How Can White Be in Check and Down Several Pieces?

[DaveC426913]

I am not a chess player.

I wonder if it would be possible for someone to give me a valid board configuration where one colour (preferably white) has lost several pieces more than the other and is now in check.

 

[berkeman]

There are lots of fun chess puzzles that will have what you want. I googled chess puzzles and got a bzillion hits. Here's one with several different kinds and different levels of difficulty:

http://www.logicalchess.com/hcc/puzzles/puzzles.html

 

[berkeman]

Dang you Dave! Now you've got me playing chess puzzles instead of working!

 

[DaveC426913]

Mm. The pieces seem to dwindle somewhat proportionally. Not a lot of serious games where one side has significantly fewer pieces than the other. (So that morons like me can see that one side is obviously losing.)

OK I'll just fake it then.

 

[Clausius2]

Do you like chess?

I like it a lot. Chess is the life. We translate our behaviors in the daily life to the chess board, and viceversa. One behaves as one plays on the board. Offensive players (like me) use to be offensive or ambicious in life, but we usually lose games by surprise, because of silly movements or lack of attention. We drawn ourselves. On the other hand we can overcome the oponent in a couple of movements if he is not paying attention.

Also the chess enables you to look at the life with two or three movements in advance. Some people are unable to account for the movements of the rest of the people in our lives. The rest of the people is there, they are dynamic and they have proper thoughts. Chess helps you to guess those thoughts and plan your play in advance. As it happens with the Physics, chess represents one of the most difficult problems to solve: the problem in which the boundary conditions depend on time (an holonomous problem in Mechanics).

 

[DaveC426913]

I do not like chess.

I have never been all that interested in head-to-head competition (and, I guess, zero-sum games).

I prefer to compete with myself. (For example: Thoujgh I do not play it, but golf is a sport where you compete with yourself for an increasingly lower score.)

 

[Anttech]

I prefer to compete with myself. (For example: Thoujgh I do not play it, but golf is a sport where you compete with yourself for an increasingly lower score.)

Depends if you play match-play or not :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Though I haven't played in years I was once very good at chess. In fact I once beat a guy who in some fashion had been ranked third in the nation. And the fact that he was exceedingly drunk had nothing to do with it.

This is really strange because I was just reminded of chess by another thread...

 

[Lisa!]

I've not played chess for a long time too! that's sort of addictive. I mean I almost forget about anything else(even eating) when I find someone as crazy as I am to spend whole his day playing chess with me.

 

[ocean09]

chess is fun!

 

[mattmns]

I do not like chess.

I have never been all that interested in head-to-head competition (and, I guess, zero-sum games).

I prefer to compete with myself. (For example: Thoujgh I do not play it, but golf is a sport where you compete with yourself for an increasingly lower score.)

Read chess books. There are some really fun chess books that show the beauty of the game. Personally, I am somewhat like you, I really don't care to actually play the game of chess, but I do love to read chess books.

 

[theCandyman]

I love chess. The other day, the campus chess club had its first meeting of the semester. It was great playing again after all summer against only the computer.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In fact I once beat a guy who in some fashion had been ranked third in the nation.

I box, and I play chess. Your post reminds me of the time I defeated Bobby Fischer and Mohammad Ali, both on the same day.

 

[turbo]

I love chess. The other day, the campus chess club had its first meeting of the semester. It was great playing again after all summer against only the computer.

If you want to make things interesting, play against the computer using an uncommon defense, like the Pirc defense, and vary it here and there to learn its strong points and weak points. Don't use the tactics in competition until you have a superior familiarity with them. I did not have a computer back in the '70s, but I had a friend back home that I could play against and I used the Pirc on him exclusively one summer so that he would learn how to better-defend against some of its stronger points and give me a lot of counter-attacks to learn to defend against, and learn how to set traps. I even opened with the Pirc when I had white. By the time I got back to college in the fall, I had learned some pretty handy stuff and my rating went up pretty quickly. One drawback is that although the Pirc gives you open diagonals for your bishops, it gives your opponent the opportunity to dominate the center of the board. If your opponent is patient and careful, he will turn this to his advantage, though if he is rash, there are some neat traps that you can set for him, and this can be very disconcerting when you trip them in tournament play.

 

[berkeman]

If you want to make things interesting, play against the computer using an uncommon defense, like the Pirc defense, and vary it here and there to learn its strong points and weak points. .

I used to use an uncommon offensive strategy against my computer chess board sometimes. I called it the "get bishops" strategy. My goal was to capture both of the board's bishops while keeping mine, even if I lost a couple points in doing it. With the bishop domination, I could often beat the board (I ran about 50% otherwise).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I box, and I play chess. Your post reminds me of the time I defeated Bobby Fischer and Mohammad Ali, both on the same day.

In other words I'm lying?

I'm sorry that my life has been so interesting that others don't believe it. It's often a problem.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In other words I'm lying?

