Wednesday, November 19, 2008

What happened next? VI


From an English club game: position after Black's 9...Nb8-d7.

What happened next?


[Previously on What happened next?]

23 comments:

Tom Chivers said...

Something horrific like Nf6+ 'mate', 1-0?

ejh said...

Not as such

Tom Chivers said...

Mm. How about 10. Bf6 exf6 (trying to be clever) 11. Nxf6 mate nonetheless?!

Btw, just how many tempi has black managed to lose in this game!?

ejh said...

I thought losing tempi was an antiquated concept (as apparently did the players).

Anonymous said...

Did white play Nxe6 :-)
Tickly

Anonymous said...

hi moderator.
Meant Nxd6++

ejh said...

In a way of course your first entry would have made just as much sense.

Anonymous said...

Did White somehow 'checkmate' Black, then later it was noticed it wasn't mate at all?

PG

ejh said...

I think there is a consensus growing around what may in fact be the right answer....

Jonathan B said...

I wondered about Nxd6 mate too. We shall see...

weakspeaker said...

Was it a counter-attack, something like the following?

10.O-O-O f6 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.Bxf6 Bh6+ 13.Kc2? Bf5+ 14.Kc3? and Black plays Na4/d5+ (maybe castling first)

ejh said...

I am afraid it was not.

We already have the right answer - mate on d6 - and an explanation will be provided tomrrow.

Anonymous said...

Looks a bit like a game of mine from last season:

1 d4 f5
2 Bg5 g6
3 Nd2 Bg7
4 e4 fxe4
5 Nxe4 d5
6 Ng3 Nh6
7 Nh5 Bf8
8 Qe2 Nf7
9 Nf6#

Adam B.

ejh said...

That 8...Nf7 was a good move, wasn't it?

Anonymous said...

Well I nearly fell off my chair when he played it.

AB

Anonymous said...

was this a university match?
Heard of the very same thing before, but hadn't seen actual game.

ejh said...

was this a university match?

Not as such!

Neill Cooper said...

How about 10 c5 Nd5 11 dxe7 Nxe7 12 Nd6#

ejh said...

I'm afraid not...

Anonymous said...

Is it Nxd6#, by any chance? ;)

Richard

Anonymous said...

Isn't Adam B's game one for your 'Worst Move on the Board' collection?

PG

ejh said...

Oh, it certainly meets the most important criterion.

(I think it does anyway. I thought that last week's Dahlin-Richardson move did as well, until one of the comments pointed out another way to be mated in two....)

Anonymous said...

In fairness I had 3 successive games at that venue which were decided by someone creating a mate in 1 for their opponent - bad lighting perhaps! On one of those occassions I was the "matee" (as opposed to "mater". If these terms exist, if not then they should)

AB