The shortest game in history - Guiness record

That had fools mate then white escaped it

I know

Many people posted that already

if he took the knight then the back queen can checkmate

I NOW HAVE SEVERAL BOOKS BY CHERNEV. ONE HARD COPY OTHER SOFT.

IN THOSE YEARS THERE WEREN'T ANY COMPUTERS. 

In my hand I have a copy of "1000 short games of Chess" by IRVING CHERNEV

Published in 1955 Simon & Schuster New York, N. Y.

The very first game is listed as shown . . .

= = = = 

This is the short game ever played between MASTERS in tournament competition. 

It ends in a knockout in four moves . . .

Paris, 1924

GIBAUD. WHITE. LAZARD. BLACK

1 P-Q4. KT-KB3

2. KT-Q2. P-K4

3 Px P. KT-KT5

4. P-KR3 KT-K6

Instead of retreating the Knight hurls himself into the enemy camp with an attack on the Queen. 

White resigns , as capturing the Knight would be answered by 5 . . . Q-R5ch, forcing mate.

= = = = 

Chernev wrote on March 13, 1954 when he wrote the book . . .

 "It is my hope that they will give you the pleasure they have given me."

 I purchased this book from Thrifty books on line . . .

Interesting

The examples of players forfeiting before the game even started seems like those wouldn't be good examples because no game was ever played. Somebody probably already said this, but wouldn't the shortest game between two grandmasters be the one between Carlsen and Neimann? Carlsen resigned after making just one move.

@IfPatriotGames is correct

Pretty sure it's the fools mate.

Even if it doesn't happen to players with high elo, It can still happen, which means this is the shortest checkmate.

Ahh brilliant knight move

Took me a second to see

The title of the topic is a bit misleading. In the OPs first comment he talks about the shortest game between two grandmasters, not the shortest checkmate possible. A game can be played, and won, even if no checkmate is given. A good follow up question might be the shortest game between two grandmasters that ended in checkmate.

cant the queen get white out of check tho?

Catlsen’s act of protest also shouldńt be considered as a real game.

What defines a real game? I think all of the rules of chess were followed. I think the example of Fischer forfeiting probably should not be considered a real game because no moves were even made. No game was actually played.

The OPs example was a game where one side resigned. Carlsen resigned in even fewer moves. People resign games for all sorts of reasons. Usually because they think they are going to lose, but as far as I know there is no weight given to the reasons, only the outcome. There have even been games between grandmasters where the WINNING side resigned. Should that be considered a real game because of the reason?

It could probably be said that EVERY resignation, regardless of reason, is an act of protest.

once i fools mated my opponent

What defines a real game? When both players want to play a game. Carlsen definitely didn’t want to play Niemann but not not starting the game would have led to some punishment, that is why Carlsen made first move and then resigned. Comparing that to situation when game has played and one player resigned because he didn’t see the winning move is absurd.

Where is that definition stated? Is it in the rules of chess? As far as I can tell a "real game" is any game that starts by both players moving. After that, anything can happen.

Most people resign because they think they are going to lose. If I recall Carlsen was concerned that Neimann had won some games that Carlsen thought should have ended differently. In a way, every resignation is an act of protest. For all we know Carlsen, for his own reasons, thought maybe Neimann was going to win.

If we want to define a "real game" as one where both players want to play a game then resigning would be against the rules, as resigning is quite the opposite of wanting to play. Every time someone resigns they don't want to play anymore. Under the current rules of chess that would severely limit the number of "real games". I suppose an agreed upon draw would also not be a real game because BOTH players don't want to play anymore.

Would you say a game that ends in resignation or agreed upon draw is not a real game?

he resigned because of this:

and if he didn't attack the knight, he would lose the queen.