Where's allergenicman when you need him??
A Little Windmill
Sort:
You constantly invent new stuff.Until i know, in chess theory exists Mill (a Lasker game) but first time i hear about Windmill.
I've heard the term "Windmill" used before. Nice finish, using the repeating pattern to clear the file for your Rook to sweep down and mate. I also can't see a lot wrong with 20. g7, when Black's cornered Rook buys the farm next move (and he still has an exposed King facing down all of your heavy pieces).
Here is the the most popular Windmill - Torre -Lasker .
In Batgirl' game the movement is more similar to Windmill than in the game Tore - Lasker .
That is excellent.
Nothing invented... a windmill is a well-known tactic. Maybe in other places it's known by other names.
I'd written a blog article on windmills in Jan. 2008 called Tilting at Windmills.
LisaV wrote:
Windmills are too fun!
More importantly, they're rare.
LisaV wrote:
I've had two, two! in the last 6 months, and now I'm thinking I'll never play one for another ten years. lol
Well, most people never get even one. I really liked yours.
nice game !!
Thanks, Claudio.
That was fun batgirl. Thanks for posting it.
Whaleeyeman wrote:
Hello my dear. Not to be a nitpicker but I have to ask a few things:
Meaning you are indeed going to nitpick. Don't apologize preemptively; it lessens any impact you might wish to have, which isn't going to be much as it stands. Also, don't call someone "my dear" that you don't know personally; it's condescending. Maybe that's your point?
I. How do we know this game really exists?
How does this matter? Other than you're trying to politely call BG a liar?
It is not in the chess.com database, so where did you play this game?
It probably is. See below.
Would you please be a bit more forthcoming with details so we can verify that this game actually was a bona fide competition between two men and not in a phantasy realm?
Why does it have to be two men? Why not just type "people"? You absolutely know BG is a woman. Also, it is most often spelled "fantasy" unless you are referring to the subconscious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_(psychology). I also have to ask if you really confirm the veracity of every game you read through both on the 'net and in real life. That seems like a lot of time spent for very little in return. Or maybe you're just doing this so others might perceive you as someone of importance? I assure you, no one feels this way.
A. For instance, who exactly is "not me," and
"Not Me" is her opponent that she kindly doesn't name without their permission.
B. where and when was this game played?
You seem really fixated on the legitimacy of this game. I have news for you: if we assume this game was played on the 'net, much like most of yours and mine, it carries almost no weight. It's a game. Played on the 'net. It means NOTHING. Just like yours and mine. It's not like BG is claiming she won the Masters of the Universe Real Life Blitz tourney; she's just showing off a infrequent tactictical motif she's proud of.
C. I myself have transcribed into .pgn format a few games I played "OTB" at work, having had a fellow employee keep notation in faster games, but only to elicit advice and help, not to boast about my "ossum winz" where I "PWNED" someone that may or may not exist.
BG doesn't purposely misspell or use crappy netspeak. Don't try and lay that on her. Again, the game most likely does exist. See above. You like to receive advice, BG likes to show off. That's her prerogative. If you don't find value, you are free to skip her posts in the future.
II. Can you, before you subject the chess.com community to further boasting, please annotate the games you post? It only takes a few minutes and would comport further with the site guidelines for posting .pgn games.
You and the rest of the c.com community that you have appointed yourself protector of are not being subjected to anything. You chose to read this post, and I can assume by your snotty tone, other posts of BG's. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. There are much more useless posts being composed every minute of the day. It's not like the minimal memory this takes up on the server are worth their "weight" ingold. I'll repeat, if you don't find value in someone's posts, don't read them. Neither BG or anyone else here asked for editing notes. Your post carries less value than the one you're casting dispersion on and/or trying to fix.
Thank you.
This presupposes compliance. I suggest you hold your breath until such time you see it.
JPF
I'm well aware that BG is more than capable of defending herself. I also know from experience that she either can't be bothered with the likes of you or spends less effort than I just did. She's probably got the right idea. Even though I do it less and less as I age, I tend to feel the need to call out braying jackasses such as yourself on their backhandedly self-agrandizing silly bs. BG is a little more evolved than me...or you.
Somewhere a biologist is crying over your use of the word "evolved", but yeah... BG's only presented this as a five-minute offhand encounter with an unusual tactical theme (I'm not sure I've windmilled anyone in forty years of chess, and I've gone the same length of time knowing the Philidor mate and never getting to use it). Let's not over-analyse either the game or the poster's motives. 
I am not an expert in chess and the less in English,and can not understand what is all that fuss about.What really maters is this position:
And not so important how the game came to it ( especially in a 5 min. blitz) I think it is a good example for Mill and even more good for Windmill . And can be instructive for plenty of players .
I have the unhappy ability always to get in big complications. So , for a few months i tried to sit quietly on my backside parts and not to mess myself in anything.
But here i finally couldn't help, and taking the idea from Batgirl's game tryed to complicate the things :
White must win
Thanks Grobzilla for your words, though there's really nothing to defend.
For the record, there are no chess.com policies or guideline concerning posting .pgns, just as there are no rational reasons for annotating 5 minute games (though I did, in fact, give some annotations but only because I noticed a better line I had missed while revewing the game).
All games I post are played online at some site other than chess.com. I used to list the sites, but since then, I've reconsidered the practice since it seems inappropriate to even inadverently advertise another playing site.
One can't know the game is real other than the common sense realization that the ability to invent an interesting game would far exceed any skill I possess and just the attempt would devour what little time I have to devote to chess. Whether some stranger can verify them doesn't interest me in the least.
Posting games isn't meant to be boastful - in fact, I even show lines in many games where I might have erred throughout the games or where my opponent might have succeeded (that's also called annotation) - but rather meant to entertain. I find some maneuvers such as windmills, smothered mates, queen sacs, clever tactics, all particularly beautiful whether played by myself, my opponent or someone else, and, since I like looking at certain kinds of games, it's my feeling that others might also.
Sherlock_Holmes,
White is definitely winning. The windmill doesn't seem forced, which makes the resulting moves pretty hard to determine.
The continuum below looks the easiest for White, if Black cooperates:
But Black can play differently (and lose differently - more brutally, less aesthetically) and avoid the windmill (Ithink):
Thanks for pointing me the second solution - i will have to think how to make it impossible. The solution i had in mind is :
The move 4.Qf6 is not with check and i think it makes the solution more difficult.
We both missed some chances in this 5/0 game, but, at the end, my opponent allowed me a little Quixotic fun . . .