Chess in the Playground!

[Starwulf]

Does anyone else have Chess Titans that comes with Windows 7 Home Premium? Being a bit of a chess player, I decided to give it a go, despite the fact that I haven't actually played in about 8 years. Only had the difficulty on 2 or 3, just so I could get warmed up. I got the computer down to JUST their King. I had my Queen, Knight, 3 pawns & my King Left. The MOMENT that that happened(when I took their Knight), a screen pops up saying that the game is a freaking draw?!?! WHAT? WHAT? I used to play rated chess, started up the chess club in my High School oh so long ago, and I have NEVER EVER heard of a game being a draw once the opposing player has nothing but their King left. That's pretty much Check and Mate in a matter of moves!!!! WHAT IN THE HELL HAPPENED? AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH. So irritated right now, I had that game won, but now it will ONLY let me count it as a draw!

[Dr.Epic]

Does anyone else have Chess Titans that comes with Windows 7 Home Premium? Being a bit of a chess player, I decided to give it a go, despite the fact that I haven't actually played in about 8 years. Only had the difficulty on 2 or 3, just so I could get warmed up. I got the computer down to JUST their King. I had my Queen, Knight, 3 pawns & my King Left. The MOMENT that that happened(when I took their Knight), a screen pops up saying that the game is a freaking draw?!?! WHAT? WHAT? I used to play rated chess, started up the chess club in my High School oh so long ago, and I have NEVER EVER heard of a game being a draw once the opposing player has nothing but their King left. That's pretty much Check and Mate in a matter of moves!!!! WHAT IN THE HELL HAPPENED? AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH. So irritated right now, I had that game won, but now it will ONLY let me count it as a draw!

Did the King have any spaces to go that wouldn't be Check? If not, then that's a stalemate as one cannot make a move that would put their King in check.

[Remmirath]

It has been a while since I played, but I thought it was a certain number of moves back and forth without being checkmated that the opponent would have to make before it was a stalemate, not a single one. It sounds to me like the situation described should've ended up a win (well, unless something somehow went terribly wrong).

[Crow]

Did the King have any spaces to go that wouldn't be Check? If not, then that's a stalemate as one cannot make a move that would put their King in check.

Wouldn't that be a win?

[Starwulf]

Did the King have any spaces to go that wouldn't be Check? If not, then that's a stalemate as one cannot make a move that would put their King in check.

That is actually exactly what happened, but as far as I'm concerned, that should be a win for me, not a draw. If I was playing a person in real life, they would just flick their king down, representing that I beat them. But, at least I do have a reason now. Still, it's very irritating for that to happen :-(

[Jimorian]

Since you had just captured the Knight, none of the other rules for draw apply, 3 repetitions of the same position, or 50 moves without a pawn move or capture. So you probably stalemated the computer's King with that capture. Do you have the position to show us?

Edit: since we cross posted. No, if you were playing a real person, they would gladly accept the "accidental" draw instead of the loss. This is one of those things you need to learn to avoid in the end game for precisely this reason.

[Starwulf]

Since you had just captured the Knight, none of the other rules for draw apply, 3 repetitions of the same position, or 50 moves without a pawn move or capture. So you probably stalemated the computer's King with that capture. Do you have the position to show us?

Edit: since we cross posted. No, if you were playing a real person, they would gladly accept the "accidental" draw instead of the loss. This is one of those things you need to learn to avoid in the end game for precisely this reason.

Ehh, it depends on the opponent. A lot of the people I Played would have given me the win, because we knew and liked playing against each other, and to not give a win when a win is due would piss one or the other off and thus lessen the pool of potential players(since I come from a very small community, and chess in HS was like one of those things that you just weren't supposed to enjoy coming from a redneck community). A random stranger, sure, which I guess the computer AI is supposed to be. Regardless, I will definitely remember this for the future, it's been a long time since I've played, and even longer since I was at the top of my form. Hopefully I can regain some of my previous skills.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Yeah, that sucks. Sorry it frustrated you. As others have stated, the 'official' rules are If the player can make no moves without going into check but are not currently checked, it's a stalemate.

[Anxe]

I purposefully never surrender in Chess with the hope that I can engineer a draw like that.

[Elemental]

I haven't played Chess in ages!
Doesn't help that none of the people I live with will play me because I keep beating them...
And when I do get to play with someone who actually has the chance to practice, I get thoroughly beaten.
In other words: I've got no chance to practice.
Oh well... I'll stick to the other board games. Forcing a draw in checkers is easy.

[horngeek]

Um. Maybe it's also possible that you just couldn't force Checkmate with your remaining pieces? I'm not sure what's the minimums you need to force Checkmate, though...

[Elemental]

Um. Maybe it's also possible that you just couldn't force Checkmate with your remaining pieces? I'm not sure what's the minimums you need to force Checkmate, though...

A king and a queen.
And besides, he could have gotten the three pawns to the other side.

[An Enemy Spy]

I hate Checkers.

[Blue Ghost]

Um. Maybe it's also possible that you just couldn't force Checkmate with your remaining pieces? I'm not sure what's the minimums you need to force Checkmate, though...

I believe the minimum is the king and any other piece beside a knight or bishop. I might be wrong though. But yeah, it was a stalemate situation. Those are really annoying.

[Whiffet]

Um. Maybe it's also possible that you just couldn't force Checkmate with your remaining pieces? I'm not sure what's the minimums you need to force Checkmate, though...

It is possible to force checkmate against a lone king if you only have your own king and a queen OR rook (which takes longer than a queen, but is still doable). Starwulf had a queen, so it could have been done. Even if the queen was gone, checkmate still would be possible if one of the pawns could be queened before the opposing king could get close enough to capture it.

But yeah, stalemate. It stinks, doesn't it? It's easy to accidentally cause it in the endgame, especially with a queen.

[Starwulf]

It is possible to force checkmate against a lone king if you only have your own king and a queen OR rook (which takes longer than a queen, but is still doable). Starwulf had a queen, so it could have been done. Even if the queen was gone, checkmate still would be possible if one of the pawns could be queened before the opposing king could get close enough to capture it.

But yeah, stalemate. It stinks, doesn't it? It's easy to accidentally cause it in the endgame, especially with a queen.

Yeah, it does stink. I guess it comes from being so out of practice. Oh well, hopefully I'll get back into practice now that I have a game I can play regularly!

[Rawhide]

I hate Checkers.

What on earth does this have to do with anything?


