Bs"d

Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36Q

That's the problem with those trappy gambits; you don't get to play many long games.

https://tinyurl.com/Reti-vs-Scand

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:55:38 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyhorsefork@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bs"d
>
>Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36Q

You thought 8. Bb5 was a better move than 8. Qc8++?

Sheesh!

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:38:53 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:55:38 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
> <nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bs"d
> >
> >Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36Q
> You thought 8. Bb5 was a better move than 8. Qc8++?
>
> Sheesh!

Bs"d

Yeah, I also do that all the time, blundering. Especially in the wee hours of the night, when I can hardly keep my eyes open, but I REALLY feel like playing chess, and despite the fact that I'm blundering like crazy, and that I think that at least I should start playing unrated games, I keep on going on with rated games and drive my rating into the ground.
Unrated games are just not so much fun.
At moments like that I can't see the difference between a horse and a bishop. Then I am like a blind man groping around in the darkness.

But about that game, Qc8 is sometimes a great idea, and for instance in this game I played it with a lot of enthusiasm: https://lichess.org/bx1AX5phaFU2 and it led to an immediate mate.

However, in that funny little game that you brought, the problem with 8. Qc8 is that there is an enemy bishop on g4, so in stead of a mate, it would be a queen sacrifice from my side. And like I said before: I always prefer to sacrifice the pieces of the enemy.

So I thought and still think that 8. Bb5 was the way to go.

http://tinyurl.com/dont-know

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyhorsefork@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:38:53 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:55:38 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
>> <nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bs"d
>> >
>> >Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36Q
>> You thought 8. Bb5 was a better move than 8. Qc8++?
>>
>> Sheesh!
>
>Bs"d
>
>Yeah, I also do that all the time, blundering. Especially in the wee hours of the night, when I can hardly keep my eyes open, but I REALLY feel like playing chess, and despite the fact that I'm blundering like crazy, and that I think that at least I should start playing unrated games, I keep on going on with rated games and drive my rating into the ground.
>Unrated games are just not so much fun.
>At moments like that I can't see the difference between a horse and a bishop. Then I am like a blind man groping around in the darkness.
>
>But about that game, Qc8 is sometimes a great idea, and for instance in this game I played it with a lot of enthusiasm: https://lichess.org/bx1AX5phaFU2 and it led to an immediate mate.
>
>However, in that funny little game that you brought, the problem with 8. Qc8 is that there is an enemy bishop on g4, so in stead of a mate, it would be a queen sacrifice from my side.

Oops. Yes, you're right. Sorry.

> And like I said before: I always prefer to sacrifice the pieces of the enemy.
>
>So I thought and still think that 8. Bb5 was the way to go.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dont-know
>

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 7:56:27 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
> <nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:38:53 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:55:38 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
> >> <nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bs"d
> >> >
> >> >Got myself another Tennison gambit. The enemy saw on move 8 that he was going to lose his queen, so he surrendered: https://lichess.org/B6ey4p7Qg36Q
> >> You thought 8. Bb5 was a better move than 8. Qc8++?
> >>
> >> Sheesh!
> >
> >Bs"d
> >
> >Yeah, I also do that all the time, blundering. Especially in the wee hours of the night, when I can hardly keep my eyes open, but I REALLY feel like playing chess, and despite the fact that I'm blundering like crazy, and that I think that at least I should start playing unrated games, I keep on going on with rated games and drive my rating into the ground.
> >Unrated games are just not so much fun.
> >At moments like that I can't see the difference between a horse and a bishop. Then I am like a blind man groping around in the darkness.
> >
> >But about that game, Qc8 is sometimes a great idea, and for instance in this game I played it with a lot of enthusiasm: https://lichess.org/bx1AX5phaFU2 and it led to an immediate mate.
> >
> >However, in that funny little game that you brought, the problem with 8. Qc8 is that there is an enemy bishop on g4, so in stead of a mate, it would be a queen sacrifice from my side.
> Oops. Yes, you're right. Sorry.

