6, he played Qxd4, and that was the beginning of the end.
I lined my queen up with my castle by playing Qh3, and there was no more stopping the mate.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:54:18 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:from coming to h5, because then it would be all over for him. Well, at least it looked that way. Stockfish showed me he had another line which would lead to a draw, or a pawn advantage for black, but I would not have seen that, and neither did the enemy.
Bs"d
Here is a nice example of a fishing pole trap: https://lichess.org/xKu7eq9cxYUQ
De enemy was rated 1891,Meaningless on lichess.
so he was familiar with the fishing pole trap,
The game shows clearly that he was not.
Your h4 move was very bad, but he fell for it.
and after he took my bishop, and I took the pawn that took my bishop, and attacked his horse, he didn't remove his horse, because that would have led to a quick mate.
Instead he took a horse of mine with his bishop, and I could take his bishop, but I decided it would be more interesting to try to continue the trap. So I took his horse, and he played g3. He had no choice in that one, because he had to stop my queen
I don't think so. Your e-pawn will soon fall, and probably your f pawn also. So you have to carry on attacking.played Qh3, he would put his bishop on h4, to save his king from being mated.
by I decided to throw caution to the wind, and continue the fishing pole attack, and I planted my queen on f3, so I could line her up with my castle on the h line, and make the fatal threat. I expected him then to take my pawn on f6, so that when I
Better to take on f6 with the queen, giving the bishop back a different way. He gets two pawns and has an easy win. With his queen having access to g7 there is no mate.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:54:18 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here is a nice example of a fishing pole trap: https://lichess.org/xKu7eq9cxYUQ
De enemy was rated 1891,Meaningless on lichess.
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:31:19 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:queen from coming to h5, because then it would be all over for him. Well, at least it looked that way. Stockfish showed me he had another line which would lead to a draw, or a pawn advantage for black, but I would not have seen that, and neither did the
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:54:18 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here is a nice example of a fishing pole trap: https://lichess.org/xKu7eq9cxYUQ
De enemy was rated 1891,Meaningless on lichess.
so he was familiar with the fishing pole trap,
The game shows clearly that he was not.
Your h4 move was very bad, but he fell for it.
and after he took my bishop, and I took the pawn that took my bishop, and attacked his horse, he didn't remove his horse, because that would have led to a quick mate.
Instead he took a horse of mine with his bishop, and I could take his bishop, but I decided it would be more interesting to try to continue the trap. So I took his horse, and he played g3. He had no choice in that one, because he had to stop my
played Qh3, he would put his bishop on h4, to save his king from being mated.I don't think so. Your e-pawn will soon fall, and probably your f pawn also. So you have to carry on attacking.
by I decided to throw caution to the wind, and continue the fishing pole attack, and I planted my queen on f3, so I could line her up with my castle on the h line, and make the fatal threat. I expected him then to take my pawn on f6, so that when I
in one move. And I think it looks just fine. Weird.Better to take on f6 with the queen, giving the bishop back a different way. He gets two pawns and has an easy win. With his queen having access to g7 there is no mate.Bs"d
Interesting, I hadn't seen that one. It is weird, the moment he does g3, Stockfish says I'm 6.1 points ahead. But, after I play my queen to f4, he right away puts me on -4.7, that must be a really horrible move I played, going down more than 10 points
Stockfish says that black must take my pawn on f6 with his bishop, and when I let the black queen take that pawn, Stockfish says that white then in that one move goes from -4.7 to +2.6. So there is something wrong with the queen taking that pawn.
I think Stockfish is just too good. I can't understand why he does what he does.
I have the same problem when I look at GM games, I have no idea what's flying. That old saying comes to mind: "Have you ever seen a monkey examining a watch?"
points in one move. And I think it looks just fine. Weird.Better to take on f6 with the queen, giving the bishop back a different way. He gets two pawns and has an easy win. With his queen having access to g7 there is no mate.Bs"d
Interesting, I hadn't seen that one. It is weird, the moment he does g3, Stockfish says I'm 6.1 points ahead. But, after I play my queen to f4, he right away puts me on -4.7, that must be a really horrible move I played, going down more than 10
The soviets used to call positions where tactics predominate "irrational". By which they meant that normal considerations didn't apply. Qg4 looks fine to you, as it activates your queen and has a threat. But in an "irrational" position only tacticsmatter, and stockfish says your move is tactically wrong.