That is actually exactly what happened, but as far as I'm concerned, that should be a win for me, not a draw. If I was playing a person in real life, they would just flick their king down, representing that I beat them. But, at least I do have a reason now. Still, it's very irritating for that to happen :-(


I used to play rated chess

These two are contradictory. I don't know of anyone who would surrender after forcing a draw in rated chess.

[Elemental]

What on earth does this have to do with anything?


Oh. That's because I mentioned how no one I live with will play Chess, so I have to play checkers.
And perhaps in a non-serious match, people usually just concede the game in those situations. Stalemates are boring after all.

[Starwulf]

What on earth does this have to do with anything?





These two are contradictory. I don't know of anyone who would surrender after forcing a draw in rated chess.

Hehe, in HS, we didn't bother with the rated system. I began my rated play shortly after that. So in HS we kept annoyances to a minimum, since there were only a handful of us interested in chess ^^

[Cespenar]

I remember once forcing a draw by invoking the "3 repetitions of the same move" clause, when I was losing. The other player was enraged, never having heard of the rule. Funnily, this was in a tournament, where you are supposed to know the rules.

Point is, try to learn all the rules, fringe ones, exceptions and all.

[Teddy]

Chess is a game with a lot of fringe rules and exceptions. Yesterday, I learned that there's a rule that specifically says that you're not allowed to promote your pawn into one of the oponents pieces. The fact that the need for such a rule exist amuses me (there's a possible scenario when promoting your pawn into an enemy knight can yield you a check mate). :smallamused:

[grimbold]

Did the King have any spaces to go that wouldn't be Check? If not, then that's a stalemate as one cannot make a move that would put their King in check.

this

its actually one of the hardest parts of that type of endgame, not getting into stalemate:smallwink:

[noparlpf]

Did the King have any spaces to go that wouldn't be Check? If not, then that's a stalemate as one cannot make a move that would put their King in check.


Since you had just captured the Knight, none of the other rules for draw apply, 3 repetitions of the same position, or 50 moves without a pawn move or capture. So you probably stalemated the computer's King with that capture. Do you have the position to show us?

Edit: since we cross posted. No, if you were playing a real person, they would gladly accept the "accidental" draw instead of the loss. This is one of those things you need to learn to avoid in the end game for precisely this reason.

All of my posts have been made already.

Windows Chess Titans isn't all that great. I haven't played against it much (read: once, to see how it was) but difficulty 5/10 plays pretty badly.

[Dr Bwaa]

As others have said, stalemate sucks when you're on the stronger end, but playing for it as the weaker side is a lot of fun, and in some situations (almost certainly not the one you described, though, with so much material on the board) if the weaker side plays correctly it is not possible to force a mate (or promote a pawn, or what have you) without first stalemating the opposing King.

To the various people wishing they could play more chess--I cannot recommend Gameknot (http://gameknot.com/#bwaa) highly enough for players of all levels. The community is great and there are a lot of very good resources (opening books, postgame computer analysis, and a multitude of teams/tournaments/leagues). Time controls are very long, average about three days per move, so you don't have to worry about setting aside big chunks of time to play (there's also live blitz chess if you just want a quick game). Message me (http://gameknot.com/send.pl?to=bwaa) for a game anytime!

[Bulldog Psion]

A good cure for chess frustration would be to play against me. I have never, ever won a single game of chess that I've played, either electronic or on a physical gameboard. I mean that -- I've lost every single game regardless of the approach I take. I'm always trying to win, but I inevitably lose. :smallsmile:

[THAC0]

So apparently I will be running a chess club next year for the elementary school I teach at. I'm pretty excited actually. I'm only a mediocre (at best) player, but am apparently the only one on the staff that knows anything about chess, haha.

[Anxe]

Chess is a game with a lot of fringe rules and exceptions. Yesterday, I learned that there's a rule that specifically says that you're not allowed to promote your pawn into one of the oponents pieces. The fact that the need for such a rule exist amuses me (there's a possible scenario when promoting your pawn into an enemy knight can yield you a check mate). :smallamused:

That, sir, is not a rule. At least not one recognized by the USCF. Spoiler is copied from the rules on their website. (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7324)

Special move #2- Pawn Promotion

Pawns cannot move backwards, so you might wonder what happens when they reach the last rank.
They turn into any piece that you want, except the king. 99% of the time, players choose the most powerful piece on the board, the queen. For this reason, "queening" is just as popular a phrase as "promoting."

http://main.uschess.org/images/stories/beta/Pp1.jpghttp://main.uschess.org/images/stories/beta/Pp2.jpg
In Diagram 1, both players can promote to make a queen in Diagram 2. White can promote by playing d8=Q. The Black pawn on e2 can capture the knight on f1, or advance to e1, in both cases making a queen.

[Elemental]

That, sir, is not a rule. At least not one recognized by the USCF. Spoiler is copied from the rules on their website. (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7324)

Special move #2- Pawn Promotion

Pawns cannot move backwards, so you might wonder what happens when they reach the last rank.
They turn into any piece that you want, except the king. 99% of the time, players choose the most powerful piece on the board, the queen. For this reason, "queening" is just as popular a phrase as "promoting."

http://main.uschess.org/images/stories/beta/Pp1.jpghttp://main.uschess.org/images/stories/beta/Pp2.jpg
In Diagram 1, both players can promote to make a queen in Diagram 2. White can promote by playing d8=Q. The Black pawn on e2 can capture the knight on f1, or advance to e1, in both cases making a queen.

Might be because most chess sets only come with a single set of sixteen pieces, so, when it comes to getting a new piece, you might be tempted to use a captured piece of one of your opponents. Which would be really confusing.
However, in my case, our most commonly used chess set came with a set of checkers, so we just put a checked underneath the pawn that's been promoted to show that it's now a queen. Unfortunately, not everyone has that option.
(In fact, I believe we own three chess sets, a cheap plastic one that we usually use, an older one made of wood, and a small magnetic one)

[Eldariel]

That rule exists mostly to give the defender something to play for. Tricking your opponent into an unintended draw by removing all your moves is quite gratifying when you do pull it off. Though yes, logically it should obviously be a win for you most of the time but the rules are rules and they serve to make the game more engaging.

[Anxe]

I usually turn a lost rook upside down and call it a queen. If I haven't lost any rooks then I turn the pawn on its side and call it a queen. That pawn on its side is a little frustrating. It likes to roll around and make illegal moves.

[Elemental]

I usually turn a lost rook upside down and call it a queen. If I haven't lost any rooks then I turn the pawn on its side and call it a queen. That pawn on its side is a little frustrating. It likes to roll around and make illegal moves.