Bs"d

No problem.

https://tinyurl.com/dashing-gambit

Bs"d

Got myself another Tennison gambit after starting with the Reti opening.
I didn't go for the endless attack of the enemy pawn on e4, and then hope to have his queen come out to defend it, because I found that with opponents of 1800+ they just see my queen coming and making a three pronged attack, on the bishop, king, and b7, like I had in this game: https://lichess.org/bx1AX5phaFU2
They usually don't fall for it. So I tried that line that the GM advised me, and that worked out very nice. Look here on move 9: https://lichess.org/XwMM65H872n0 It is materially still equal, but look at the position! Black is really messed up.
And in a rotten position black blundered away a horse and resigned.

Not so bad that new line. And there are quite a bit more traps and pitfalls in it.

Life is good with opening traps :D

https://tinyurl.com/blunders-lie-in-wait

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:44:19 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyhorsefork@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bs"d
>
>Got myself another Tennison gambit after starting with the Reti opening.

By the way, although some people call 1. Nf3 the Reti opening, many
others don't.

I'm one of the others who don't. To me, the Reti opening is

1. Nf3 d5
2. c4

And whether one uses your definition or mine, the problem with calling
it the Reti opening is that it can, and usually does, morph into
another opening entirely. So I don't like giving the opening a name
until a few moves later. So, for example, if the game goes

1. Nf3 d5
2. c4 e6
3. d4 Nf6
4. Nc3

I'd call it a Queen's Gambit declined, not a Reti Opening.

There are many other possibilities.

Similarly, if a game begins

1. e4 Nf6

most people would call the opening Alekhine's defense, but if it
continues

2. Nc3 e5

I'd call it the Vienna Game, and if it continues

3. Nf3 Nc6

I'd call it the Four Knights Game.

My point is that a name shouldn't be given to an opening too early.

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 6:17:01 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:44:19 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
> <nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bs"d
> >
> >Got myself another Tennison gambit after starting with the Reti opening.
> By the way, although some people call 1. Nf3 the Reti opening, many
> others don't.
>
> I'm one of the others who don't. To me, the Reti opening is
>
> 1. Nf3 d5
> 2. c4
>
> And whether one uses your definition or mine, the problem with calling
> it the Reti opening is that it can, and usually does, morph into
> another opening entirely. So I don't like giving the opening a name
> until a few moves later. So, for example, if the game goes
>
> 1. Nf3 d5
> 2. c4 e6
> 3. d4 Nf6
> 4. Nc3
>
> I'd call it a Queen's Gambit declined, not a Reti Opening.
>
> There are many other possibilities.
>
> Similarly, if a game begins
>
> 1. e4 Nf6
>
> most people would call the opening Alekhine's defense, but if it
> continues
>
> 2. Nc3 e5
>
> I'd call it the Vienna Game, and if it continues
>
> 3. Nf3 Nc6
>
> I'd call it the Four Knights Game.
>
> My point is that a name shouldn't be given to an opening too early.

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 6:17:01 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:44:19 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
> <nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bs"d
> >
> >Got myself another Tennison gambit after starting with the Reti opening.
> By the way, although some people call 1. Nf3 the Reti opening, many
> others don't.
>
> I'm one of the others who don't. To me, the Reti opening is
>
> 1. Nf3 d5
> 2. c4
>
> And whether one uses your definition or mine, the problem with calling
> it the Reti opening is that it can, and usually does, morph into
> another opening entirely. So I don't like giving the opening a name
> until a few moves later. So, for example, if the game goes
>
> 1. Nf3 d5
> 2. c4 e6
> 3. d4 Nf6
> 4. Nc3
>
> I'd call it a Queen's Gambit declined, not a Reti Opening.
>
> There are many other possibilities.
>
> Similarly, if a game begins
>
> 1. e4 Nf6
>
> most people would call the opening Alekhine's defense, but if it
> continues
>
> 2. Nc3 e5
>
> I'd call it the Vienna Game, and if it continues
>
> 3. Nf3 Nc6
>
> I'd call it the Four Knights Game.
>
> My point is that a name shouldn't be given to an opening too early.