After your Qg4 I thought my line won, but it's not -4.7, so there must be a better move than Qxf6. Given the size of the advantage, it seems that black must be able to both prevent mate and keep the extra piece. Black can do this with 13 ... Bxf6 14Qh3 Re8. Embarrassing that I missed it. I failed to follow Lasker's law "When you see a good move don't play it, look for a better one" and was satisfied with 13 ... Qxf6. Which stockfish says isn't so good after all but I don't see the refutation. It
And of course there must be a better move than Qg4. As you are a piece down this must involve an attack on the king but I don't see anything immediate. Perhaps the counter intuitive line of taking the bishop and allowing a queen exchange works. If youcan hold your f-pawn and double rooks on the h-file ... black is rather tied up but I suspect he can prevent that. Perhaps you should ask stockfish what it recommeds for white at move 13.
(you really have to pay more attention to your notation if you want other people to understand you - he played g6 not g3 and you've described your queen move as to f3 and f4, never the g4 you moved it to)
Stockfish says that black must take my pawn on f6 with his bishop, and when I let the black queen take that pawn, Stockfish says that white then in that one move goes from -4.7 to +2.6. So there is something wrong with the queen taking that pawn.This also I cannot see. Getting weak in my old age!
I think Stockfish is just too good. I can't understand why he does what he does.You have to ask it more questions. What does is recommend on move 13 for while, and how does white refute 13 Qxf6? That will tell you something about the position. And other positions as well.
I have the same problem when I look at GM games, I have no idea what's flying. That old saying comes to mind: "Have you ever seen a monkey examining a watch?"It's not an old saying, just an insult by Steinitz. There's a reason why Steinitz moved as much as he did.
I never found looking at unannotated games, by GMs or anyone else, to be of much use. At best you learn some opening lines.
points in one move. And I think it looks just fine. Weird.Better to take on f6 with the queen, giving the bishop back a different way. He gets two pawns and has an easy win. With his queen having access to g7 there is no mate.Bs"d
Interesting, I hadn't seen that one. It is weird, the moment he does g3, Stockfish says I'm 6.1 points ahead. But, after I play my queen to f4, he right away puts me on -4.7, that must be a really horrible move I played, going down more than 10
The soviets used to call positions where tactics predominate "irrational". By which they meant that normal considerations didn't apply. Qg4 looks fine to you, as it activates your queen and has a threat. But in an "irrational" position only tacticsmatter, and stockfish says your move is tactically wrong.
After your Qg4 I thought my line won, but it's not -4.7, so there must be a better move than Qxf6. Given the size of the advantage, it seems that black must be able to both prevent mate and keep the extra piece. Black can do this with 13 ... Bxf6 14Qh3 Re8. Embarrassing that I missed it. I failed to follow Lasker's law "When you see a good move don't play it, look for a better one" and was satisfied with 13 ... Qxf6. Which stockfish says isn't so good after all but I don't see the refutation. It
And of course there must be a better move than Qg4. As you are a piece down this must involve an attack on the king but I don't see anything immediate. Perhaps the counter intuitive line of taking the bishop and allowing a queen exchange works. If youcan hold your f-pawn and double rooks on the h-file ... black is rather tied up but I suspect he can prevent that. Perhaps you should ask stockfish what it recommeds for white at move 13.
(you really have to pay more attention to your notation if you want other people to understand you - he played g6 not g3 and you've described your queen move as to f3 and f4, never the g4 you moved it to)
Stockfish says that black must take my pawn on f6 with his bishop, and when I let the black queen take that pawn, Stockfish says that white then in that one move goes from -4.7 to +2.6. So there is something wrong with the queen taking that pawn.This also I cannot see. Getting weak in my old age!
I think Stockfish is just too good. I can't understand why he does what he does.You have to ask it more questions. What does is recommend on move 13 for while, and how does white refute 13 Qxf6? That will tell you something about the position. And other positions as well.
I have the same problem when I look at GM games, I have no idea what's flying. That old saying comes to mind: "Have you ever seen a monkey examining a watch?"It's not an old saying, just an insult by Steinitz. There's a reason why Steinitz moved as much as he did.
I never found looking at unannotated games, by GMs or anyone else, to be of much use. At best you learn some opening lines.
You have to ask it more questions. What does is recommend on move 13 for while, and how does white refute 13 Qxf6? That will tell you something about the position. And other positions as well.
Bs"d
So I started with the Zukertort, but the enemy, rated 1900 on Lichess, (minus one)
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.
You must be losing a lot of games. Are there people out there who actually know the gambits you are springing on them?
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
Bs"dSo 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.
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.
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.
I think 1900 Lichess are about average club players.
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:ever played. Once.
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
Bs"dSo 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.
That is because I'm also terrible.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.
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.
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.A trap is no excuse. That's two horrible blunders in a short game. He is terrible.
Then he blundered with pawn fork, but one blunder doesn't make somebody a terrible player.
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
On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 1:58:09 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:ever played. Once.
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
Bs"dSo 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.
That is because I'm also terrible.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.
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.
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.A trap is no excuse. That's two horrible blunders in a short game. He is terrible.
Then he blundered with pawn fork, but one blunder doesn't make somebody a terrible player.
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
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.Lichess rating is useful to compare a player to the pack, and a 1900 is a bit above average.
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.
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 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
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.which are about 100 points above FIDE.
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,
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.That is true. Botvinnik once said he never played chess for fun. Made me feel sad for the old guy.
Like Einstein said: "All is relative." What matters is: Are you having fun or not?
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.htmTim 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)
Bs"dWhat is that 1300 you are talking about? Is that USCF, are you in Canada, or in the UK?This was in Canada, long ago.
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?
No. Didn't know he is a writer.Here is a Dutch chess player who gives away one of his traps: https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/platypus.htmTim 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)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,
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?
On 19/03/2022 18:35, Eli Kesef wrote:
Do they have in Canada that same weird rating system as in the UKEngland has, sadly, recently moved more-or-less to the FIDE
where you have real low numbers? like about 500 below FIDE for
equal strength?
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.
On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 2:35:18 PM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"dWhat is that 1300 you are talking about? Is that USCF, are you in Canada, or in the UK?This was in Canada, long ago.
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.
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.No. Didn't know he is a writer.Here is a Dutch chess player who gives away one of his traps: https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/platypus.htmTim Krabbe's pages are a delight. Have you read any of his novels?
So I thought.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/jrKdQp4eNlR4I 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.
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.
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?
People still read this group? I thought it was just the five of us!
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
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:Smirnov.
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
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-trapBs"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
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?
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.
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 11:41:33 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:slaughtered.
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
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.
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 wonagainst 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, orperhaps 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.
Bs"dI always play against an attempted fried liver.
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
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 mistakeof 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
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?
Killers indeed. The day finally came when Stockfish at level six played the Tennison against me. I thought it would be cheating to play my best line against it, so I improvised. The improvisation was not that good. It gave up a pawn, for which it gotgood play, then another pawn, which I should not have taken, but it exchanged queens. Still, it had a strong pair of bishops and I had weak pawns.
About the only good move I played in this phase of the game was to give back the exchange. Then I made a series of pointless king moves as my clock was at 30 seconds.ending, though I shouldn't have. Serious errors on both sides turned a loss into a draw into a win into a draw into a loss, then finally into a win with my pawn "sac" on move 71.
If you think my rook sacrifice at move 54 was stupid, bold or brilliant, I could understand it, but it was actually a mouse slip moving the evaluation from +3 for me to -3. But Stockfish can't play endings and I had enough pawns to win the piece down
A seriously bad game, but loads of fun.
