It is surprising white doesn't have a rating at least 300-400 points lower.
Although your play was good, his was nonsensical and he seemed to be on a quest to score the highest number of question marks in a single game.
Qf3? h3? Qc3? Bb5+? f3? etc. Lame
Also disappointed...the name of the thread sounded like things could have
been oh so much more interesting....Cursed double entendres.
I agree his play was awful (lucky for me). . . and apologize for the disappointment, but what do you expect from a quickie?
I thought the windmill was funny. I was thinking at the time I should have a quick and elegant way to win, but it was a fast game and I didn't have time to try and figure it all out... the windmill was the obvious ploy and I used it really to give me time to think.
I played this game in the same sitting - different opponent, same time control but not so quick (and my luck was holding out but my nerves were getting frazzled).
Also disappointed...the name of the thread sounded like things could have
been oh so much more interesting....Cursed double entendres.
#2
why chesscube and not on chess.com?
12...Qf2 looks forcing to me, but milking it with the extra windmill is fun
Yeah. It was hard to see quickly that even c2xN doesn't give an escape.
why chesscube and not on chess.com?
Because that's where I play.
Here's a game I played on Chesscube. I've never posted one of my games, but I found this one interesting enough to post, just because I too, play a lot at Chesscube and kind of wanted to repay batgirl for her entertaining games. It's not a speed game, simply because I can't think that fast. It's 15 0, and the defeated one was sadly "not me", who has suffered some painful losses
No quickies for trysts. That was a long game with some nice tactical shots.... in fact I was surprised you didn't go into the endgame with more advantage than you already had since your middlegame seemed superior. Thanks for posting it.
No quickies for trysts. That was a long game with some nice tactical shots.... in fact I was surprised you didn't go into the endgame with more advantage than you already had since your middlegame seemed superior. Thanks for posting it.
Thank you, batgirl!
in the first game why not mate in one on move twelve
in the first game why not mate in one on move twelve
Because I didn't see it.
Batgirl, in your second game why didn't you move 32.Rf1 ? It's not that I think what you did was wrong at all (your were about to mate either way), but this way you bring the rook into play earlier.
Batgirl, in your second game why didn't you move 32.Rf1 ? It's not that I think what you did was wrong at all (your were about to mate either way), but this way you bring the rook into play earlier.
These were both 5 min games. In the second game, I was very low on time by move 32 and, with a won game in my pocket, my main concern was to move quickly but not blunder. In such a position, I try to make the most immediate safe move. So I was probably thinking first of getting my Queen out of take, then lok for a mating net.
Batgirl, in your second game why didn't you move 32.Rf1 ? It's not that I think what you did was wrong at all (your were about to mate either way), but this way you bring the rook into play earlier.
These were both 5 min games. In the second game, I was very low on time by move 32 and, with a won game in my pocket, my main concern was to move quickly but not blunder. In such a position, I try to make the most immediate safe move. So I was probably thinking first of getting my Queen out of take, then lok for a mating net.
Ah ok. I was just wondering if you had seen something I hadn't.
Nope. I'm just a patzer.
5/0 game. My opponent, who was slightly higher rated, played a questionable opening and then wasted time making a weakening pawn move.