Bs"d

Point taken. But another point is, the first move should also have a name. Or, that would be nice. Wikipedia seems to be on your side concerning the Reti opening, but it does give some credit to me in the page about the Tennison gambit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennison_Gambit

"The Tennison Gambit is a chess opening in which White gambits a pawn.[1][2][3][4] The ECO code is A06, and the opening moves begin with either the Réti Opening:[5]

1. Nf3 d5
2. e4

or the Scandinavian Defense:

1. e4 d5
2. Nf3"

But under "Reti opening" they are on your side.

Anyway, the beast's got to have a name.

https://tinyurl.com/Reti-vs-Scand

Bs"d

Just slaughtered an 1893 with a Stafford gambit in 10 moves: https://lichess.org/EzH9DlAEW1Ku

I considered aborting the game, almost 1900's are way too strong for me, but I decided to play him anyway, and thank God, I got a 10 move miniature, whereby the enemy blundered away his queen on move 10.

But also without him blundering away his queen I would have won serious material. Stockfish says that the position before white blundering away his queen was -8.5 for white. I had the triple attack on f2, and that is going to cost the enemy dearly.

What would life be without trappy gambits?

https://tinyurl.com/amaz-Staff

The above picture gets me going again on the names of the openings. I prefer "Spanish" above Ruy Lopez, "Italian", above the unmentionable opening, and "Russian defense" above Petrov or Petroff. So why do I write "Petrov"? Because it is way shorter than "Russian defense" and a little shorter than "Petroff". I call it 'economy', some call it laziness.
Anyway, I like the Petrov, and play it most of the time against 1. e4. According to Wikipedia: "Petrov's Defence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petrov's Defence
Petrov's Defence or the Petrov Defence (also called Petroff Defence, Petrov's Game, Russian Defence, or Russian Game – Russian: Русская партия) is a chess opening characterised by the following moves:

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6

Though this symmetrical response has a long history, it was first popularised by Alexander Petrov, a Russian chess player in the mid-19th bla bla bla...."

So this is the Petrov: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6. But, it happens regularly that the enemy continues with 3. Nc3, and then I do Nc6, and then suddenly we have a four horses game on the board. Does that mean that the Petrov I played was not a Petrov? Of course not. The Petrov was a good solid Petrov, it is just that an opening can morph into another opening. That's just a fact of life; an opening can change into another opening. Changing openings is like covid-19, we don't have to afraid of it, (unless of course when you over 80, but then you have a lot more to be afraid of) and we just have to learn to live with it, just like we live with the flu.
So the fact that an opening might change it's name along the way is not a good excuse to wait with naming openings until the 20th move is reached. Like I said; the animal needs a name.

https://tinyurl.com/dev-Stafford

Bs"d

A miniature. About as short as it gets in real play. Mate on move 5.

I started with an Englund gambit, but he smelled a trap, and refused it, only to stumble into another trap:
https://lichess.org/WQhvq2UE3hko

When playing against an opponent armed with a big bag of traps, you're walking trough a mine field.

You better watch your step.

https://tinyurl.com/mind-ur-step

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 12:49:40 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyhorsefork@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bs"d
>
>A miniature. About as short as it gets in real play. Mate on move 5.
>
>I started with an Englund gambit, but he smelled a trap, and refused it, only to stumble into another trap:
>https://lichess.org/WQhvq2UE3hko

It's incredible that you beat such a skilled player. You'll probably
be named a grandmaster soon.

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 8:27:42 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> This is an interesting variant of the Tennison gambit. As usual I started with a Reti, gambiteered a pawn, and the game was on:
> lichess.org/emBu8UEASMPJ
>
> After I sacrificed a pawn of mine, the enemy came out immediately with his queen, in order to protect his lone pawn. And for that eventuality I had just the right trap. The trap that the enemy fell into heels over head. The kind of trap that costed the enemy a full castle. He played on. A horse fork popped up, which costed the enemy more material, and then yet another horse fork popped up, but before I could execute that one the enemy surrendered.
>
> Horse forks are fun. Almost much fun as opening traps :D
>
> tinyurl.com/deadly-Tennison

Bs"d

And I got another one, same Tennison gambit, and the enemy came again out with his queen on move 3, in order to protect his pawn. I set the same trap, and on move 8, when he saw that he was going to lose a castle, he resigned:
https://lichess.org/hjHuC4G4Hpd1

I think I like the Tennison gambit.