Yeah... They seem to think it's funny or something. But still, in the end, one shouldn't end up needing too many queens to win. Unless you decide it's funny to build a full nine of them to annoy your opponent.
My Dad would do that when he used to verse my brothers and I.

[Rawhide]

Chess is a game with a lot of fringe rules and exceptions. Yesterday, I learned that there's a rule that specifically says that you're not allowed to promote your pawn into one of the oponents pieces. The fact that the need for such a rule exist amuses me (there's a possible scenario when promoting your pawn into an enemy knight can yield you a check mate). :smallamused:

That isn't a rule. In fact, a chess grandmaster battle had a bit of an incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)#Unusual_situation) involving a promotion to a second queen via capture.

[Dr Bwaa]

That isn't a rule. In fact, a chess grandmaster battle had a bit of an incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)#Unusual_situation) involving a promotion to a second queen via capture.

He was saying that, as White, you may not promote a pawn to a Black piece (for instance, to trap the opposing King or block an important line of attack).

In FIDE at least (and the FIDE/USCF Rules Differences does not mention an exception), you may not promote to a piece of the opponent's color (but there's no separate rule for it outside of general pawn promotion):


link (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article)

e. When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘promotion’ and the effect of the new piece is immediate.

[noparlpf]

I usually turn a lost rook upside down and call it a queen. If I haven't lost any rooks then I turn the pawn on its side and call it a queen. That pawn on its side is a little frustrating. It likes to roll around and make illegal moves.

Another way is doubling up captured pawns on the square and calling that a queen.

A third is to just play blindfold and remove the need for pieces.

[Rawhide]

He was saying that, as White, you may not promote a pawn to a Black piece (for instance, to trap the opposing King or block an important line of attack).

In FIDE at least (and the FIDE/USCF Rules Differences does not mention an exception), you may not promote to a piece of the opponent's color (but there's no separate rule for it outside of general pawn promotion):

Well that's just obvious. It has to be of your colour. That's not an exception, that's core.

[Dr Bwaa]

Well that's just obvious. It has to be of your colour. That's not an exception, that's core.

That's why I thought it was kind of funny how many people were telling Teddy that it wasn't a rule. :smallamused:


A good cure for chess frustration would be to play against me. I have never, ever won a single game of chess that I've played, either electronic or on a physical gameboard. I mean that -- I've lost every single game regardless of the approach I take. I'm always trying to win, but I inevitably lose. :smallsmile:

If you (or anyone) want casual coaching/lessons/practice games, toss me a PM here or on gameknot. I can't promise anything and I'm not an Expert by any means, but I'm happy to help any way I can!

[Cobra_Ikari]

Well that's just obvious. It has to be of your colour. That's not an exception, that's core.

I know there's at least one chess puzzle that was designed when this was not a rule. >.>

[Morph Bark]

That is actually exactly what happened, but as far as I'm concerned, that should be a win for me, not a draw. If I was playing a person in real life, they would just flick their king down, representing that I beat them. But, at least I do have a reason now. Still, it's very irritating for that to happen :-(

Yup, that's how it works. Sorry, but even in a real life game, this would count as a draw. That's how the rules of chess go, despite that rule making no instinctive sense.

[Mutant Sheep]

When I read the OP, I thought it was a cheating computer. But stalemate exists for a reason. THIS. AND IT IS FUN TO DO.

[Thufir]

These two are contradictory. I don't know of anyone who would surrender after forcing a draw in rated chess.

This.
Or un-rated chess, for that matter. It's fun to swindle people.


But yeah, stalemate. It stinks, doesn't it? It's easy to accidentally cause it in the endgame, especially with a queen.


It's actually one of the hardest parts of that type of endgame, not getting into stalemate:smallwink:

Yeah, no. If you pay attention to the possibility, it's really easy to avoid.

[truemane]

Yup, that's how it works. Sorry, but even in a real life game, this would count as a draw. That's how the rules of chess go, despite that rule making no instinctive sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. The goal of the game is to capture your opponent's King. And the rules do no allow you to pass on your move. Therefore, if the King is not threatened, and no legal move is possible, there is no win condition on either side. Hence, a Stalemate.

For my part, I'm always surprised by the number of people who think that you can't castle once you've been in check. It's not that everyone needs to know all the rules all the time, but I've run across this in maybe half-a-dozen semi-serious chess players over the years.

Causes no end of argument.

Like taking a pawn en passant. The three or four times it's happened in real play, it's happened with people who don't know the rule. And fighting ensues. One guy accused me of playing by the French rules. *headdesk*

[Thufir]

For my part, I'm always surprised by the number of people who think that you can't castle once you've been in check. It's not that everyone needs to know all the rules all the time, but I've run across this in maybe half-a-dozen semi-serious chess players over the years.

Causes no end of argument.

Well, maybe they're getting it confused with the fact you can't castle while in check?

[Douglas]

Well, maybe they're getting it confused with the fact you can't castle while in check?
You can't castle through check (i.e. if a square between the king and where he'll end up is threatened) either, as I recall.

Castling into check is also forbidden, but that's obvious and covered by a more general rule.

[Lord Seth]

It has been a while since I played, but I thought it was a certain number of moves back and forth without being checkmated that the opponent would have to make before it was a stalemate, not a single one.You're getting things mixed up.

A stalemate is when a player is going to move, is not in check, but has no legal move. That produces a draw.

You're probably thinking of the 50-move rule, which states that if 50 moves in a row go by with no pieces being captured and no pawns being moved, the game is a draw. There's another rule that states if the same position is repeated 3 times the game is a draw.
A king and a queen.No. Not counting King and Pawn, the minimum requirement for a forced checkmate is a King, Bishop, and Knight. Technically you can checkmate someone with a King and 2 Knights, but it's impossible to force the checkmate.
That, sir, is not a rule. At least not one recognized by the USCF. Spoiler is copied from the rules on their website. (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7324)The page you link to is a simplified "learn to play Chess" version of the rules. Of course it doesn't state everything. Their actual official rules is a three hundred something page book called "U.S. Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess." And in section 8F6, the following is stated:

"On reaching the last rank, a pawn must immediately be exchanged, as part of the same move, for the player's choice of a queen, a rook, a bishop, or a knight of the same color as the pawn."

So it is indeed recognized by the USCF.

[Morph Bark]

Actually, it makes perfect sense. The goal of the game is to capture your opponent's King. And the rules do no allow you to pass on your move. Therefore, if the King is not threatened, and no legal move is possible, there is no win condition on either side. Hence, a Stalemate.

