the chess analysis is broken it says that its -40 for black in this position even though it's clearly a draw.
as white you can draw stockfish with your eyes closed.
Yeah. Computers can't process blockades.
the chess analysis is broken it says that its -40 for black in this position even though it's clearly a draw.
as white you can draw stockfish with your eyes closed.
Yeah. Computers can't process blockades.
and look at this screenshot by my brother when he computer analysed this position
really weird
the chess analysis is broken it says that its -40 for black in this position even though it's clearly a draw.
as white you can draw stockfish with your eyes closed.
Yeah. Computers can't process blockades.
oh but if it were something like this the computer would say its a draw because of perpetual check?
and you know those challenges where you have to checkmate with a certain piece, like the g1 or g8 knight? imagine what the analysis would come up with then...
Here is one I made myself against the Blackburne-Shilling gambit called the flintlock trap:
The move black played is a blunder because:
White is threatening mate and the bishop, so black will lose one. Another line if black falls for the trap (the best response):
And in that position white is completely winning
Here is one I made myself against the Blackburne-Shilling gambit called the flintlock trap:
The move black played is a blunder because:
White is threatening mate and the bishop, so black will lose one. Another line if black falls for the trap (the best response):
And in that position white is completely winning
So the purpose of b4 is to create an untouchable pawn that allows for Bb2? otherwise if black just ignores it I don't see a point, you're giving away a tempo...
Here is one I made myself against the Blackburne-Shilling gambit called the flintlock trap:
The move black played is a blunder because:
White is threatening mate and the bishop, so black will lose one. Another line if black falls for the trap (the best response):
And in that position white is completely winning
So the purpose of b4 is to create an untouchable pawn that allows for Bb2? otherwise if black just ignores it I don't see a point, you're giving away a tempo...
Yes. If your opponent doesn't take the pawn, then you can develop your bishop to b2, but in short time controls everyone I've encountered has taken the pawn.
the so called "Meitner-Mieses" gambit. although i dont really think it's a gambit, rather a forced win for white
And there's so many threats for black to keep track of. qxg7 is one, nxc7+, and nh3 wins the queen like this
Here is one I made myself against the Blackburne-Shilling gambit called the flintlock trap:
The move black played is a blunder because:
White is threatening mate and the bishop, so black will lose one. Another line if black falls for the trap (the best response):
And in that position white is completely winning
the thing about a gambit is the piece that has been gambited usually has to make a threat itself or at least attack something. Even bad ones, like the Düras gambit attack e4. Gambits are supposed to be aggresive.
the so called "Meitner-Mieses" gambit. although i dont really think it's a gambit, rather a forced win for white
And there's so many threats for black to keep track of. qxg7 is one, nxc7+, and nh3 wins the queen like this
um... that one's already been posted.
not really a trap but....
there are lots of openings where the fork trick may occur. For instance, the Modern defense, or Classical Pirc.
although this fork trick is inaccurate.
the so called "Meitner-Mieses" gambit. although i dont really think it's a gambit, rather a forced win for white
And there's so many threats for black to keep track of. qxg7 is one, nxc7+, and nh3 wins the queen like this
um... that one's already been posted.
my bad then I didnt feel like reading 22 pages of this lmao
Here is one I made myself against the Blackburne-Shilling gambit called the flintlock trap:
The move black played is a blunder because:
White is threatening mate and the bishop, so black will lose one. Another line if black falls for the trap (the best response):
And in that position white is completely winning
the thing about a gambit is the piece that has been gambited usually has to make a threat itself or at least attack something. Even bad ones, like the Düras gambit attack e4. Gambits are supposed to be aggresive.
Its a trap not a gambit
Here is one I made myself against the Blackburne-Shilling gambit called the flintlock trap:
The move black played is a blunder because:
White is threatening mate and the bishop, so black will lose one. Another line if black falls for the trap (the best response):
And in that position white is completely winning
the thing about a gambit is the piece that has been gambited usually has to make a threat itself or at least attack something. Even bad ones, like the Düras gambit attack e4. Gambits are supposed to be aggresive.
Its a trap not a gambit
traps are still agrressive
the chess analysis is broken it says that its -40 for black in this position even though it's clearly a draw.
as white you can draw stockfish with your eyes closed.