I go for it about every time I have white.

https://tinyurl.com/Nasty-Tennison

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:44:20 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
<nastyhorsefork@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 8:27:42 AM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> Bs"d
>>
>> This is an interesting variant of the Tennison gambit. As usual I started with a Reti, gambiteered a pawn, and the game was on:
>> lichess.org/emBu8UEASMPJ
>>
>> After I sacrificed a pawn of mine, the enemy came out immediately with his queen, in order to protect his lone pawn. And for that eventuality I had just the right trap. The trap that the enemy fell into heels over head. The kind of trap that costed the enemy a full castle. He played on. A horse fork popped up, which costed the enemy more material, and then yet another horse fork popped up, but before I could execute that one the enemy surrendered.
>>
>> Horse forks are fun. Almost much fun as opening traps :D
>>
>> tinyurl.com/deadly-Tennison
>
>Bs"d
>
>And I got another one, same Tennison gambit, and the enemy came again out with his queen on move 3, in order to protect his pawn. I set the same trap, and on move 8, when he saw that he was going to lose a castle, he resigned:
>https://lichess.org/hjHuC4G4Hpd1

You beat another superstrong player! Amazing.

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 11:28:34 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 12:49:40 -0800 (PST), Eli Kesef
> <nastyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bs"d
> >
> >A miniature. About as short as it gets in real play. Mate on move 5.
> >
> >I started with an Englund gambit, but he smelled a trap, and refused it, only to stumble into another trap:
> >https://lichess.org/WQhvq2UE3hko
> It's incredible that you beat such a skilled player. You'll probably
> be named a grandmaster soon.

Bs"d

A man can only hope.....

https://tinyurl.com/Bobby-F

Bs"d

But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.

https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake

It's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't have to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.

Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.

William Hyde

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > Bs"d
> >
> > But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake
> It's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't have to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
>
> Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
>
> William Hyde

Bs"d

Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?

Well, I think that the present consensus is that Zukertort refers to Nf3, and the Reti to some more moves which I don't play, so I think I'll stick to the sugar pie opening. I also like that name better.

https://tinyurl.com/keep-calm-play

Bs"d

So yesterday I was going over an old game from 2009, which I hadn't looked over yet. It was a Scottish gambit, and it went like this: https://lichess.org/BScBm1yp/black#26

I never play the Scotch, get it seldom or never against me, so I had totally forgotten about that interesting line. But I really liked that game, and stored it in my memory, because it was so funny. And what happened today? YES!! I got a Scottish gambit against me. I played that line, but I didn't get exactly the same game, but I got a very satisfying game in which the enemy was going to lose his queen on move 12, and therefore he surrendered on move 12.

I'm very happy with the help from Above I got. I mean; coincidence?? Don't think I played against a Scotch for the last 10 years, and then something like this happens?

I can only humbly and quietly shout out: HALLELUJAH!!!

https://tinyurl.com/Hallel-starry3

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 2:46:31 PM UTC+2, Eli Kesef wrote:
> Bs"d
>
> So yesterday I was going over an old game from 2009, which I hadn't looked over yet. It was a Scottish gambit, and it went like this: https://lichess.org/BScBm1yp/black#26
>
> I never play the Scotch, get it seldom or never against me, so I had totally forgotten about that interesting line. But I really liked that game, and stored it in my memory, because it was so funny. And what happened today? YES!! I got a Scottish gambit against me. I played that line, but I didn't get exactly the same game, but I got a very satisfying game in which the enemy was going to lose his queen on move 12, and therefore he surrendered on move 12.
>
> I'm very happy with the help from Above I got. I mean; coincidence?? Don't think I played against a Scotch for the last 10 years, and then something like this happens?
>
> I can only humbly and quietly shout out: HALLELUJAH!!!
>
> https://tinyurl.com/Hallel-starry3

Bs"d

Here is the link of the freshly played Scottish gambit: https://lichess.org/7AC8zWhKBUdk

https://tinyurl.com/furry-scotch

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > Bs"d
> > >
> > > But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
> > >
> > > https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake
> > It's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't have to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
> >
> > Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
> >
> > William Hyde
> Bs"d
>
> Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?