For my part, I'm always surprised by the number of people who think that you can't castle once you've been in check. It's not that everyone needs to know all the rules all the time, but I've run across this in maybe half-a-dozen semi-serious chess players over the years.

Causes no end of argument.

Like taking a pawn en passant. The three or four times it's happened in real play, it's happened with people who don't know the rule. And fighting ensues. One guy accused me of playing by the French rules. *headdesk*

Hence why I specifically said instinctive sense. Someone who would not know chess or just got a brief explanation of the rules seeing that happening would most likely feel like the soldiers should be able to capture the king now that all the others on that king's side are dead. :smallwink:

And I've learned that you cannot castle when you are in check, but I've never had a situation where I or my opponent castled after having been in check.

As for En Passant... eh, me and my dad have always gone with "it's an optional rule". :smalltongue:

[Whiffet]

Yeah, no. If you pay attention to the possibility, it's really easy to avoid.

Exactly. If you don't watch out for it, there's a decent chance you'll cause it to happen. Obviously if you're aware of the possibility and you try to avoid it, you're a lot less likely to get into stalemate.

[truemane]

You can't castle through check (i.e. if a square between the king and where he'll end up is threatened) either, as I recall.

It's true. The King is said to actually pass through the two squares he moves during the castling, so none of those squares can be threatened.


Hence why I specifically said instinctive sense.

Fair enough. Point conceded. :smallsmile:


As for En Passant... eh, me and my dad have always gone with "it's an optional rule". :smalltongue:

Lol. I suppose it's always optional, as there aren't many times when you'd be forced to do it. But it's good fun when you're in the middle of a game, take a pawn en passant, and the person you're playing is all WTF and accuses you of making things up to win.

[Dr Bwaa]

As for En Passant... eh, me and my dad have always gone with "it's an optional rule". :smalltongue:

What... but... how do you adjudicate "optional" rules? When you want to take your dad's pawn en passant but he's "optionally" ignoring that rule this game? :smallconfused:

Also,


For my part, I'm always surprised by the number of people who think that you can't castle once you've been in check. It's not that everyone needs to know all the rules all the time, but I've run across this in maybe half-a-dozen semi-serious chess players over the years.

Causes no end of argument.

Like taking a pawn en passant. The three or four times it's happened in real play, it's happened with people who don't know the rule. And fighting ensues. One guy accused me of playing by the French rules. *headdesk*

I feel your pain. Same with underpromotions.

[Starwulf]

Wow, this thead really took off while I was sleeping! Pretty cool that there are quite so many people who enjoy chess.

Just to clear things up, I do actually know all the rules, it's just been so long since I last played(like..9 years? 9 1/2?), that I completely didn't even think of looking to see if I had caused a stalemate. That's what happens when you get rusty!

As for En Passant, hehe, I've used that a few times myself, and it always pisses the opposing player off "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S NOT ALLOWED! WE ARE PLAYING BY AMERICAN RULES, NOT FRENCH!" is generally what they say. I would always laugh a good bit then explain that it's a common misconception that it's a "French rule", and is in fact a perfectly legal move.

As for playing against other players, I think I'll wait until I've gotten a bit more practice in, but after that, I'd be more then open to setting up some matches against fellow playgrounders. Would be loads of fun, and we obviously have more then a few people who play, which is awesome!

[pendell]

I see you are in Western Maryland and I am in Northern Virginia. We could have a game sometime.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dr Bwaa]

I expect you'd find even more chess-loving playgrounders with a different thread title :smallwink:

[Starwulf]

I expect you'd find even more chess-loving playgrounders with a different thread title :smallwink:

heheh, yeah, that is quite likely a good possibility :). The RAGE bit probably throws people off ^^

[Mystic Muse]

Just for my own reference, what is capturing a pawn "En Passant"? Just curious because I'm trying to get a bit better at chess and it'd be good to know.

[Thufir]

Just for my own reference, what is capturing a pawn "En Passant"? Just curious because I'm trying to get a bit better at chess and it'd be good to know.

Well, I believe originally in chess, pawns couldn't move two squares on their first move. So when that was introduced, this allowed the possibility of bypassing a potential capture, hence en passant.

If your opponent advances a pawn two squares to be side by side with one of your pawns, so you could have taken said pawn if it moved only one square, on the next move (And only the next move), you may capture that pawn en passant, as if it did only move one square (But if you don't do it immediately, you can't then do it later).

[Rawhide]

Well, I believe originally in chess, pawns couldn't move two squares on their first move. So when that was introduced, this allowed the possibility of bypassing a potential capture, hence en passant.

If your opponent advances a pawn two squares to be side by side with one of your pawns, so you could have taken said pawn if it moved only one square, on the next move (And only the next move), you may capture that pawn en passant, as if it did only move one square (But if you don't do it immediately, you can't then do it later).

Correct.


I know there's at least one chess puzzle that was designed when this was not a rule. >.>

The rules of fairy chess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess) can be quite different.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Correct.



The rules of fairy chess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess) can be quite different.

I wasn't referring to fairy chess, just old and unusual chess problems, which I find extremely interesting in spite of being terrible at.

[Rawhide]

I wasn't referring to fairy chess, just old and unusual chess problems, which I find extremely interesting in spite of being terrible at.

Fairy chess almost exclusively refers to chess problems that are not 100% orthodox. It can sometimes refer to actual games, but that wasn't the original intent.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Fairy chess almost exclusively refers to chess problems that are not 100% orthodox. It can sometimes refer to actual games, but that wasn't the original intent.

Mmm...I would disagree with you there. Fairy chess tends to involve the addition of non-standard pieces, rules, or some other kind of major change to the game.

What I'm referring to would be more under the heading of a joke chess problem, I think, which is legal under the rules of the time but is an outlandishly unlikely situation to be in.

[Rawhide]

Mmm...I would disagree with you there. Fairy chess tends to involve the addition of non-standard pieces, rules, or some other kind of major change to the game.

What I'm referring to would be more under the heading of a joke chess problem, I think, which is legal under the rules of the time but is an outlandishly unlikely situation to be in.

Check out the Wikipedia article I linked above...

[Cobra_Ikari]

Check out the Wikipedia article I linked above...

I did read the article, and I feel that, the way it's written, it supports...exactly what I was saying.

I'm confused now. :smallconfused:

[Rawhide]

I did read the article, and I feel that, the way it's written, it supports...exactly what I was saying.

