samsloan wrote:
Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing
the game and I can no longer find the scoresheet.

Oh, how very convenient. Just like the time I beat a consultation
team of Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik.


However, the game started like this. I was Black:

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
Rb1 Qa3

A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to
give him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.

Um. Is this one of those points where USCF rules and FIDE rules
diverge? Under FIDE rules, you would have been given extra time on
the clock to compensate you for the confusion and White would have
been forced to make a legal move with the Bf1 if any such move
existed (assuming the Bf1 was the first piece he touched); if there
was no such move, he would be forced to make a legal capture of your
Bc3; if no capture was legal, he would have a free choice of move.
The game is forfeit by a player who makes three illegal moves.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Edible Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing lager but you can eat it!

On Nov 13, 7:08 am, David Richerby
wrote:
samsloan wrote:
Actually, I have been very nice to Mr. Koepcke by never publishing
the game and I can no longer find the scoresheet.

Oh, how very convenient. Just like the time I beat a consultation
team of Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik.

However, the game started like this. I was Black:

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7.
Rb1 Qa3

A few moves later, I played Bxc3 and he played B on f1 captures B on
c3 which of course is illegal. He then said that he wanted me to
give him the move back. When I would not agree, he resigned.

Um. Is this one of those points where USCF rules and FIDE rules
diverge? Under FIDE rules, you would have been given extra time on
the clock to compensate you for the confusion and White would have
been forced to make a legal move with the Bf1 if any such move
existed (assuming the Bf1 was the first piece he touched); if there
was no such move, he would be forced to make a legal capture of your
Bc3; if no capture was legal, he would have a free choice of move.
The game is forfeit by a player who makes three illegal moves.

Dave, I take it you have a set of FIDE rules handy? If so, can you
tell me, is there any penalty for a false announcement of check? By
this I mean saying "check" when making a move that actually does not
give check. I'm sure this happens only very rarely, if at all, in FIDE
competition, but I have experienced it in USCF play.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Dave, I take it you have a set of FIDE rules handy?

Yes, as do you:

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101

If so, can you tell me, is there any penalty for a false announce-
ment of check? By this I mean saying "check" when making a move that
actually does not give check.

Well, of course, there's no requirement to announce check or, indeed,
say anything to one's opponent except to adjust a piece, resign or
offer a draw. The only relevant law that I can see is law 12.6: `It
is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner
whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers
of a draw.'

So, if the arbiter felt that the opponent was being distracted or
annoyed by the false claim of check (most likely, there would have to
be several), he could apply any of the penalties from Law 13.4 that he
felt to be appropriate: warning the offender, adjusting the clocks
(either decreasing the offender's time or increasing the opponent's),
forfeiting the game, adjusting the points scored by the players for
that game or expelling the offender from the event.

In practice, I imagine a warning would be sufficient, if any action
was felt to be required.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Happy Hat (TM): it's like a hat that
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ makes your troubles melt away!

David Richerby wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
can you tell me, is there any penalty for a false announce ment of
check?

Well, of course, there's no requirement to announce check or,
indeed, say anything to one's opponent except to adjust a piece,
resign or offer a draw. The only relevant law that I can see is law
12.6: `It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any
manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or
unreasonable offers of a draw.'

'Scuse the self-follow-up.

What I forgot to say is that, since even a truthful announcemement of
check could be taken as a distraction to the opponent (and, particu-
larly, the other players), the sanctions I described could also be
applied in that case, too. Again, I imagine a warning would be
sufficient in all cases, except where the offender is being deliber-
ately disruptive, in which case expulsion would seem to be the only
option.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Technicolor Robot (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-tech robot but it's in realistic
colour!

On Nov 13, 5:47 am, help bot wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:11 pm, Fromper wrote:

You know, everyone makes fun of the Englund Gambit, but I think most
of the people who ridicule it would have a tougher time beating it
than they think.

Perhaps you should re-think that; it is not the gambit
/itself/ a player has to beat. All a player needs to do is
take the superior position an unsound gambit provides,
and then work with it a bit.

I've used it three times in USCF tournament games and
scored two wins and a draw, all against opponents rated above me.

Very nice! Would you like to bet that your lucky
streak will continue were you to play someone who
is not rattled by an opponent going "out of book", so
to speak, early? I have been playing atGetClubfor
quite some time, and have seen everything under the
Sun; it makes no difference to me that the program
has what Sanny calls "bugs", but which I suspect
are merely "features", like frequent Windows crashes
or self-canceling turn signals. A bad move is still bad,
even if it steers into positions you have studied and
which most opponents are unfamiliar with.

It may not be playable at the grandmaster level

I don't know about that; Rybka has been quite
successful with virtually any one-pawn gambit, so
far.

but for us class
players, it's a good way to get into an open, tactical dogfight.

If you cannot get into an open, tactical dogfight
without this sort of thing, perhaps you are playing
the sound openings incorrectly. Truth be told, I
*rarely* get anything but a tactical dogfight, even
though I like semi-closed, strategical positions!

One fellow in particular seems to be convinced
that trading off pieces will help him achieve a
draw; trouble is, he loses ground with each
effort to trade off one more piece, and all these
backwards "baby steps" lead every time to a bad
position which, although simplified a bit, cannot
be held (but even here, the tactics abound).

If you /must/ play inferior gambits, try to select
those which at least have something in their
favor besides surprise value. (Look at poor Mr.
Sloan: he is reduced to playing Damiano's
Defense and grotesquely mishandling the Grob.)
Why not give the decent gambits a try, or play
tactical lines which do not entail dropping any
material whatever? Afraid of 1.d4? Never fear--
there are numerous /sound/ replies, and not all
of them are boring.

-- help bot

GetClub Chess Bugs has been removed. Now it plays decent game.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Nov 13, 12:31 am, Rob wrote:

Bot,
Come back to chessworld.net. you have some games waiting.


If it's that creep from Iceland, tell him I want *Queen*
odds this time. I'm sick and tired of losing at Rook
odds, while listening to ranting and raving about jewelry.
Do I look like I give a hang about what he wears, or
the size of his, um, organ? No. Besides... he MUST
be using a computer -- there is no other possible
explanation since I was getting help from Nigel Short.


-- help bot

On Nov 13, 7:08 pm, help bot wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:31 am, Rob wrote:

Bot,
Come back to chessworld.net. you have some games waiting.

If it's that creep from Iceland, tell him I want *Queen*
odds this time. I'm sick and tired of losing at Rook
odds, while listening to ranting and raving about jewelry.
Do I look like I give a hang about what he wears, or
the size of his, um, organ? No. Besides... he MUST
be using a computer -- there is no other possible
explanation since I was getting help from Nigel Short.

-- help bot

He offered rook,pawn and two moves. He also said it wasn't jewelry he
was ranting about ,.. but your were half right when you said that. He
also said he has no idea who SS is and says he will beat him with
queen qnd rook odds. I think the guy must be a little mad, myself.