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....)
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)
Something horrific like Nf6+ 'mate', 1-0?
ReplyDeleteNot as such
ReplyDeleteMm. How about 10. Bf6 exf6 (trying to be clever) 11. Nxf6 mate nonetheless?!
ReplyDeleteBtw, just how many tempi has black managed to lose in this game!?
I thought losing tempi was an antiquated concept (as apparently did the players).
ReplyDeleteDid white play Nxe6 :-)
ReplyDeleteTickly
hi moderator.
ReplyDeleteMeant Nxd6++
In a way of course your first entry would have made just as much sense.
ReplyDeleteDid White somehow 'checkmate' Black, then later it was noticed it wasn't mate at all?
ReplyDeletePG
I think there is a consensus growing around what may in fact be the right answer....
ReplyDeleteI wondered about Nxd6 mate too. We shall see...
ReplyDeleteWas it a counter-attack, something like the following?
ReplyDelete10.O-O-O f6 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.Bxf6 Bh6+ 13.Kc2? Bf5+ 14.Kc3? and Black plays Na4/d5+ (maybe castling first)
I am afraid it was not.
ReplyDeleteWe already have the right answer - mate on d6 - and an explanation will be provided tomrrow.
Looks a bit like a game of mine from last season:
ReplyDelete1 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.
That 8...Nf7 was a good move, wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteWell I nearly fell off my chair when he played it.
ReplyDeleteAB
was this a university match?
ReplyDeleteHeard of the very same thing before, but hadn't seen actual game.
was this a university match?
ReplyDeleteNot as such!
How about 10 c5 Nd5 11 dxe7 Nxe7 12 Nd6#
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid not...
ReplyDeleteIs it Nxd6#, by any chance? ;)
ReplyDeleteRichard
Isn't Adam B's game one for your 'Worst Move on the Board' collection?
ReplyDeletePG
Oh, it certainly meets the most important criterion.
ReplyDelete(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....)
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)
ReplyDeleteAB