I'm confused now. :smallconfused:

Fairy chess *can* include made up pieces. It doesn't have to. In fact, the first section only mentions new pieces in passing. If you look, you will see that "new conditions", such as changes of rules, is specifically listed as one of the possible variation types. Being able to "promote" to the opposing team's colour is a rule variation.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Fairy chess *can* include made up pieces. It doesn't have to. In fact, the first section only mentions new pieces in passing. If you look, you will see that "new conditions", such as changes of rules, is specifically listed as one of the possible variation types. Being able to "promote" to the opposing team's colour is a rule variation.

This is fair enough, although I would think such a thing would depend on at what time the problem was originally written and whether it was legal in the rules of the day.

[Rawhide]

It has always been to the same colour, except for one rule that was introduced for a while which was accidentally too broad and appeared to allow a promotion to any piece of any colour (including the opposing colour's king).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)#History_of_the_rule

[Starwulf]

Just a very quick note, I've changed the title of the thread to "Chess in the Playground", since my initial confusion has been resolved, and the thread has pretty much evolved to just be "Chess in the Playground" :)

[Sir Enigma]

It has always been to the same colour, except for one rule that was introduced for a while which was accidentally too broad and appeared to allow a promotion to any piece of any colour (including the opposing colour's king).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)#History_of_the_rule

Yes, but the puzzle being referenced was created in response to that rule - it's not a fairy chess puzzle, it's an attempt to highlight the problems with the overly broad wording of the rule.

[Rawhide]

Yes, but the puzzle being referenced was created in response to that rule - it's not a fairy chess puzzle, it's an attempt to highlight the problems with the overly broad wording of the rule.

This matter has already been resolved. Cobra thought it was a rule at the time and, to my knowledge, it has never been a rule. Even this strange rule they tried to implement, that ultimately got rejected by the players, required an overly broad interpretation of the rule and the ignoring of both precedent and intent.

[snoopy13a]

Like taking a pawn en passant. The three or four times it's happened in real play, it's happened with people who don't know the rule. And fighting ensues. One guy accused me of playing by the French rules. *headdesk*

Well, if they knew the rule, they probably wouldn't have put their pawn in a position to be taken en passant. Of course, people who do know the rule can make a blunder or be attempting to set some kind of trap. Overall, though, if you are able to take a pawn en passant, chances are that your opponent is ignorant of the rule.

[Chessgeek]

Overall, though, if you are able to take a pawn en passant, chances are that your opponent is ignorant of the rule.

My best story with this was against an old rival of mine. I pushed a pawn 2 squares, and his eyes lit up. He took en passant and couldn't believe I didn't know the rule... until I pushed another pawn to where his had just been the turn before, with checkmate.:smallbiggrin:

It took a few days before he would talk to me again, but it was so worth it.

But that's the only time I've seen strategic en passant from the side that's losing a pawn.

[Dr Bwaa]

It's certainly possible to end up in situations where making the en passant capture would lose you the game, it's just hard to search for since Masters generally don't make the mistake of taking the pawn if they don't have to. Slightly more common is the situation where someone mates with an en passant capture, or much more frequently, they play a two-square pawn move without caring whether it's taken en passant or not--they needed the space, or another pawn defends the square, or the capture opens a key line of attack. Of course, there are plenty of compositions featuring en passant on both sides: here's a famous one (http://gameknot.com/chess-puzzle.pl?pz=25191).

On another topic, I've been learning the Latvian Gambit* (aka Greco Counter-Gambit) recently and having a huge amount of fun with it. Anyone have any experience or tips for this opening?

*1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?!

[Surfing HalfOrc]

There are at least two "variant" chess games with cards that add some twists to the game that I have played and enjoyed.
Knightmare Chess and Chaos Chess. Knightmare Chess is by Steve Jackson Games (GURPS, Ogre, and a lot of others), while Chaos Chess is by Hammerdog Games.

Some of the cards in Chaos Chess allow a pawn to "buy a motorcycle and a bat" to become a knight for a number of turns, or a knight to ride a different animal than a horse, thus changing his range and final square.

Knightmare Chess had a card called Brothers in Arms, where two pawns could be linked and moved at the same time.

I own Chaos Chess, and have had several enjoyable games with friends. I need to play it with my son, he is getting to where he can beat me (not to hard, I like the game, but I'm not very good).

[Chessgeek]

On another topic, I've been learning the Latvian Gambit* (aka Greco Counter-Gambit) recently and having a huge amount of fun with it. Anyone have any experience or tips for this opening?

*1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?!

Bleh... One guy at my club plays this... I think I've outprepped him though. In fact, I'm looking forward to my next game with white against him:smallwink:.
With white, he plays the Byrd... I think he enjoys knowing obscure openings too much.

[Morph Bark]

What... but... how do you adjudicate "optional" rules? When you want to take your dad's pawn en passant but he's "optionally" ignoring that rule this game? :smallconfused:

Something like that. When it comes up, we just decide then and there whether to use it, or we might've brought it up earlier in the game or before the game. Most times I've let him make the final call, since I'm just in it to play the game.

Plus I still win about half the time, so it's all good by me.


There are at least two "variant" chess games with cards that add some twists to the game that I have played and enjoyed.
Knightmare Chess and Chaos Chess. Knightmare Chess is by Steve Jackson Games (GURPS, Ogre, and a lot of others), while Chaos Chess is by Hammerdog Games.

Some of the cards in Chaos Chess allow a pawn to "buy a motorcycle and a bat" to become a knight for a number of turns, or a knight to ride a different animal than a horse, thus changing his range and final square.

Knightmare Chess had a card called Brothers in Arms, where two pawns could be linked and moved at the same time.

I own Chaos Chess, and have had several enjoyable games with friends. I need to play it with my son, he is getting to where he can beat me (not to hard, I like the game, but I'm not very good).

That sounds like it's hilariously fun. :smallbiggrin:

I should see if any of my housemates likes chess.

[Othesemo]

I don't get much opportunity to play chess anymore, which is a pity. I hate having to play online vie chess.com or similar (my style of play is too much based on messing with the other person. Also, I like capturing pieces in person), which restricts my chess playing to the occasional game against one of my brothers.

[noparlpf]

I haven't played much this past year, but I used to be pretty good. Not up to master level, of course, but decent. My USCF rating was like 400, though. I only ever played one tournament, early in the morning, after a bad night's sleep, and I always play terribly in tournaments. Warm-up games beforehand or relaxed games afterwards, I can trounce my opponents, but I play the same guy in an official game and I lose horribly. So my skill level is probably at least USCF 1400, although I'm not sure exactly because that's the highest-officially-rated person I've played more than once.

