Looking at only a few moves of the game shows that it was a joke, so what's the point?
My opponent got so lucky!
Sort:
Reepicheep14님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
Reepicheep14님이 썼습니다:
YummyBrain wrote:
I laughed for a good five minutes reading the analysis. I think touch-downs are underrated!
Finally someone gets it. Yes, hardly anyone really understands the value of touchdowns.
I do, but only if they're in the endgame or by pawns.
Then you have a lot to learn.
Or also here:
There was a bishop touchdown in the previous post. Now a good ending of the game.
ChessBoy513님이 썼습니다:
I won the grand war!
again.
I actually won the war!!
Hello?
Ghost_1
How do I get to Pushwood?
Aug 24, 2019
0
#132
Reepicheep14 wrote:
That's because chess.com forgot to factor a touchdown into their system. That's really quite a serious bug.
Repi, if u think this is a bug, why don't you reprt the bug?
Maybe he got lucky as he played you?
Aug 24, 2019
0
#137
Ding, ding, ding! Give that man a kewpie dol, for hitting the bullseye..
Aug 25, 2019
0
#138
You never can mate with only king and knight vs opponent king. PC analyzer say true (insufficient material).
I think Reepicheep14 is just joking around. Still I feel compelled to add this "but the site said it was a draw from insufficient material" because it is.
I laughed for a good five minutes reading the analysis. I think touch-downs are underrated!
Finally someone gets it. Yes, hardly anyone really understands the value of touchdowns.
I do, but only if they're in the endgame or by pawns.
Then you have a lot to learn.