ITT: Strategies and Tactics to improve chess play
My latest move I am sharing is what I call the "look away gambit". Basically I noticed that many of the pieces have "faces" on them (e.g. the horse and bishop).
Imagine that the board pictured is a real game with physical pieces. White (myself) is sneaking the horse towards the enemy king - I can take him in only two moves. However I have to stop black from seeing this coming.
The solution is to point the horse model so it is "looking" in a different direction. This will distract black and make the king think that the horse is not after him.
I played this in a real game at the F.I.D.E tournament. Two moves later the horse had taken the king and lets just say I had a rather smug expression on my face!
What other chess hacks does \tg\ like to use?
>>46713080
There's no way that knight won you the game in two moves, stop lying bro
>>46713080
>He takes a potato chip
>and points it the other direction!!!!
>>46713102
Thats what black thought! :D
But seriously actually if you look closely you can see the hose can get to the king in two jumps. I got the idea from one of Garry Casperoff's games.
Also, would reading Sun Tsu's "The Art of War" improve my chess game?
>>46713080
This displays so little understanding of the rules of chess the only possible option is a really shitty troll OP.
Any preferences on what to do with the rest of the thread?
Thanks for the chuckle OP
>>46713253
Bro, 2 of his pawns could take that knight once you put him in check. Do you know how chess works?
>>46713080
NORWAY BEST CHESS
MAGNUS CARLSEN
MOTHERFUCKING BASED MAGNUS CARLSEN
N O R W A Y
O
R
W
A
Y
>>46713080
>46713080
So... is this a bait thread? Because I feel like biting hard just to see where it's going.
>>46713080
Alright, we know this is a troll post, but let's break it down.
In the image:
>horrible opening strategy in the picture
>allowed his opponent to take total control of the center
>weakened the fortification of the safest place for the king in the early game
>moved the knight twice, costing him a turn that could have been used to develop his other pieces
In the comment:
>uses the word gambit incorrectly
>calls a knight a horse
>assumes you can "sneak" a chess piece without your opponent realizing it
>assumes that it's a good idea in chess to plan around your opponent making a mistake
>assumes the knight could be moved into enemy territory and left hanging without getting attacked
>THEN assumes that capturing the king to win the game is how it works
>says that there is a tournament called "the F.I.D.E. tournament"
That's some pretty heavy trolling. It's obvious as all hell, of course, but it's still kind of impressive that OP managed to cram that much trolling into a single post.
>>46713080
OK, how about this one? I am using the new hyper modern school of using the king as an attacking piece early in the game. White to move - what should I do \tg\?
>>46713253
Either you're a troll or a retard. Moving your Knight to D3 leaves a rather angry queen right in front of your knight. Checkmate only happens if no move can be made to end check. The queen taking your knight ends the check.
>>46717187
resign.
And stop making idiot posts.
>>46717348
No you still dont get it!!
The way the gambit works is that you make the horse model look away from the king, so when you move to d3 he forgets to take the knight. Then next turn you take the king.
I think the confusion is caused by the picture I posted being of computer chess when this would only work IRL with toy pieces on a real board. Personally I would recommend turning all the horses and bishops to face backwoods when you put you're army in it's deployment zone on turn one.
OK, so lets say the King's Pawn somehow gets to the 8 rank without capturing, and the king has not moved all game. If you promote the pawn to a castle rather than a queen, can you then castle and scoot the king up the board?
All the requirements for castling are there
>>46717639
Not according to FIDE, they're not.
http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article%3A
>There are two different ways of moving the king:
by moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces or by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.
Since e8 is not on the first rank, you cannot castle thus.
>>46717543
>The way the gambit works is that you make the horse model look away from the king, so when you move to d3 he forgets to take the knight. Then next turn you take the king.
Confirmed for knowing nothing about chess. You always must declare a check and no other move can be made until the check is resolved. He cannot "forget" to take the knight, because the only move he can even make is to take the knight. You also do not "take" kings in chess. You checkmate them.
>>46717900
Not him, but at least in most tournaments, you do not indeed announce check, and if your opponent tries to make an illegal move by say, not taking the checking piece when he must, he adds to your clock time.
And in USCF blitz tournaments, you can indeed take the king if he overlooks it.
>>46717348
"Or", nothing; he absolutely a troll. Don't feed the trolls.
>>46717639
No.
Even if you ignore >>46717823 and say that the only requirements for castling are that neither piece has moved, the king is not in check, and the because the rook moved when it was a pawn, and is therefore not unmoved.
>>46718091
No the pawn moved,the rook is a new piece. it makes no sense to say the rook moved because it was not a rook when it moved.
Or I suppose you think that if a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly then the butterfly has moved? Or we evolved from a fish, does it make sense to say that you once swam underwater in the Devonian period?
>>46717639
I heard it's actually a valid strategy in some chess puzzles, and technically you could probably get away with it in friendly matches just because of how amusing and hard to pull off it is.
But in an actual tournament? Or, for that matter, following the official rules? No, it can't.
>>46718472
See >>46718260
It is legal, I've used it against a guy from Iran in a tournament.
>>46718662
It hasn't been legal since the 1930s. How old are you?
>>46718686
I was born in Central Anotolia thousands of years ago. I invented Chess, don't tell me how its played.
>>46717639
Someone else thought of this before you did. So they changed the rules to make it clear you couldn't do it anymore.
