Post your best miniatures here

A nice refutation of some unsound opening play by Black:

This opponent made it particularly easy for me to demonstrate why his ...Na5 isn't the best of moves in the outset of a Ruy Lopez...

Another deep fried liver attack.  This game was stuffed and cooked Southern style.

Few "Birds"

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And this one is very interesting, first time to play this line with Knight sac:

e4_guy,

You really don't have to show us ALL of your games in which your opponent blundered. Just show us your best ones.

Thanks!

There is no miniature game without blunders, I hope You understand that ?

Or a mouse slip. On my iPad, I have lost many games playing Qd7+ when I was trying to play Qxd8+.

That is what I thought as well at first but then I realized that the pawn on c2 is pinned after the bishop moves away.

e4 guy in your game against grenobles I don't get how e6 is winning.

It's a pawn for a piece... Black pretty much needs to take with the Queen or the Knight is en prise too and then White can safely grab the Bishop. Black doesn't seem to have anything for the material. Work to be done I guess but the position seems resignable. 

Sorry I messed up I saw Qd6, g3,Bxb2 my bad didn't see exf7

@e4 guy,

“There is no miniature game without blunders, I hope You understand that ?"

I don't know if that is true.

But I don't see how winning a game because your opponent missed a mate in one qualifies as a "best" game.

Miniatures can also be brilliancies. Don't you have any of those to showcase?

Of course that there can't be short game without blunder from losing side. 
Anything else would be illogical.

As for "brilliant" games, of course there is many but not the short ones. We're both  on skill level where we rely on our opponent's mistakes or blunders more than on our "brilliance". Especially if we talk about live games (bullet or blitz).

Maybe this game could qualify as "brilliant" even though my opponent blundered, but it was not so obvious:

@e4

"Of course that there can't be short game without blunder from losing side. 

Anything else would be illogical."

You keep saying this, yet you still have not proven it. It is illogical to keep repeating something to prove that something is true.

There are other ways of losing a miniature. One can, of course, still make blunders. Or an accumulation of small errors. Or an opponent can make a TN that overturns theory or at least  challenges the opponent with a new move. Or one can find himself in a zugzwang without seeming making any errors. Or one can simply be outplayed, again with no blunders being made on either side. And finally,one can also simply run out of time or abandon the game.

I hesitate to offer one of my games as an example of a brilliancy without any blunders being made. But here it is anyway ;)

Escalante-Jewell

corres.

USCF, 1997/8 (B88)
Winner of the Hames Beauty Prize, 1999
["The Check is in the Mail", Chess Life, May 1999 and Mar. 2000]
This game was originally published in the May 1999 issue of Chess Life.
After it won the Hames Beauty Prize for best correspondence game
played by a non-master, it was republished.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Be7 8.Be3 O-O 9.f4 a6 10.Qf3 Qc7 11.g4! Nxd4 12.Bxd4 b5 13.g5 Nd7 14.g6 hxg6 15.h4 Nf6 16.h5 Nxh5 17.Rxh5! (White has sacrificed the exchange and a pawn. But he now has an almost a won game. Black seems to be oblivious to the threats on his King-side.) 17...gxh5 18.Qxh5 f6 19.O-O-O b4 20.Nd5 Qb7 21.Qg6 Bd8 22.Rh1 a5 23.f5 a4 24.fxe6 1-0

4 mistakes and 3 blunders by Your opponent were made in that game, according to analysis.

Which, of course, proves me right times 3 .

And . . . 14.g6 was unsound.