29 Oct 09
Originally posted by philidor positionI just googled:
No he's not.
'Grandmaster missed mate in one'
Kramnik top hit.
I'm afraid it's going to follow him around like an unwanted shadow.
(and this thread is not helping either).
99% of chess players cannot understand what Kramnik is up to but they can
express an opinion about missing a mate in one.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
I don't have to read the notes or look at the game.
It's the Amos Burn game yes?
(Staunton did not design the pieces. Nathnial Cook did. Staunton put his
signature on the side of the box because he was paid to by Jaques to endorse their pieces).
Edit1 - just flicked back - correct Amos Burn never gets to light his pipe.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34ah, nevermind.
I just googled:
'Grandmaster missed mate in one'
Kramnik top hit.
I'm afraid it's going to follow him around like an unwanted shadow.
(and this thread is not helping either).
99% of chess players cannot understand what Kramnik is up to but they can
express an opinion about missing a mate in one.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehe said "can be."
please explain how mate in one is as tricky as mate in eight? i am really intrigued.
What I could think of was a mate in one where you have to get clever and castle or something, compared with a mate in 8 where you just keep pushing a pawn up the board and finally mate.
29 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by philidor positionsorry not buying it, the correct mode of conduct , rather than trying to justify your heroes mistake, would simply be to admit that he is human and prone to aberration.
he said "can be."
What I could think of was a mate in one where you have to get clever and castle or something, compared with a mate in 8 where you just keep pushing a pawn up the board and finally mate.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by heinzkatI know but we are not giants of the game. (pun intended).
Mate in one can be just as tricky as a mate in eight; you know that, I know that.
Look at all the famous footballers who played for 20 years and yet are only
remembered for missing a penalty.
Chris Waddle (England v West Germany)
Gary McAlister (Scotland v England)
Baggio(Itlay v Brazil)
Paul McStay (Celtic v Raith Rovers and Raith win the cup)
The day his missed that mate in one Kramnik reserved a page for himself
in chess lore.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yes, professional footballers, they mess up so many times, it's terrible 😛
I know but we not giants of the game. (pun intended).
Look at all the famous footballers who played for 20 years and yet are only
remembered for missing a penalty.
Chris Waddle (England v West Germany)
Gary McAlister (Scotland v England)
Baggio(Itlay v Brazil)
Paul McStay (Celtic v Raith Rovers and Raith win the cup)
The day his missed that mate in one Kramnik reserved a page for himself
in chess lore.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat are you talking about? Kramnik's mate didn't even cross my mind while writing that. I just gave you the first example that came to my mind about which I thought was just small chess talk.
sorry not buying it, the correct mode of conduct , rather than trying to justify your heroes mistake, would simply be to admit that he is human and prone to aberration.
of course he is human and is prone to aberration.
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by heinzkatnope but i am presently going through Convektas software, in which i find the mates in two with just four or five pieces incredibly difficult. i dont know why this is the case, for it seems that if there are no capturing sequences or really obvious patterns, i get lost. Can you explain why this should be more difficult than when there are lots of pieces on the board, other than by saying, 'your just rubbish'?
Have you ever tried Polgar's #1 collection?
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by heinzkatHe's right Robbie - it's so easy to miss a mate in one.
Have you ever tried Polgar's #1 collection?
I've done it a few times. I'm not knocking Kramnik I'm just saying
this is what chess history has in mind for him (see the opening post).
Suspect HeinKat's mate in 8 was a ballpark figure but look at the diagram
in my next post - you will see the 4 move mate in an instant and yet there are
some composed mates in one that will take you a lot longer to see.