You're not playing the Reti or the Zukertort, you're just playing the Tennison.

>
> Well, I think that the present consensus is that Zukertort refers to Nf3,

Lazy people sometimes call anything beginning with 1NF3 the Reti, the Zukertort, or the Reti-Zukertort. It isn't, any more than 1e4 is the Ruy Lopez or Scotch game. With a few exceptions it is the later moves that determine what opening is being played.

And even the exceptions have exceptions. 1f4 is the Bird, but 1f4 e5 2e4 has now become the King's gambit, and after 2... d5 the Falkbeer counter gambit. Similarly 1c4 is the English, but it can later become the Queen's gambit, Catalan, King's gambit, or a host of others.

Does anyone ever reply g6 to your 1NF3?

William Hyde

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 11:24:48 PM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> > > > Bs"d
> > > >
> > > > But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
> > > >
> > > > https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake
> > > It's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't have to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
> > >
> > > Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
> > >
> > > William Hyde
> > Bs"d
> >
> > Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?
> You're not playing the Reti or the Zukertort, you're just playing the Tennison.
> >
> > Well, I think that the present consensus is that Zukertort refers to Nf3,
> Lazy people sometimes call anything beginning with 1NF3 the Reti, the Zukertort, or the Reti-Zukertort. It isn't, any more than 1e4 is the Ruy Lopez or Scotch game. With a few exceptions it is the later moves that determine what opening is being played.
>
> And even the exceptions have exceptions. 1f4 is the Bird, but 1f4 e5 2e4 has now become the King's gambit,

Bs"d

Yes, it has become the kings gambit, but that doesn't change the fact that you started out with the Bird opening.

> and after 2... d5 the Falkbeer counter gambit. Similarly 1c4 is the English, but it can later become the Queen's gambit, Catalan, King's gambit, or a host of others.
>
> Does anyone ever reply g6 to your 1NF3?

I don't think I've ever seen that. Many times Nf6, but quite often d5, what I need.

But it is not very long that I play 1.Nf3

https://tinyurl.com/phil-game

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:24:45 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
>> > > Bs"d
>> > >
>> > > But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
>> > >
>> > > https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake
>> > It's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't have to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
>> >
>> > Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
>> >
>> > William Hyde
>> Bs"d
>>
>> Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?
>
>You're not playing the Reti or the Zukertort, you're just playing the Tennison.

Yes, as I essentially said in an earlier message. He persists in
calling openings by wrong names, just as he persists in calling pieces
by wrong names. Telling him about does little good; he just wants to
look ignorant.

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:11:17 PM UTC+2, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:24:45 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> >> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC+2, William Hyde wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:18:54 PM UTC-5, Eli Kesef wrote:
> >> > > Bs"d
> >> > >
> >> > > But I think that in stead of opening with Reti opening en going for the Tennison gambit, I'm going to switch to the Zukertort opening.
> >> > >
> >> > > https://tinyurl.com/sugar-cake
> >> > It's amusing that while you play 1Nf3 intending to gambit a pawn, Zukertort played 1Nf3 specifically to avoid a gambit by black, the Albin counter gambit to be precise. Not that he thought the Albin was too strong to meet, but this way he didn't have to memorize Albin theory, and hence could get into his beloved QGD (an attacking weapon in his hands) without bother.
> >> >
> >> > Reti played 1Nf3 with a very different idea, which is why the opening does not technically become a Reti until the second move, though later in life he also frequently transposed into the QGD, and had quite a bit of success with it.
> >> >
> >> > William Hyde
> >> Bs"d
> >>
> >> Oh, so it is totally useless to switch to the Zukertort opening, and I might as well stick with the Reti opening?
> >
> >You're not playing the Reti or the Zukertort, you're just playing the Tennison.
> Yes, as I essentially said in an earlier message. He persists in
> calling openings by wrong names, just as he persists in calling pieces
> by wrong names. Telling him about does little good; he just wants to
> look ignorant.

