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

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member blunderdog
    R.I.P. mikelom
    08 Jan '15 10:23
    I'm playing this guy who is destroying me, angnmal, and just noticed he has won 34 straight games after losing his first game to a guy rated 834. His last move in that first game was moving his queen to a square where it could be taken. Just seems a little odd to me...

    [Event "Open invite"]
    [Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
    [Date "2014.08.28"]
    [EndDate "2014.09.02"]
    [Round "?"]
    [White "Angnmal"]
    [Black "boabster"]
    [WhiteRating "1810"]
    [BlackRating "834"]
    [WhiteElo "1810"]
    [BlackElo "834"]
    [Result "0-1"]
    [GameId "10785996"]

    1. e4 e5 2. Ng1f3 Nb8c6 3. c3 Ng8f6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 Nf6h5 6. Nf3xd4 Nc6xe5 7. Qd1xh5 Ne5c6 8. Nd4xc6 bxc6 9. Bc1e3 Ra8b8 10. Qh5e5 Bf8e7 11. Qe5xg7 Rh8f8 12. Be3h6 Rb8xb2 13. Qg7h8 0-1
  2. 08 Jan '15 10:41 / 2 edits
    He certainly wasn't cheating in this game: Game 10793509, where he was lucky to beat someone rated <1100.
  3. Standard member blunderdog
    R.I.P. mikelom
    08 Jan '15 10:52
    Originally posted by Data Fly
    He certainly wasn't cheating in this game: Game 10793509, where he was lucky to beat someone rated <1100.
    ...didn't look lucky to me.
  4. 08 Jan '15 14:18 / 1 edit
    Datafly is right (take a note of this thread - it's a first.).
    White was doing very well then let it all go to pot.

    White does seem to know the term 'zwischenzug'
    (mind you, I did not know how to spell it till I goog'd it) ๐Ÿ™‚

    He had quite a few chances to play tempo gaining, position improving
    in-between-moves. Here is a trappy one. White to play.



    Instead of taking the Knight, which is OK. Rxa7 sets a beautiful trap.

    1.Rxa7 Nb6 (plausible, saves the Knight stops Ra8+) but...


    2.Bc3 traps the Queen.
  5. Standard member blunderdog
    R.I.P. mikelom
    08 Jan '15 18:36 / 1 edit
    okay you two are right. Losing his first game to an 800 in 13 moves by moving his queen to a square where it's a free piece with no compensation whatsoever, then reeling off 34 straight wins is not odd at all - in fact it's normal. You two point to that one game and say nothing about the first game, which is the one I pointed out. besides, I didn't say he was cheating, I said it was "odd".
  6. Subscriber Ragwort
    Ex Duris Gloria
    08 Jan '15 19:24
    Originally posted by blunderdog
    okay you two are right. Losing his first game to an 800 in 13 moves by moving his queen to a square where it's a free piece with no compensation whatsoever, then reeling off 34 straight wins is not odd at all - in fact it's normal. You two point to that one game and say nothing about the first game, which is the one I pointed out. besides, I didn't say he was cheating, I said it was "odd".
    There can be many reasons for stupid one movers on RHP.

    Here is one such. In this position my high rated opponent can play 20. Ba5 winning the exchange and probably the game.



    Instead he played the "inexplicable" Qb5 hanging the Queen. My guess was that it was "fat finger syndrome" on a touch screen since the blunder move is three squares to the northwest so to speak, just like the winning move should have been.

    Game 10276750
  7. Standard member blunderdog
    R.I.P. mikelom
    09 Jan '15 01:45
    Originally posted by Ragwort
    There can be many reasons for stupid one movers on RHP.

    Here is one such. In this position my high rated opponent can play 20. Ba5 winning the exchange and probably the game.

    [fen]3q1rk1/5pbp/1r1pn1p1/2p5/p3NP2/2BQ4/PPP3PP/3R1RK1 w - - 0 20[/fen]

    Instead he played the "inexplicable" Qb5 hanging the Queen. My guess was that it was "fat finger syndro ...[text shortened]... o the northwest so to speak, just like the winning move should have been.

    Game 10276750
    You may be right. Maybe he meant to play 13. Qxh7 instead of 13. Qh8?. But he still had to click submit. So instead of 35-1, he would be 36-0. Sounds reasonable.
  8. 09 Jan '15 01:59
    Hi blunderdog,

    I was agreeing Black was lucky to win. 34 wins on the trot is rare.
    Not impossible at the lower levels.

    I had 28 games without a loss (most were wins and a couple of draws)
    till my first loss v Korch. I made piece dropping blunder in one of my first
    games here. I swindled a win.

    Dolosus - greenpawn34. Latvian Gambit RHP 2008

  9. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    09 Jan '15 03:00
    Originally posted by blunderdog
    You may be right. Maybe he meant to play 13. Qxh7 instead of 13. Qh8?. But he still had to click submit. So instead of 35-1, he would be 36-0. Sounds reasonable.
    I've done this, you just move the piece and click submit before your brain has a chance to realise you've moved the wrong piece. The trick is to make the move and look at the board for a second or two before clicking submit so it's not all one movement.
  10. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    09 Jan '15 12:48
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I've done this, you just move the piece and click submit before your brain has a chance to realise you've moved the wrong piece. The trick is to make the move and look at the board for a second or two before clicking submit so it's not all one movement.
    In OTB terms, it is 'sit on your hands, assshole๐Ÿ™‚
  11. Standard member blunderdog
    R.I.P. mikelom
    10 Jan '15 04:47 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi blunderdog,

    I was agreeing Black was lucky to win. 34 wins on the trot is rare.
    Not impossible at the lower levels.

    I had 28 games without a loss (most were wins and a couple of draws)
    till my first loss v Korch. I made piece dropping blunder in one of my first
    games here. I swindled a win.

    Dolosus - greenpawn34. Latvian Gambit RHP 2008 ...[text shortened]... ... Nd7 19. Rxb7 {Thank You.} 19... Rxd2 {White resigned.} 20. Kxd2 Nc5+ {Wins the Rook.} [/pgn]
    I played against the Latvian only once, back in the late seventies. An expert, Jim Black, whooped my blunderbutt with it. He later went on to become our club champion. We met again a week later in the first round of another tournament. He brought his trophy to the table but this time I won against his Grunfeld.

    Anyway, angnmal hasn't really played anyone that strong, a few 1800s who he seems to be beating. My game against him ended with my resignation after a mere 21 moves. I only played on to keep him from posting the game in the "under 20-move mate"s forum ๐Ÿ˜€.

    Our game followed Ferreiro (2126) - *Ivanov (2461) for the first 10 moves which ended with a win for black. Instead of Ferreiro's 11.Qf2, angnmal played 11.Bg5...

    I didn't know how to meet that. Maybe you have a better suggestion than my 11...Bb7?

    *Not Vassily...Jordan, of course Vassily would be 2700s
  12. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    12 Jan '15 16:08 / 2 edits
    I offer a plausible explanation for a blunder in one's very first game here: not a chess blunder, but inexperience with the GUI (a mis-click).

    34 Wins (one on time): I guess he's at least as strong as Paul Leggett (a solid 1900 player here), so no surprise he mops up <1600 players, who comprise most of his victims.

    EDIT: I got pummeled by Andantes Inferno 3 in a row. That was back when we were both about mid-1800. He went on pummeling 1900s and is now engaging 2100s. I don't begrudge him the hard work.
  13. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    12 Jan '15 23:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moonbus
    I offer a plausible explanation for a blunder in one's very first game here: not a chess blunder, but inexperience with the GUI (a mis-click).

    34 Wins (one on time): I guess he's at least as strong as Paul Leggett (a solid 1900 player here), so no surprise he mops up <1600 players, who comprise most of his victims.

    EDIT: I got pummeled by Andantes Infe ...[text shortened]... -1800. He went on pummeling 1900s and is now engaging 2100s. I don't begrudge him the hard work.
    I have some funny stories from my first year here. With the p1200 rating, no one with a higher rating would play me, so I won a bunch of games in a row simply because I could only get games against players with low ratings.

    Gradually my rating rose until I started playing players as good or better than me, and then the loss column got bigger!

    I lost a game against a 1300 player once- I think it was a King's Gambit. I was going to mate him in the middle of the board in less than 20 moves, but when I played the final mating move, I accidentally placed my queen one square short, and did not notice it until I submitted. I was angry and laughing at myself all at the same time.


    I also lost a game against an 800 player. I was watching Monday Night Football with my wife and two bottles of a red wine I had wanted to try.

    My opponent and I played the whole game that night, and I dropped pieces in the game like I had chess leprosy.

    The next day another player on the site saw the game and asked me what happened. I was a little embarrassed that I had approached the game with such a slack attitude, and I quit mixing alcohol and RHP. Most of the time, anyway!

    I think the 1900's is relatively accurate for me. Sometimes my rating gusts up when I get a bunch of challenges from lower-rated players, but chess gravity reasserts itself in due time. When I play the really good players, most of the time I get mugged.
  14. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    13 Jan '15 11:26 / 1 edit
    Yeah, my performance too plunges when I'm DUI.

    EDIT: your wife watches football? Wow.