Your move.

Sorry, I'd have responded sooner but I was assaulted by a superfluousness of 5 ads (mind you, I'm strict to grammar generally typing out a number if it is less than 10, otherwise spelling it out typographically, thus illustrating my feverish state of angst) featuring things like "Karoline Levitte wears the world's smallest bikini, click to see" (who I'm pretty sure is the White House spokesperson? Though I'd hope it's a misspelling or a similar name or I simply misremember). And remember, kids come on that site, no doubt it's allowed by even the strictest of Internet filters. Shoot, I could make a site like that in 2 hours flat. A better one, even. Maybe I should. But I'd have some standards as to what ads I'd run. Of course, I doubt they'd bring in much otherwise. Certainly not as much as those ads likely do. Perhaps that's where the old saying comes from: to "sell one's soul for profit."

Anyway. We continue.



Your move.

Not sure if you're familiar so I got a video that explains passing en passant.





Your move.

Btw, I was assaulted by an ad for shoes targeting the elderly with poor ballance. Poor targeting.

What do you think the purpose of "en passant" was. Was the game too boring otherwise? Not us, but say for example, two people who basically have every move and position memorized and would just go back and forth in gridlock without such spontaneity? Does it punish (or rather encourage) pawns moving and not moving? What is your view on the versions of chess that would hypothetically exist with and without such a special rule?



Your move.

Check! I don't know why they invented en passant but it's work'n for me. :grin:



Your move.

Your move.

Your move.

Your move.

Your move.

Your move.

This game looks over.

Your move.

Your move.

Check!



Your move.

The end is nigh. :fear:

The end is nigh. :fear: — BitconnectCarlos

...until he realizes I was actually playing under a special set of rules originating from the Orthodox Buddhist monks of Tibet that permits me one move the average chess so-called guru is unaware of. This "ruleset" is generally heavily suppressed by the government thus explaining how I'm the only one here who knows about it.

Meanwhile, his ignorance or political stance to not recognize such a State (and as a result their customs) as valid is his own personal folly and has nothing to do with me nor this game.

Come on now, all I need is one person to say they know what I'm talking about and we can turn this around, lickety-split. :grin:

Your move.

Your move.

en passant. — praxis

Ohh no... now you've done it, in some sections of the internet this leads to pipi brick... google en passant if you dare...

I am seeing my instantiated life (starting from the moment the game was initiated) flash before my eyes. Come to think of it, I won't be missing very much.



Your move.

I am seeing my instantiated life (starting from the moment the game was initiated) flash before my eyes. Come to think of it, I won't be missing very much. — Outlander

Brick your pipi! I don't know what that means but it's fun to say.



Your move.

Your move.

Checkmate. Thanks for the game!

Checkmate. Thanks for the game! — praxis

I still think if it really came down to it my king would be able to take your queen if she got close enough but, fair enough. Let us respect the rules that respect us.

Also, if you'd like, at what point (or post, if you could link to it) did I make the "fatal" move? I'm assuming it's just before Hanover called it as such.

Your fatal move was here:



Not placing your queen side bishop in kill position.

Not placing your queen side bishop in kill position. — praxis

Bit confused here.

From the first image, if I moved f6 (queen) to c3 (knight) (the furthest possible move) and took the piece on c3, b2 (pawn) would have taken the queen. Of course I could follow up with g7 (bishop) to c3 (pawn) but that would only result in having a bishop (who can only move diagonally) in front of the king at b2. Which is basically useless since you would simply capture it the next turn per common sense.

It's fine, you don't have to answer. I'll figure it out, at my own pace, assuredly. Or, you can be a good sport about it. :grin:

I don't see how the second image is possible from the first.

I don't see how the second image is possible from the first. — Outlander

My next move was knight to a6, forcing your king to c8. My next move after that was the other knight to d5. If your bishop were in “kill position” your queen could have zipped across the board unobstructed to checkmate. Of course I may have seen the threat, but maybe not, I’m easily distracted.

Okay, now I can see that. Well, shoot. I'd fancy another game. But I'm sure you'd prefer someone a bit more on your level to play with. Perhaps @Jamal or @Hanover, or better yet @Count Timothy von Icarus or @Banno could give you a run for your money. They're rather smart cookies, to put it mildly.

It'd certainly be interesting to observe, I'm sure all would agree. One can only assume such brilliant minds have made it so as to have relatively relaxed schedules. Based on what? I'm not entirely sure. Otherwise, I'd enjoy playing again in a few days or so. After I recover from ego death, of course. It's a long process, of which acceptance is the first step. I'll take it when ready. Note the copular ellipsis as opposed to having said "I'll take it when I am ready." I learned that here, by the way. :smile: