Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

4/19/2012 - Sucker Punch


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #181

    FullFledgedFighter

    lph wrote:

    ROFLMAO

    IKR LAWLAWLWLAWLALALAWROFLMEOW.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #182

    Christopher_D

    pretty easy but a nice practice

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #183

    KittyAX

    nice and easy

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #184

    GMchessmaster

    Smile

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #185

    ratedcharisma

    love ur title

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #186

    zanati

    Laughing

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #187

    tanmay_chakrabarti

    good one indeed.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #188

    mason286

    har har har

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #189

    stephen_33

    Quite good puzzle made better by an interesting thread. I had trouble finding the first move for a little while & considered Qxc6 but then saw the threat from d4 & realised it was no good: So why some people propose it as a valid alternative is beyond me - the given solution is a forced mate in 4. I don't see how you can improve on that unless you can find one in 3 !

    'slowhare', I think you found yourself having the wrong argument & with the wrong opponent on this one - 'ndskykng' always defends his corner well & that's no bad thing.

    And by the way, I think that in your longer solution (post #151) you may have missed a quicker mate at move 16:  Try Rxa7#.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #190

    carlosmadura

    good

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #191

    Dramaticpiece

    easy. but i never thought about back rank like that before!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #192

    chessica

    controvercial!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #193

    ndskykng

    stephen_33 wrote:

    'slowhare', I think you found yourself having the wrong argument & with the wrong opponent on this one - 'ndskykng' always defends his corner well & that's no bad thing.

    And by the way, I think that in your longer solution (post #151) you may have missed a quicker mate at move 16:  Try Rxa7#.

    Appreciate that Stephen.  That's all I was trying to get across to slow... that his alternative wasn't a move that works also, not like a mate-in-4.  It never should have escalated like that.

    Good eye on move 16.  I never calculated that far cause I saw the pressure building on that back rank by queen+rook, I knew I was losing a rook anyway and felt I shouldn't waste an escape move and should take a pawn down with me.  But yeah, if it got there, then 16. Rxa7# (or 16. Qxa7#) would have worked.  Nice catch.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #194

    mathteacher

    Another queen sac for da chess daddy mac. :)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #195

    wyh2013

    it was okay

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #196

    vinupradeep2580

    Lose to Win . A prefect game!!!!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #197

    slowhare

    stephen_33 wrote:

    Quite good puzzle made better by an interesting thread. I had trouble finding the first move for a little while & considered Qxc6 but then saw the threat from d4 & realised it was no good: So why some people propose it as a valid alternative is beyond me - the given solution is a forced mate in 4. I don't see how you can improve on that unless you can find one in 3 !

    'slowhare', I think you found yourself having the wrong argument & with the wrong opponent on this one - 'ndskykng' always defends his corner well & that's no bad thing.

    And by the way, I think that in your longer solution (post #151) you may have missed a quicker mate at move 16:  Try Rxa7#.

    I have no problem with skyking defending his corner, although he misread my intention and comes off condescending as usual. I solved the puzzle right off, but saw another interesting possibility when analyizing it and pointed it out on page one. Never did I say it was a better solution and even showed the queens only way out. Why not make a play like that in a game when your winning chance is assured and the possibility that your opponent will not see their only way of survival or resign. Skyking likes the banter and I just keep playing his tune for my own fun.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #198

    ndskykng

    slowhare wrote:
    Why not make a play like that in a game when your winning chance is assured and the possibility that your opponent will not see their only way of survival or resign.

    Why not make a play like that (1. Qe6+) in a game when your winning chance (mate-in-4) is assured and the possibility that your opponent will not see their only way of survival (cause it doesn't exist) or resign (because mate is coming in four).

    So much better when you make my point for me.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #199

    rick1234573

    not as bad as yesterday

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #200

    slowhare

    ndskykng wrote:
    slowhare wrote:
    Why not make a play like that in a game when your winning chance is assured and the possibility that your opponent will not see their only way of survival or resign.

     

    So much better when you make my point for me.

    Right on key - I love it!

    Sure wish we could play a game.


Back to Top

Post your reply: