A great game with a fab ending (smothered mate).

Sort:
chessman_calum

Here is one of my greatest games with a great middlegame and a great ending :-)... all comments welcome.

Kacparov

nice

brfc

This is asnother game with smothered mate LD

 

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=24161932

viveksn

good game callum ...

Sacha_T

not bad calum hehe you're improving :)

chessman_calum
[COMMENT DELETED]
chessman_calum

my awesome queen sacrafice didnt work ;)

chessman_calum

I have played legals mate with a kings gambit variation. I shall find it.

chessman_calum

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=25517486

have fun.

And thank you gambitking for spotting the OBVIOUS google look up lol. It really isnt hard bojan

Kacparov

lol you're 3rd move is bad already :P

Eebster
Kacparov wrote:

lol you're 3rd move is bad already :P


But Kasparov, it regains the pawn! Isn't that what the Queen's Gambit is all about?

Mabe u just dont reallly no who is he

chessman_calum

offer you as a friend? your a bit too rude.. sorry.. I challenge you to a game on turnbased though... good luck.

Azukikuru
bojan_koricanac wrote:

Lol, wat a fool, u dont really know who am i, and my age, for ur info. i am only 15, a teen who plays twice better than u!!! there is monly few people who can acctualy defeat me here.

You're familiar with the concept of rating, right? For instance, you can see CM Kacparov's rating by hovering your mouse over his name, just like we can all see yours the same way. In general, the bigger the number, the better the player - but I don't think you can say that a rating of, say, about 2250 makes the player literally "50% better" than a player with a rating of, say, about 1500...

chessman_calum

and they have all been around 1000 rated. congratulations. care to take someone stronger on?

chessman_calum

and it's Calum* not cakum. spell it right, its in my username.

Eebster

There is only one way to settle this . . .

chessman_calum

fighttttt ;) (in the words of harry hill)

Azukikuru

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask the rest of you (I don't want to hear the defendant's excuses): is live chess really so different that a certain player, while rated in the 1500's after three games of turn-based and also rated in the 1500's in live chess after over 100 games, could hope to get a higher rating in turn-based chess? I mean, if live chess is "harder", it's harder for everybody, right?

In short, what's the correlation between turn-based and live ratings? If this has been discussed somewhere else, I'd be happy with just a link.

Eebster
Azukikuru wrote:

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask the rest of you (I don't want to hear the defendant's excuses): is live chess really so different that a certain player, while rated in the 1500's after three games of turn-based and also rated in the 1500's in live chess after over 100 games, could hope to get a higher rating in turn-based chess? I mean, if live chess is "harder", it's harder for everybody, right?

In short, what's the correlation between turn-based and live ratings? If this has been discussed somewhere else, I'd be happy with just a link.


In reality, the online chess ratings are probably around 100 points higher than the live chess ratings for the average player at most scales. Based on some of the Game Showcase threads, the online chess ratings are about 500 points higher. ;)

Eebster
Gambitking wrote:

Then Eebster, why is my turn-based rating significantly higher?

Because I play almost all gambits?

HAHAHAHA! Just try and answer that one, ROFL ROFL!


Your online rating is about 200 points higher than your live rating. I suggested it would tend to be about 100 points higher. I wasn't far off.