The four pawns attack is not an opening trap, but it might as well be for someone like myself who doesn't know
it at all. The machine says I have a decent game from the opening, but it is without any counterplay
that I could find, and I've no doubt that any human A player would have taken my position apart
in due course.
So I started a hopeless king side attack and was soon lost. I was playing on instinct, unable to see any
variations, until I noticed the mate in three.
https://lichess.org/7VrM3Ia0#70
Silly but amusing.
Bs"dof the Fishing Pole.
It is a law of nature that things come in clusters. Which things? All things. E.g. world wars, earthquakes, telephone failures, traffic accidents, everything. Keep this rule in mind, and you will see that I am right.
By the way, I did not make this up myself, it is a rule/discovery of chaos theory. Of course sometimes things can show up on their own, but that is the exception, and not the rule.
Look at those exact same Budapest gambits I got in rapid succession. And now I posted above about a Fishing Pole Trap, and now I just got another one. I cast out the bait, and the victim swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker. I guess he had never heard
Well, he learned something new today. On move 8 I set the trap, on move 9 he fell for it, and on move 12 he was mated: https://lichess.org/tTJLigZjGK6r
He fought like a lion to avoid his fate, but to no avail. Such is the power of the Fishing Pole.
Opening traps are terrible things. Make sure you are well acquainted with them, otherwise you are inviting for disaster.
https://tinyurl.com/fishy-pole
Bs"d
Got another Budapest gambit, but the enemy refused it. He pushed his d pawn to d5 instead of taking my e pawn. So no quick winning of the queen.
I even sacrificed my own queen, but also that was refused by the enemy. For him that was a good idea, because had he taken my queen, he would have gone mate in one move, on move 5.
But also that didn't happen.
Those mates in 5 are very rare. I'm sure I have some here in the miniatures thread, but today it didn't happen.
Still I could do a lot of damage in the opening, and the enemy ended up with a rotten position, and on move 29 he went through the clock.
All is well that ends well.
https://tinyurl.com/BPG-carry-on
On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 10:43:00 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:heard of the Fishing Pole.
Bs"d
It is a law of nature that things come in clusters. Which things? All things. E.g. world wars, earthquakes, telephone failures, traffic accidents, everything. Keep this rule in mind, and you will see that I am right.
By the way, I did not make this up myself, it is a rule/discovery of chaos theory. Of course sometimes things can show up on their own, but that is the exception, and not the rule.
Look at those exact same Budapest gambits I got in rapid succession. And now I posted above about a Fishing Pole Trap, and now I just got another one. I cast out the bait, and the victim swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker. I guess he had never
Well, he learned something new today. On move 8 I set the trap, on move 9 he fell for it, and on move 12 he was mated: https://lichess.org/tTJLigZjGK6r
He fought like a lion to avoid his fate, but to no avail. Such is the power of the Fishing Pole.
Opening traps are terrible things. Make sure you are well acquainted with them, otherwise you are inviting for disaster.
https://tinyurl.com/fishy-poleHere's a fishing pole trap for you, played at a high level.
Totally unsound, but it won.
https://lichess.org/Ptt3jsj5/black#0
Bs"d
What is a kind of irritating is that even when you end up having black, and even when the enemy starts with 1. d4, you don't always get to play the Budapest.
Unfortunately nowadays a lot of people will go for the London system, and that is very irritating.
So I looked into this youtube "The 17 BEST Traps In The London System" and I found there amongst the 17 traps 3 traps for black.
This of course smacks of racism, only 3 traps for blacks and 14 for whites, but it is what it is, and I had to make do with it.
One of the black traps is where you shove a pawn down the throat of the white bishop, and if the bishop takes it, white loses he bishop.
A very coarse and simple to spot trap, so I was loath to try it, and yes, the first time I played it, the enemy refused the pawn.
HOWEVER, the second and third time the enemy took the pawn and lost a bishop. :D
This is the first game: https://lichess.org/qS2P2SWhfUZ9 The enemy limped on until move 55, and then surrendered.
In the second game https://lichess.org/fWeRG8WAU4ks the enemy limped on until move 51 and then croaked.
That will cure them from that London nonsense.
On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 1:15:14 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
What is a kind of irritating is that even when you end up having black, and even when the enemy starts with 1. d4, you don't always get to play the Budapest.
Unfortunately nowadays a lot of people will go for the London system, and that is very irritating.
So I looked into this youtube "The 17 BEST Traps In The London System" and I found there amongst the 17 traps 3 traps for black.
This of course smacks of racism, only 3 traps for blacks and 14 for whites, but it is what it is, and I had to make do with it.
One of the black traps is where you shove a pawn down the throat of the white bishop, and if the bishop takes it, white loses he bishop.
A very coarse and simple to spot trap, so I was loath to try it, and yes, the first time I played it, the enemy refused the pawn.
HOWEVER, the second and third time the enemy took the pawn and lost a bishop. :D
This is the first game: https://lichess.org/qS2P2SWhfUZ9 The enemy limped on until move 55, and then surrendered.
In the second game https://lichess.org/fWeRG8WAU4ks the enemy limped on until move 51 and then croaked.
That will cure them from that London nonsense.Just don't cure them of dropping pieces. If they stopped that what would we do?
Bs"d
And here I had again the Tennison gambit Intercontinental Ballistic Missile variation in which the enemy has to part with his queen and only gets a horse and a bishop in return for it: https://lichess.org/GCW7wgVQ9YGC
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 5:59:42 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I had again the Tennison gambit Intercontinental Ballistic Missile variation in which the enemy has to part with his queen and only gets a horse and a bishop in return for it: https://lichess.org/GCW7wgVQ9YGCWhat fraction of your opponents resist the insidious lure of .. h6 or h3 in this sort of position? Do any?
William Hyde
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 5:59:42 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
And here I had again the Tennison gambit Intercontinental Ballistic Missile variation in which the enemy has to part with his queen and only gets a horse and a bishop in return for it: https://lichess.org/GCW7wgVQ9YGCWhat fraction of your opponents resist the insidious lure of .. h6 or h3 in this sort of position? Do any?
Bs"d
So in this game: https://lichess.org/Sx0k19qFvoML I opened as white with the Zuckertort, but I didn't get a Tennison gambit.
So I went for plan B, and that turned out to be the Koltanowski gambit, which has more than 20 traps in it.
It just doesn't happen so often, so therefore I prefer other traps.
But here I got a Koltonowski, and the result was satisfactory. It went totally according to the book, and on move 12 the enemy had to part with a bishop with only 2 pawns in return for it.
The enemy limped on to move 57, one move away from the mate, and only then he surrendered.
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 11:24:48 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game: https://lichess.org/Sx0k19qFvoML I opened as white with the Zuckertort, but I didn't get a Tennison gambit.
So I went for plan B, and that turned out to be the Koltanowski gambit, which has more than 20 traps in it.
It just doesn't happen so often, so therefore I prefer other traps.
But here I got a Koltonowski, and the result was satisfactory. It went totally according to the book, and on move 12 the enemy had to part with a bishop with only 2 pawns in return for it.
The enemy limped on to move 57, one move away from the mate, and only then he surrendered.The Max Lange was always one of my favourites in speed chess, for white or black. If white is not careful, black's strong centre and open g file
can whip up an attack very abruptly. If black is not careful, see above. If both sides avoid elementary errors complex endings can result.
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:48:46 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 11:24:48 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game: https://lichess.org/Sx0k19qFvoML I opened as white with the Zuckertort, but I didn't get a Tennison gambit.
So I went for plan B, and that turned out to be the Koltanowski gambit, which has more than 20 traps in it.
It just doesn't happen so often, so therefore I prefer other traps.
But here I got a Koltonowski, and the result was satisfactory. It went totally according to the book, and on move 12 the enemy had to part with a bishop with only 2 pawns in return for it.
Bs"dThe enemy limped on to move 57, one move away from the mate, and only then he surrendered.The Max Lange was always one of my favourites in speed chess, for white or black. If white is not careful, black's strong centre and open g file
can whip up an attack very abruptly. If black is not careful, see above. If both sides avoid elementary errors complex endings can result.
I don't like Long Max. Looked at it once, too complicated for me, and there is no chance that suddenly you trap the enemy and mate him or come away with a lot more material, and that is really what I prefer.
I go for traps. I want to go right away for the jugular.
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:33:38 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:48:46 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 11:24:48 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
So in this game: https://lichess.org/Sx0k19qFvoML I opened as white with the Zuckertort, but I didn't get a Tennison gambit.
So I went for plan B, and that turned out to be the Koltanowski gambit, which has more than 20 traps in it.
It just doesn't happen so often, so therefore I prefer other traps.
But here I got a Koltonowski, and the result was satisfactory. It went totally according to the book, and on move 12 the enemy had to part with a bishop with only 2 pawns in return for it.
Bs"dThe enemy limped on to move 57, one move away from the mate, and only then he surrendered.The Max Lange was always one of my favourites in speed chess, for white or black. If white is not careful, black's strong centre and open g file
can whip up an attack very abruptly. If black is not careful, see above. If both sides avoid elementary errors complex endings can result.
I don't like Long Max. Looked at it once, too complicated for me, and there is no chance that suddenly you trap the enemy and mate him or come away with a lot more material, and that is really what I prefer.Well, you just played it, and won by one of the standard traps in it.
But yes, in this line white has to work very hard to be mated in less than ten.
I go for traps. I want to go right away for the jugular.As long as people continue to lead with their jugular, you will be happy.
Bs"d
I think I'm finally getting a handle on the Traxler counter attack.
Here I attacked the opponent with a fried liver: https://lichess.org/9woWOs6cyLuF
He answered with the Traxler counter attack, and he resigned on move 27, being 14 points behind. :)
http://tinyurl.com/funny-game
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 2:42:53 AM UTC-4, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
I think I'm finally getting a handle on the Traxler counter attack.
Here I attacked the opponent with a fried liver: https://lichess.org/9woWOs6cyLuF
He answered with the Traxler counter attack, and he resigned on move 27, being 14 points behind. :)
second title, "II" same name]http://tinyurl.com/funny-game
Do you know the works by Albert Alberts on MAMS? [Man-Assisted-Machine-Schacke] which includes two lengthy examinations on The Traxler — including in passing Tal's famous game against 5,000 readers in Pravda. The title is How to Fool Fritz [+ a
Bs"d
In this Tennison gambit the enemy had to part with a bishop in the opening: https://lichess.org/nsvfg2HA8AgF
He limped on until move 35,
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this Tennison gambit the enemy had to part with a bishop in the opening: https://lichess.org/nsvfg2HA8AgF
He limped on until move 35,Actually he made quite a recovery after your pointless queen moves. But he never developed his kings bishop,
and had no idea how to react to your attack on the king, which was well done.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 2:29:04 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
In this Tennison gambit the enemy had to part with a bishop in the opening: https://lichess.org/nsvfg2HA8AgF
Bs"dHe limped on until move 35,Actually he made quite a recovery after your pointless queen moves. But he never developed his kings bishop,
and had no idea how to react to your attack on the king, which was well done.
My queen moves were not so pointless, because he was every time forced to react to them, so it was no waste of time.
What I cannot understand is why on move 29 I didn't take his bishop. It was ripe for the taking.pawn which I did, he goes to 5.1 for me, so it was a blunder not to take the bishop.
I looked at it with Stockfish, but he doesn't call it a blunder, but it probably is just one of my many blunders. Before taking the bishop Stockfish says the evaluation is 6.3 for me. After taking the bishop he goes to 10.5 for me. After taking the
Bs"d
Here something that looks like a Fried Liver
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 5:56:40 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
Bs"d
Here something that looks like a Fried LiverEverything else you have called the Fried Liver is not the Fried Liver.
This also not the FL, but is actually better. You have played Nc3 which makes black's Ke6, saving the knight, possible. His d6 is a hideous
blunder. One I might play myself.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:41:25 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,748 |