A flawed brilliancy

22nd June 2007, 01:47am

#1

by Pavrey
Mumbai India

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 359

QUOTE

22nd June 2007, 01:55am

#2

by erik
Mountain View, CA United States

Member Since: May 2007
Member Points: 10050

nice work!

QUOTE

22nd June 2007, 05:18am

#3

by TraglorfBob
Chicago, IL United States

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 114

Excellent job!

QUOTE

22nd June 2007, 08:33am

#4

by Don1
Fleetwood, PA United States

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 763

Brilliancy? I don't get it! It looks like White's winning all the way until 18 hxg4. Why did the game end? It wasn't mate. White still has some fight with the R's & N attacking the King. What am I missing?

QUOTE

22nd June 2007, 08:49am

#5

by Daemon_Panda
Coconut Grove , Fl United States

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 1043

i had a game with a similar curcumstance

i was losing badly when i realized that if i traded my pieces correctly i would have 2 rooks and he would have a rook and a knight. You have to see the endgame piece value

QUOTE

22nd June 2007, 09:36am

#6

by Daemon_Panda
Coconut Grove , Fl United States

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 1043

but from move 4 you had mate in 2

5. Bc5 6. Ng5 7. Bxf7#

QUOTE

22nd June 2007, 09:14pm

#7

by Pavrey
Mumbai India

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 359

After 5 Bc5 black simply plays 5...Bg7 and 6...O-O

QUOTE

22nd June 2007, 09:16pm

#8

by Pavrey
Mumbai India

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 359

Don1, that is why it is called a 'flawed' brilliancy'. Because White was winning, but Black turned the tables after a weak white move, 23. Kg1. Instead white would win with 23. Rf5

QUOTE

24th June 2007, 12:04pm

#9

by Don1
Fleetwood, PA United States

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 763

sorry I thought you meant you were playing the brilliacy!

QUOTE

25th June 2007, 04:41am

#10

by Pavrey
Mumbai India

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 359

I wish I was, but chess is such a game that lies do not lie on the board!

QUOTE

28th June 2007, 04:59pm

#11

by ketchuplover
West Bend,WI United States

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 462

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

QUOTE

29th June 2007, 07:31am

#12

by Pavrey
Mumbai India

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 359

I agree ketchuplover, but there is also the saying that good players are lucky

QUOTE

30th June 2007, 09:07pm

#13

by vernon
Coweta,OK United States

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 203

yeah good game but it could have been mate it was mate in two though but i agree good players r lucky good game

QUOTE

22nd July 2007, 09:06am

#14

by chessiq
Malawi

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 654

I know, I am late! I liked your game. It was fun. Talking about good players being lucky... I wonder where I would be without "LUCK!"

QUOTE

22nd July 2007, 09:48pm

#15

by Pavrey
Mumbai India

Member Since: Jun 2007
Member Points: 359

chessiq - thanks for the comments - I love to win chess games and am very involved when I am playing - thought my play was accurate - but later on analysis showed that I was lucky - we all need luck to progress in life too, I guess!

QUOTE

5th August 2007, 10:32pm

#16