Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 14 Jul '09 21:53
    Would you consider it to be sportsmanlike to lull somebody in to a false sense of security through coming out with things like "Oh I think you've got me here mate" etc when you can see that you've got a crushing tactic waiting to be played? Obviously I'm only referring to casual games (ICC, messing about over the board) and not tournament games.
  2. 14 Jul '09 21:59 / 1 edit
    Such comments tend to add loads of fun, not?
  3. 14 Jul '09 22:01
    On the Internet it's wiser to keep such comments out though
  4. 14 Jul '09 23:32
    Hehe ... It's a fair tactic, but best not to be overused at risk of becoming a jerk.

    A little story, not so much interesting as it is long ...

    On my first trip to the local chess club, I was playing another student - both of us weak players, but him having more familiarity with the club - when I noticed a back rank mate lined up if I could just distract his Queen from the mating square.

    I acted the fool and played the ostensible blunder that would distract his Queen ... and the guy tried to give me the move back! Of course, I waved him off: No no, I moved it. It's only fair.

    He was a good sport about the subsequent mate and one of the onlookers even had a good laugh.

    One of my worst games and one of the most memorable!
  5. Standard member Nowakowski
    10. O-O
    16 Jul '09 23:54
    You should conduct the game.
    Not control it.


    If your playing an opponent who takes the game seriously, such
    comments have no place.

    -GIN
  6. Subscriber thaughbaer
    Duckfinder General
    17 Jul '09 22:04
    When I was a nipper... playing a league OTB game... it was all getting a bit busy at my bottom left... and I played a move which lined up my queen and bishop for mate top right,,, but then shifted my body and concentration hard to the bottom left... opponent missed the mate... is that unethical ?
  7. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    17 Jul '09 23:18
    Originally posted by thaughbaer
    When I was a nipper... playing a league OTB game... it was all getting a bit busy at my bottom left... and I played a move which lined up my queen and bishop for mate top right,,, but then shifted my body and concentration hard to the bottom left... opponent missed the mate... is that unethical ?
    Of course not. A player who looks at only half the board, or fails to at least scan the opponent's possible replies before moving, deserves the losses they get.
  8. Standard member Diet Coke
    Forum Vampire
    18 Jul '09 00:08
    What if you think you've made an error proceed to stare in horror at the square you think your opponents going to make the move you think is winning, the opponent then does this.

    Only you didn't make an error and the move you feared is actually winning for you.

    It's happened to me. I thought this move trapped my queen when it just left one of my opponents pieces en prise.
  9. Subscriber thaughbaer
    Duckfinder General
    18 Jul '09 07:58
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Of course not. A player who looks at only half the board, or fails to at least scan the opponent's possible replies before moving, deserves the losses they get.
    Ah.. so physical misdirection is fine.. just not verbal. What about a kick under the table ?
  10. 18 Jul '09 08:59
    Originally posted by thaughbaer
    Ah.. so physical misdirection is fine.. just not verbal. What about a kick under the table ?
    LOL!! like Karpov and Korchnoi hey?
  11. Standard member Nowakowski
    10. O-O
    18 Jul '09 16:59
    Subtleties are just that. Subtleties.

    Like tapping a pawn to speed the rhythm of your opponents thought.

    TAP........TAP.......TAP......TAP.....TAP...TAP...TAP...TAP..TAP.TAP.TAP
  12. 18 Jul '09 17:01
    Originally posted by thaughbaer
    When I was a nipper... playing a league OTB game... it was all getting a bit busy at my bottom left... and I played a move which lined up my queen and bishop for mate top right,,, but then shifted my body and concentration hard to the bottom left... opponent missed the mate... is that unethical ?
    Well, it would have been silly to aim all your attention to h7.
  13. Standard member Ichibanov
    King of slow
    18 Jul '09 18:15 / 2 edits
    I had a game way back when I first started clan play that I always felt was won mostly due to misdirection. Here's the position:



    I had blundered in the opening, dropping a knight, and so was playing pretty desperately to capitalize on the small initiative my 'sac' had given me.

    I looked at 1. Qe1+ because it threatens to win the N at g6, but 1. ... Ne4 is an obvious and strong reply, establishing the N in the center and ending my initiative. I'd still win the h4 pawn, but that would simply leave me down a piece with no real chances.

    Then I noticed something funny. 1. Re1+ looked useless at first because it also allows the apparently strong response of 1. ... Ne4 without even winning the h4 pawn.

    But looking further, I saw the nasty reply 2. Rxe4+ dxe4 3. Qe5+, winning the rook and thus putting me back in the game.

    Reasoning that my opponent would probably see Ne4 as a strong response to any check along the e file, I took a chance with Re1+. Qe1+ was the stronger move, but Re1+ was the sneakier. And it worked! My opponent played Ne4, allowing me to equalize material and I went on to win the game.

    I never really discussed this with my opponent, but I'm quite sure he fell for the misdirection of using the Qe1+ 'analysis' when responding to Re1+.
  14. Standard member sbacat
    Eddie's Dad
    18 Jul '09 18:55
    I recall the game like it was just yesterday. It was two days after my seventieth birthday in a small, out-of-the-way absinthe cafe just north of Djibouti. My opponent's men had rapidly set up the ivory and malachite board on a butcherblock table near the back where I could barely make out the pieces in the flickering torchlight. The bartender, a surly man of Dutch descent, refused to serve us liquor because my opponent's man-at-arms insisted on wearing a rather large and apparently fresh shrunken head, dangling from his vest pocket. I could not determine due to darkness and distance whether the ugly thing was real or rubber but I got the unnerving feeling that it was studying me, especially my left hand for some reason. The nature of the man's taste in fashion accessories was the least of my concern as the remainder of his retinue loudly lugged in a massive, leather-bound steamer trunk, wrestled it open, and with small silver shovels began scattering generous quantities of Deathstalker scorpions around the table where we sat. I shot a puzzled look at my opponent who glared back at me through his silver-rimmed monocle. "To encourage focus," he said, his oversized left incisor glinting softly in the torchlight. "On ze game."

    As I'm particularly allergic to the venom of the little buggers, I sat even more upright in the chair, reached toward my E pawn but at the last instant, closed my fingertips around my D pawn. I caught my opponent's eye for just an instant before I roughly flicked my D pawn two squares forward. My hand withdrew and fell into my lap like a King cobra having delivered the fatal strike. "Mate in thirty-seven, Mister Rococo," I said and ever-so-gently tapped the clock. I smiled at him victoriously even though something with eight legs had just mounted my right sandal...
  15. 19 Jul '09 12:34
    it is unsportsmanly , winds me up that sort of thing

    however ... 'despondant waif' on uchess ... is hilarious sometimes ..
    i forgive him