Bs"d

Like I said, for the Zukertort I have wikipedia on my side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zukertort_Opening

I quote: "The Zukertort Opening is a chess opening named after Johannes Zukertort that begins with the move:

1. Nf3

Sometimes the name "Réti Opening" is used for the opening move 1.Nf3,[1] although most sources define the Réti more narrowly as the sequence 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4.[2] "

So wikipedia says that 1. Nf3 is the Zukertort opening. And who are we to argue with Wikipedia?

And I have another source; Lichess. When I go to my profile, and I click on games, I get to see a long list of games: https://lichess.org/@/Carnivorum/all And when I see my first game where I tried for the Tennison gambit by beginning with 1. Nf3, there it says: "A04 Zukertort Opening: Pirc invitation."

Next game where I started with 1. Nf3 https://lichess.org/v3qT2Itt/white

[ECO "A05"]
[Opening "Zukertort Opening"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Nc3"

Another game where I started with 1. Nf3 https://lichess.org/UFJeEWMc/white#6

[TimeControl "900+15"]
[ECO "A04"]
[Opening "Zukertort Opening: Ross Gambit"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"][Event "Rated Classical game"]

1. Nf3 e5 { A04 Zukertort Opening: Ross Gambit } 2. Nxe5 Nf6

And one more, a succesfull Tennison: https://lichess.org/emBu8UEA/white

[TimeControl "900+15"]
[ECO "A06"]
[Opening "Zukertort Opening: Tennison Gambit"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. e4 { A06 Zukertort Opening: Tennison Gambit } dxe4 3. Ng5 Qd5

So according to Lichess I play a Zukertort opening.

And one more source, and International Master: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1obxBdqo4CU
In the first seconds het says that the Tennison gambit can arise from the ZUKERTORT opening.

And who are we, mere mortals, to argue with an IM?

So I have Wikipedia, Lichess, and and IM on my side, who all say that when I play 1. Nf3, and try for the Tennison, then I'm playing the ZUKERTORT opening.

So because of all these sources, and because I like sugary pies, (Zukertort means sugar pie) I'll stick to the Zukertort opening.

And about the names of the pieces, we spoke about that already in length, above here in this tread.

I'll copy a few excerpts:

This is a rook: https://tinyurl.com/non-chess-rook

This is a castle: https://tinyurl.com/chess-castle

Please let me explain the difference.

A rook is always black, not half the time white.
A rook has feathers and can fly, which is not the case with our castles.

Deep down every chess player knows that a castle is a castle, and not a rook, because we regularly do the castling, and we never do the rooking.

I hope we can now all get our nomenclature right.

Hanging on to calling a castle after a big black bird because the Persians use to call it an "elephant", a "rukh", is silly.
Our castles have nothing to do anymore with elephants, nor with black carrion eating birds.

Time to move on.

Do you want to think for yourself, be a trendsetter, or do you want to follow the herd?

Be aware: He who follows the herd is usually wading through shit.

https://tinyurl.com/horse-not-knight

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 3:26:14 PM UTC+2, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:11:12 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:
> >Yes, as I essentially said in an earlier message. He persists in
> >calling openings by wrong names, just as he persists in calling pieces
> >by wrong names. Telling him about does little good; he just wants to
> >look ignorant.
> My old club used to have a special award called "international
> grandpatzer" - it was given to a player who had faithfully supported
> the club for years but never gained in strength which he thought to be
> more than he in fact possessed.
>
> I'm not saying but...

Bs"d

https://tinyurl.com/trappish