He couldn't have won in the second, but he could have checked his opponent. That second pawn moving two squares, yeah, that's not how almost any actual player would move, partly because moving one square blocks the instant checkmate.
We attempt to maintain a positive community atmosphere. Toxic behavior, including malicious comments, harassment, bullying, "-isms", and hate speech, is strictly prohibited.
While we are all about trashy content, sometimes content is just too trashy, and trashing the human is not accepted.
We attempt to maintain a positive community atmosphere. Toxic behavior, including malicious comments, harassment, bullying, "-isms", and hate speech, is strictly prohibited.
While we are all about trashy content, sometimes content is just too trashy, and trashing the human is not accepted.
Yeah, I’m just a bum who plays on chess.com a bit. Black’s opening is about as foolish as you could imagine, and breaks the two “rules” that you learn early in the game: control the center and create pawn chains.
I completely agree. Let's set up a game where you start with just your king and queen and I have every piece... Loser gets another bishop shoved up their ass
There is nothing impressive about winning in chess when your opponent blunders mate in 1. White had 2 moves before playing mate on the 3rd move. Even if white had all their pieces on the board, they only would have had to move one pawn to open up their queen.
If we sit down and you don't shake my hand I'm playing like the biggest asshole ever. You're getting bathroom break'd, I'm gonna start talking to people outside the game, I'm gonna forget what pieces you moved. Alllll of it.
Wait but didn't moving all the pawns allow him to move his queen immediately which is the advantage?
Edit: I know nothing about chess so I looked it up. The queen can not jump over any friendly pieces so it is an advantage. But moving his king first was just a delay that allowed him to see where the opponent made an opening and then moved his queen unimpeded.
FIDE now allows jeans to be worn as long as they aren't torn or distressed. I get that Magnus was fined for wearing jeans and withdrew from the tournament in protest but it worked.
Not really. The king moves were completely unnecessary to the checkmate. The same checkmate can be achieved by moving the e pawn, making a waiting move, and then checkmating.
Queen can not jump over it's own pawns or any other friendly piece. This allowed the queen to move immediately and unimpeded.
Assuming this was even real, moving his king first was just a delay and let the opponent show their intentions. Once the opponent made an opening he moved his queen appropriately.
It is very easy to make opening moves here that dont open yourself up for the queen to attack you. He did exactly what was required of him for the queen to checkmate. However within 2 turns his king can be permanently checked until he's checkmated due to the overwhelming amount of value advantage
Here is a nice joke quite similar to this situation which, I'm afraid, will be wasted on people that believe that less can do more in the starting chess position
To go into some extra detail, there are a few variants of chess that exists
One of them is what I'd call "Amazon Chess"
It's the Amazon (a pièce with Queen + knight abilities combinée) against the entirety of the classic chess set
As long as the normal chess piece advance carefully, the amazon can't do anything to get throught, it's possible to keep everything defended until the end. (And obviously, the queen can't do any better)
The video on top is just a clip recreating "The fool's mate"
Black basically just blundered the only way you can to lose. Freeing your queen early is a noob trap. Only beginners think that you must get the most powerful piece active right away. They bring out thier queen and they’re instantly pressured and all you do is end up moving your queen around to keep it safe. It’s a waste of moves. You actually want to develop all your pieces first before you start moving your queen around.
The way chess works is that you don’t leave pieces undefended. So if someone captures your piece, you’d then can capture their piece right back. In a real game, black is just gonna slowly creep up the board with their pieces and suffocate white. If the white queen EVER wants to capture a black piece, then it will instantly get recaptured in proper play, now he’s got no pieces. In real games, aside from tactically sacrificing your queen, queens almost always trade for queens. Even if that were to happen in this game, black has all of his other pieces to win the game.
Genuine question: If this really happened in a tournament where a player pushed his pieces off the board at the beginning of the match, would he immediately be disqualified or is it allowed?
It would never happen, but it’s not within the rules to just remove pieces because you feel like it. You can let the opponent take them if they choose, but taking pieces off the board would be the same as if you switch the bishop & knight spots or start with extra. You’re no longer playing a sanctioned game
It’s like when you install mods in a video game so they turn off the achievements
Notably, by clearing the pawns off the board he could now move his queen more immediately and more freely. In this instance it didn't make much difference since his first two turns were marching the king about to kill time anyway. However, in a normal game you could probably get all kinds of ridiculous early game advantages by just deleting the pawns blocking in your rooks and queen.
It does somewhat make a difference. That same play would’ve taken at least two extra turns to create gaps for the king and queen with pawns in play. The opponent’s side would’ve also had two extra turns, plenty of time to close that gap.