A few weeks ago I was procrastinating on my Spanish final by hanging out with friends in another dorm. One friend got out her chess set, and I played two games with her. A bit later when I was leaving, I said, "Thanks for the chess." Everyone heard, "Thanks for your chest." That was slightly awkward. ("No, I'm sure your chest is lovely, but I'm not into that. I said, 'Thanks for the chess'.")

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Something like that. When it comes up, we just decide then and there whether to use it, or we might've brought it up earlier in the game or before the game. Most times I've let him make the final call, since I'm just in it to play the game.

Plus I still win about half the time, so it's all good by me.



That sounds like it's hilariously fun. :smallbiggrin:

I should see if any of my housemates likes chess.

Chaos Chess can be a lot of fun. You can download the Beta Set here (http://www.hammerdog.com/forms/cc_reg/beta_reg.html), and get the rulebook and 40 cards, plus various markers (fog bank, shield wall, etc), so you can try it before you buy it. You just need to print them out onto cardstock paper and spend a little time with your scissors. I like using little animal pieces to represent the knight on a different mount. Dark Magic is cool too if your opponent likes to hide behind a standard rook/pawn formation. Taking down any two of his pawns for one of yours blows a hole right into his castle walls...

[Starwulf]

I have learned a very important lesson. Do not play chess while tired. I got really drowsy a few hours ago and took a mini-nap, then got up and slunk over to the computer. My Mobile hotspot that I use for the net needed to be charged so I opened up Chess Titans, and within 15 moves I was down a rook, a bishop, both knights and 2 moves away from losing my queen. I kept missing the most easy to spot moves and traps. I said screw it and closed out the game. LOL

[Thufir]

I have learned a very important lesson. Do not play chess while tired. I got really drowsy a few hours ago and took a mini-nap, then got up and slunk over to the computer. My Mobile hotspot that I use for the net needed to be charged so I opened up Chess Titans, and within 15 moves I was down a rook, a bishop, both knights and 2 moves away from losing my queen. I kept missing the most easy to spot moves and traps. I said screw it and closed out the game. LOL

On the other hand, I once won a county championship chess game having been awake for 34 hours straight...

[MCerberus]

I have a lot of chess trophies from 6th grade to the end of high school but haven't played in forever.

I preferred the London for white, variation on the Collie or some c5 responses as black. Mostly tried to set up some advanced nights, but had a habit of trading off my bishops, which, in my openings are highly valued going into midgame.


edit- interesting game you might try, 2 person team game, 1-5 minutes on the clock. Any piece you capture can be put by your teammate on the board on his turn anywhere but the back two rows. No checking, first king capture wins.

edit 2- you only need a rook or a pawn to checkmate, though sometimes two minor pieces can work if you really, really want the long setup for your win.

[Douglas]

edit- interesting game you might try, 2 person team game, 1-5 minutes on the clock. Any piece you capture can be put by your teammate on the board on his turn anywhere but the back two rows. No checking, first king capture wins.
I've seen a variant similar to that, but the second board was playing checkers. Movement and capturing rules go with the piece, but whether force capture applies depends on the board. This makes queens extremely powerful on the checkers board but also very easy to bait. Also, placing a piece on the board is optional (you can hold pieces in reserve for later), done instead of moving a piece for that turn, and has to go in your starting section of the board. I think pieces that are captured after a promotion (pawn to anything, or checker to king checker) reverted to the base piece when placed on the other board.

[noparlpf]

edit- interesting game you might try, 2 person team game, 1-5 minutes on the clock. Any piece you capture can be put by your teammate on the board on his turn anywhere but the back two rows. No checking, first king capture wins.

You mean bughouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess)? The rules on dropped pieces vary a lot. I've had people say you can only drop on the back two ranks, can't drop on the back two or three ranks, can't drop on the first or last rank, &c.

[Dr Bwaa]

Bleh... One guy at my club plays this... I think I've outprepped him though. In fact, I'm looking forward to my next game with white against him:smallwink:.
With white, he plays the Byrd... I think he enjoys knowing obscure openings too much.

Ha! I've only played Bird's Opening a few times with the White pieces, but I think From's Gambit is pretty entertaining as Black. If you don't mind my asking, what's your preferred continuation as White in the Latvian? 3.Nxe5 or something more offbeat?

[noparlpf]

Heh, openings and gambits. I'm amazed I got as good as I am without knowing more than one or two openings, and I don't know the names of them.

[Dr Bwaa]

Well, you can get pretty far on the Sicilian, Queen's Gambit Declined, and Ruy Lopez. Hell, you can get pretty far without knowing any actual openings at all, as long as you have a good handle on the purpose of the early game--develop your pieces, control the center, and set up your midgame plans, whatever those are.

[noparlpf]

Huh. I used to play the Ruy Lopez a lot. So that's what it's called. I know the Sicilian, but apparently the Dragon variation that I used to play is outdated. What's 1. e4 e5, 2. d4 exd4, 3. c3 dxc3, 4. Bc4 cxd2, 5. Bxc2? I think it has a name but I can't remember and I can't find it.

[Vladislav]

On another topic, I've been learning the Latvian Gambit* (aka Greco Counter-Gambit) recently and having a huge amount of fun with it. Anyone have any experience or tips for this opening?

*1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?!

Article (http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_opng_anlys/040410_latvian_gambit.html).

Another article (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss44.pdf)

2...f5 seems quite horrible at first sight, but is actually not so easy to refute on the amateur level, especially if black knows a bit of theory.

[Dr Bwaa]

Huh. I used to play the Ruy Lopez a lot. So that's what it's called. I know the Sicilian, but apparently the Dragon variation that I used to play is outdated. What's 1. e4 e5, 2. d4 exd4, 3. c3 dxc3, 4. Bc4 cxd2, 5. Bxc2? I think it has a name but I can't remember and I can't find it.

That's the Danish Gambit after 3.c3. It's not super popular these days I don't believe, but like the Latvian, it can be devastating against an unprepared opponent.


2...f5 seems quite horrible at first sight, but is actually not so easy to refute on the amateur level, especially if black knows a bit of theory.

And I do! :smallwink: Or at least, I'm learning it. I'm pretty comfortable in extra-sharp situations, so it's been treating me just fine so far (not to say that I haven't also lost some spectacular games; I certainly have).

[MCerberus]

Heh, openings and gambits. I'm amazed I got as good as I am without knowing more than one or two openings, and I don't know the names of them.

Ad-libbing your openings becomes a bad thing once you get in the USCF 1000 range (I believe they still start people in the 550 range?). Mostly because you end up really ceding a lot of control.

And that brings us to the Latvian gambit. You end up with an advanced pawn in exchange for 1. losing another, 2. having an exposed queen early which rolls into, 3. white controls developement.