Sorry you took it that way, it was just a joke:

Fischer at boxing, Ali at chess.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, this speaks to the exceedingly drunk part.

I was still thrilled to beat him, and he was sober enough to be really pissed. On a good day he probably would have slaughtered me.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I was still thrilled to beat him.

I know the feeling. I have not played seriously in decades, but I did have a USCF rating of around 1200 at one time. Here's an anecdote of my own.

I played a fellow that told me he was a master (>= 2000 rating) and for all I know he might have been telling the truth. I beat him in the best game of my life. I sacrificed a piece with no exact plan but with the knowledge that I would be able to bring 5 remaining pieces bearing down on his king, with enough space to swing a cat, and a tempo to boot. I crushed him.

 

[turbo]

I know the feeling. I have not played seriously in decades, but I did have a USCF rating of around 1200 at one time. Here's an anecdote of my own.

I played a fellow that told me he was a master (>= 2000 rating) and for all I know he might have been telling the truth. I beat him in the best game of my life. I sacrificed a piece with no exact plan but with the knowledge that I would be able to bring 5 remaining pieces bearing down on his king, with enough space to swing a cat, and a tempo to boot. I crushed him.

The school year after my summer studying the Pirc defense, I went from >1200 to >1400 just by beating better (but less-prepared) players in some key matches. One opponent had the chutzpa to complain to the officials that my Staunton chess set was not "official" size after I beat him, and they gently reminded him that he showed up so late that they should have given me the match by default, but when they approached me, I asked them to give him extra time. He was one of the "rash" players (and not a little cocky) and I wanted to play him, not win by default. During that tournament, a guy that I played frequently and was rated just a bit lower than I was got whipped by a 10-year-old. The kid was the grandson of the senior advisor for our chess club. Very well-dressed and polite kid, serious as a heart attack at the board, but happy and chatty before and after.

 

[berkeman]

During that tournament, a guy that I played frequently and was rated just a bit lower than I was got whipped by a 10-year-old. The kid was the grandson of the senior advisor for our chess club. Very well-dressed and polite kid, serious as a heart attack at the board, but happy and chatty before and after.

Did the kid look like this?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6303114946/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[turbo]

Did the kid look like this?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6303114946/?tag=pfamazon01-20

He was a tow-headed boy with a cherubic face and a bowl-type haircut. Really cute kid! His brother (older, I think) and his (younger, I think) sister competed too, but he was the one that impressed me. This was my second foray into college (around 1975, after a hiatus of a couple of years), so he would be around 40-41 now. My friend was devastated. The kid had him down by a knight (a piece that he favored) within 10 moves or so, and he never recovered.

 

[theCandyman]

Haha, I remember I had just become the chess champion of my high school and I went to play an old man that taught the adjoining middle school chess club. The old man was busy and I ended up playing a kid there. I lost, but I was suprised there was such a strong player in the middle school.

As for ranking, I think our highest ranked player is ~2000 and most of the other guys around 1600-1800. I actually lose the most games of all the regulars, but once in a while I play a beautiful game that impresses everyone, myself included.

Edit: Also, to the one who suggested the Pirc, the pawn structures of our games are usually very complicated, and the fienchetto becomes useless.

 

[Astronuc]

For Chess Fans

A Chess Classic: 'The Immortal Game'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5770290

The history of chess is recounted in The Immortal Game, a new book by David Shenk.

To serious chess players, the book's title has an obvious double meaning: It refers to the game itself and also to a particular match that was played by two masters -- Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky -- in London in 1851.

Shenk weaves the story of that match, move by move, throughout the larger story.

Apparently the winner of the game had lost his queen and several other major pieces, and he wasn't supposed to win.

 

[MeJennifer]

Chess if a nice game but opening books and thus memorization take a lot of fun and interest out of the game IMHO.
I prefer "Fisher random chess", where each game starts at random (with some predefined limits) so that memorizing opening moves becomes a far less important factor.

 

[Rach3]

A Chess Classic: 'The Immortal Game'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5770290

Apparently the winner of the game had lost his queen and several other major pieces, and he wasn't supposed to win.

Actually, he was supposed to win, and he voluntarily gave up ("sacrificed") most of his major pieces to achieve that end - rather spectacular.

 

[KKW]

Adolf Anderssen- nearly became the first World Champion if not for Steintz...

 

[Andre]

Hmm, there was something about ethics and digging up old threads but I wonder why all those excellent players here seem not to be interested in the chess sub forum.

 

[~christina~]

Hmm, there was something about ethics and digging up old threads but I wonder why all those excellent players here seem not to be interested in the chess sub forum.

cough* I'm not excellent at chess but when I have the time over summer break, I'll challenge you to a game. (I'll probably be easy to beat though.. [last time I played chess was a few years ago)

Funny though how I could never actually corner someone into a win.

I did beat the monkey in chessmaster the game though

 

[Andre]

okay, you're on. Although, I have a moral problem. I don't beat ladies.