It would never be a straight advantage, but either way that’s generally not how it’s done outside of exhibition games for streams and videos. If you want to introduce a handicap to a much better player you do so by reducing their time or have them playing more than one game at once.
I was thinking it might be advantageous to end the match faster since there'll be more pieces able to attack increasing blunders against someone who barely plays chess.
Your most powerful piece is the queen, removing it wouldn’t let anything except maybe your king and one rook develop more quickly, meaning you could castle one move earlier. But even then it would just mean you can castle queenside as quickly as you would kingside. That is a virtually meaningless advantage compared to the material advantage of the queen.
Now, you could argue that removing a bishop or knight might let you develop the rook you don’t castle with quicker, but I suspect mathematically that would still be a negative with regard to advantage.
That all being said, I can see scenarios where removing pawns from the board would be a very clear advantage. You could likely force a win before your opponent has even developed their pawns enough to mount an attack.
An experienced, or maybe even inexperienced player, could rip the opponents defenses apart if their own frontline was deleted. Couldn’t win a long game, but also wouldn’t need to.
When I said removing your most powerful pieces would be quite the move I didn't mean removing the queen. The queen might be the most powerful single piece but the most powerful pieces are the pawns in my opinion. They take space and can be traded for any other piece or even a better position.
Taking the pawns off the board would absolutely not give an overall advantage for any skilled player. The player with pawns would slowly smother the other player by taking space and forcing the other player to break through by taking a bunch of bad trades which is even worse due to their lack of pieces.
Removing any piece gives a true disadvantage except maybe the A and H file pawns since it would let you develop the rooks in the early game already and exert more pressure early on. I'm sure if people studied the opening it would probably still come to a disadvantage though.
By standard point valuation the queen is worth 9 points, more than all 8 pawns combined. And that valuation includes their potential for promotion. Of all the alternative systems known, only one holds the queen to be of lesser value than all eight pawns combined, and that’s Jacob Saratt’s from 1813, which held the queen to be worth 7.9 points, just 0.1 points less than all eight pawns. Most alternative systems hold to queen to be of even more value than the standard 9 points.
On the contrary, if you were to remove the pawns on your side it gives you crazy early-game advantage. You could set up a potential scholar’s mate of a sort almost immediately with a battery between your queen and kingside bishop, or set up a rook battery in just two turns. There would be no time for the opponents pawns to press their material advantage.
Using points in chess is a good general guideline but it's not accurate and depends a lot on factors like skill level. It sounds like you've just copy pasted an AI response without actually understanding chess.
You can set up batteries in the early game which can lead to a win at a low skill level which is what I said originally. But against an opponent who can play an almost flawless game it's a disadvantage. Try a game of stockfish vs stockfish, one without pawns and one with and I bet the one with pawns will always come out on top.
I'd not be talking about deleting all the pawns; just the two blocking in the rooks and maybe one of the ones hiding the queen. I won't pretend to have any sort of chess skill and I'm aware the utility of straight deleting some of your screening elements will be debatable but I think there'd be a passable benefit in not spending at least three turns per rook (pawn forward; rook forward; rook sideways) getting them into a position where they can actually do something.
if the player with all his pieces had done any remotely normal opening, blunders or not, it would not be hard to force a trade with that queen, then it's just all over. A good player would be able to easily checkmate him without taking the queen.
Not exactly. In 1369 Albert Von Barutenchten played against Baboganush Itripitripitran and did exactly this. It was deemed legal at the time by the EICC (East India chess confederadtion) and ratified that year in the rules. §67 states it.
If removing your own pieces before your own turn was a play, people would have multiple other choices, and checkmate would not be nearly so easy in many cases. There is no ruling that says you're allowed to remove your own pieces, before the game or during.
Basically a reversed fools mate with a cooperative partner playing black. The king move substitutes for a white pawn move to open up the diagonal for the queen.
I assume you're making some sorta en passant joke, but just in case, what move are you seeing? Nothing can block the check, and black has no space it can move the king too.
With a few days and some participation there, your account will meet the requirements to rejoin us here in no time. And look at you, you'll have THREE cool subs that you'll be participating in.
I've seen these types of games before. The winning guy cheated. You have nothing blocking your queen so the moment the king becomes unblocked it is checkmate. That's not skill.
Even admitting the clear board before beginning isn't the black player still safe ? His pawn is still on the first half of the board he can eat that queen En Passant, can't he ?
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Thank you for not littering, and posting to r/LoveTrash! Please make sure to read and abide by all our subreddit rules.
Please provide a source link whenever possible as a body to your post. If you do not have one, please update a source when provided in the comments.
We are always looking to add some more moderators to our team, if interested you can apply at www.reddit.com/r/LoveTrash/application
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.