From what I've seen, the non-orthodox stuff gets picked up in a league, dissected, everyone learns to counter, then counter. In the regional (gateway) league at the time there was a weird phase where everyone tried the 'liver and onions' move.

[noparlpf]

Ad-libbing your openings becomes a bad thing once you get in the USCF 1000 range (I believe they still start people in the 550 range?). Mostly because you end up really ceding a lot of control.

I'm better than USCF 1000 by a good amount. Somehow.


And that brings us to the Latvian gambit. You end up with an advanced pawn in exchange for 1. losing another, 2. having an exposed queen early which rolls into, 3. white controls developement.


From what I've seen, the non-orthodox stuff gets picked up in a league, dissected, everyone learns to counter, then counter. In the regional (gateway) league at the time there was a weird phase where everyone tried the 'liver and onions' move.

I looked it up, I got a "fried liver" opening. Basically white's knight and bishop focussing on the f pawn threatening to fork queen and rook. Is that what you mean?

[MCerberus]

I'm better than USCF 1000 by a good amount. Somehow.



I looked it up, I got a "fried liver" opening. Basically white's knight and bishop focussing on the f pawn threatening to fork queen and rook. Is that what you mean?

Yah just got my terminology mixed up.

You should go see if there are any intermediates in your area and see how you match up against them. Those are the kind of games where the hour on the clock is always too little and you end up drained at the end.

[Thufir]

Frankenstein-Dracula is best opening variation.

[noparlpf]

Yah just got my terminology mixed up.

You should go see if there are any intermediates in your area and see how you match up against them. Those are the kind of games where the hour on the clock is always too little and you end up drained at the end.

I'm nothing like at my best right now. I've hardly played for nearly a year. But I'll be checking on the chess club (there must be one, right?) at SUNY Stony Brook next semester.


Frankenstein-Dracula is best opening variation.

That's a pretty amusing name. Interesting opening, too.

[Chessgeek]

Ha! I've only played Bird's Opening a few times with the White pieces, but I think From's Gambit is pretty entertaining as Black. If you don't mind my asking, what's your preferred continuation as White in the Latvian? 3.Nxe5 or something more offbeat?

I will now begin to play 3. Nxe5. Before, I had
a) come in unprepared as a C player (around 1500) against a low expert (2000) and... well it was quick.
b)Avoided it by playing the King's Indian Attack with marginal success until I blundered from the time and lost a drawn ending.

But against the Bird, I've held twice for a draw, and I only lost once, at least against him.

EDIT: I've heard of the Frankenstein-Dracula, but I have no clue what it arises from. Could you help me out? Meh, I can just Google it anyway.

[Thufir]

EDIT: I've heard of the Frankenstein-Dracula, but I have no clue what it arises from. Could you help me out? Meh, I can just Google it anyway.

1. e4 e5
2. Bc4 Nf6
3. Nc3 Nxe4
4. Qh5 Nd6
5. Bb3 Nc6
6. Nb5 g6
7. Qf3 f5
8. Qd5 Qe7
9. Nxc7+ Kd8
10. Nxa8

[akma]

That is actually exactly what happened, but as far as I'm concerned, that should be a win for me, not a draw.

I disagree, as stallmate when people pay attention to that possibility is usually a result of some trickery and planing.



edit 2- you only need a rook or a pawn to checkmate, though sometimes two minor pieces can work if you really, really want the long setup for your win.

You can checkmate with two minor pieces, but with two knights you can`t force it, and you can theoritically mate if you have one minor piece and the opponent has one or more pieces, but that`s highly unlikely.


what's your preferred continuation as White in the Latvian? 3.Nxe5 or something more offbeat?

No one ever played latvian against me. My first instinct is eXf5, although maybe NXe5 is better.

There is a halloween opening or something like that, that goes like this:
1. e4 e5;
2. Nf3 Nc6;
3. Nc3 Nf6;
4. Nxe5

I have analyzed it a bit in the past...
After black plays Nxe5 white can continue with d4 and continue with pawn advancement to get black to move his knights again and again.
One possible variation, without much knight movement:
4. Nxe5 Nxe5;
5. d4 Ng6
6. e5 Ng8 (the only move that wouldn`t cause the loss of the knight)

In exchange for the lost knight, white gets a lead in development.

[Chessgeek]

1. e4 e5
2. Bc4 Nf6
3. Nc3 Nxe4
4. Qh5 Nd6
5. Bb3 Nc6
6. Nb5 g6
7. Qf3 f5
8. Qd5 Qe7
9. Nxc7+ Kd8
10. Nxa8
Wow. That's pretty interesting.
But why 7...f5? Shouldn't he play Nf5, so that he can play Nh6 to defend f7?

[Dr Bwaa]

No one ever played latvian against me. My first instinct is eXf5, although maybe NXe5 is better.

3.exf5 is playable too. The main four third moves for White are Nxe5, Bc4, exf5 and Nc3 (that's in approximate descending order of strength by my humble estimation). Personally I think it's fairly dangerous for White to decline the gambit (such as with 3.Nc3). 3.d4 has also seen some play, though I haven't encountered it myself yet.


Wow. That's pretty interesting.
But why 7...f5? Shouldn't he play Nf5, so that he can play Nh6 to defend f7?

I believe the intention for Black is to get both Bishops on the long diagonals after 10...b6, so the Knight on d6 isn't really in the way. This way he gets to put together a pretty strong, advanced center and try to keep White from catching up in development. Also, that Knight looks pretty sad on h6 compared to d6, where it can potentially support ...e4.

[BaronOfHell]

Another possiblity of drawing is if one side have no more time left, but the other side only has a king left.

[noparlpf]

Another possiblity of drawing is if one side have no more time left, but the other side only has a king left.

Really? I thought that meant the side with only the king won.

[akma]

Another possiblity of drawing is if one side have no more time left, but the other side only has a king left.

I believe you are mistaken, and losing on time is a lose no matter what.


3.exf5 is playable too. The main four third moves for White are Nxe5, Bc4, exf5 and Nc3 (that's in approximate descending order of strength by my humble estimation). Personally I think it's fairly dangerous for White to decline the gambit (such as with 3.Nc3). 3.d4 has also seen some play, though I haven't encountered it myself yet.

d5 is my response to the king`s gambit (e4 e5 f4), so it would make sense for me to respond with d4 to the latvian gambit. The knight will give me a better position then I have when I play against the king`s gambit.

Nc3 seems like a bad move to me. After fxe4 Nxe4, black could respond with d5, and it seems to me like he would have a better position with no loss of material.

Bc4 could be countered with Nf6, and later d5 to push the bishop back.

[Chessgeek]

I believe you are mistaken, and losing on time is a lose no matter what.

No, BaronofHell is right. If one side has just a king, the other side could run out of time, and the game would be a draw. The idea is that if the side that doesn't run out of time has "insufficient mating material" e.g. just a knight, then no matter how many consecutive moves they were granted, they still wouldn't be able to checkmate the enemy king. Actually, if the person claiming that the opponent ran out of time in a non-sudden death time control, they need an accurate scoresheet, or else the game continues.

There is also the option of claiming insufficient losing chances when one has very little time, but their position would have no chance of losing if they had the time. It is a draw offer, and if it is declined, the TD can place a delay clock with the same times down.

[Chessgeek]

I believe the intention for Black is to get both Bishops on the long diagonals after 10...b6, so the Knight on d6 isn't really in the way. This way he gets to put together a pretty strong, advanced center and try to keep White from catching up in development. Also, that Knight looks pretty sad on h6 compared to d6, where it can potentially support ...e4.

Well yeah, but I'd rather have a passive knight then lose that rook... Maybe I'm greedy, but the sacrifice seems pretty steep. 10...b6 11. Nxb6 axb6 12. Ne2 Bg7 13. 0-0, for example, and I don't think black has enough compensation.

Of course, at my mid-1500's rating, I'm hardly one to give advice, and this is the first time I've seen the opening, but I just don't think that Black gets enough.

I now await the inevitable GM analysis that rips me to shreds:smalltongue:.

[Dr Bwaa]

Well yeah, but I'd rather have a passive knight then lose that rook... Maybe I'm greedy, but the sacrifice seems pretty steep. 10...b6 11. Nxb6 axb6 12. Ne2 Bg7 13. 0-0, for example, and I don't think black has enough compensation.

Of course, at my mid-1500's rating, I'm hardly one to give advice, and this is the first time I've seen the opening, but I just don't think that Black gets enough.

I now await the inevitable GM analysis that rips me to shreds:smalltongue:.

Do we have any GMs in the playground? That would be pretty cool.

By this point in the opening though, White is going to win material regardless-Black committed to that when he took e4. For instance, 7...Nf5 8.Qd5 Nh6 9.d4 (threatening Bxh6 and subsequent mate) ...g5 10.Bxg5 Qxg5 11.Nxc7+ Kd8 12.Nxa8 and White wins the Rook anyway, but now he has a much more active position than he did after 7...f5. There's probably a better move than 10.Bxg5 as well, but I only took a quick look. Basically, White has enough mating power to force the BQ off d8, so the fork is pretty much unavoidable.

I've also seen 9...d6 suggested after 7...Nf5 etc, which continues with 10 Bxh6 Be6 11 Qf3 Bxb3 12 Bxf8 Ba4 13 Bg7 Rg8 14 Bf6 Qd7 15 Na3 Nxd4 16 Qh3 Qxh3 17 Nxh3 and now Black can win a third pawn for his Knight but White has a much stronger position and should win (17...Nxc2+ 18.Nxc2 Bxc2 19.Rc1 or 17...Bxc2 18.f4!).

Of course, I picked up the Latvian Gambit on purpose, so maybe I'm predisposed to like aggressive variations with development pitted against material. :smallbiggrin:

[Vladislav]

Well yeah, but I'd rather have a passive knight then lose that rook... Maybe I'm greedy, but the sacrifice seems pretty steep. 10...b6 11. Nxb6 axb6 12. Ne2 Bg7 13. 0-0, for example, and I don't think black has enough compensation.
Well, first of all, you don't lose a whole rook, just an exchange (the knight on a8 is a goner, after b6 and Bb7 white will have to sac it for a pawn)

Still, are right in saying that the cost is quite steep, but your suggestion of 7...Nf5 (instead of 7...f5) doesn't really avoid it, from what I see.

7...Nf5 8.g4 Nh6 9.d3 and how does black stop the threat of capturing on h6 followed by mate on f7? I don't see a good way, except 9...Qe7, after which white takes the rook anyway, and black's pieces are completely disorganized.

[Dr Bwaa]

@Vladislav, the line you gave is actually kind of okay for Black (certainly not great), after 9.d3 Black can play 9...f6 to block that file. After 10.Qd5 (renewing the threat), now Black has 10...g5, which shuts down the White attack for now. White would be more accurate with 7...Nf5 8.Qd5 Nh6 9.d4, giving Black less time to prepare and keeping his threats viable.

[Hazyshade]

The Latvian Gambit used to be a favourite with bold attacking players (1% of the chess-playing population) and players who thought themselves bold and attacking (50% of the chess-playing population). These days, with the advent of crowdsourced computer analysis, you don't even get an exciting attack with it, let alone theoretical equality. A couple of years ago when I last checked in on the ChessPub forum, some Latvian fanatics were desperately trying to keep the whole thing afloat with lines like 3.Nxe5 Nf6 and the Atars Gambit mentioned in Vladislav's second link.

[Dr Bwaa]

I'd rather face crowdsourced analysis of an unpopular opening than that of the Sicilian or other more common openings, where the literature is nigh-endless. This is especially true in OTB play, where an unfamiliar line may carry psychological advantages as well, and my opponent doesn't have the luxury (at my level at least; obviously this isn't true of better players) of in-depth knowledge of all the theory behind off-beat variations.

EDIT: Just finished a pretty funny game that you all might enjoy. In which I screw up and set a desperate trap. (http://gameknot.com/analyze-board.pl?bd=17897251)

[Hazyshade]

You can be offbeat without being patently unsound. I would much MUCH rather face an unpopular but pretty well-known opening against which I can gain a substantial edge with a single accurate move (4.Nc4), than an obscure Sicilian sideline like the Grivas or the ...a5 Sveshnikov or the ...f5 Kalashnikov against which I wouldn't have a clue what I was doing. The Latvian has been around for half a millennium, and the only reason the literature on it isn't nigh-endless is that it tends to end with the words "Black is losing" after 10-15 moves.

[Dr Bwaa]

You can be offbeat without being patently unsound.

You can, maybe :smalltongue: But seriously, I'm aware that the Latvian is pretty officially unsound. I also know that if it were used against me by an experienced opponent, I'd probably get into serious trouble, or at least I would have a month ago. And as it's hard (without actually belonging to a club or having any regular partners) to practice the White side of the opening, I'm learning it from Black's perspective--and unsound as it may be, it is an awful lot of fun to play.