Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
** The last moves of this game were used in {{Film/Blade Runner}}.
to:
** The last moves of this game were used in {{Film/Blade Runner}}.''{{Film/Blade Runner}}''.
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* Awesome moments are not always winning. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew_n0SDjT0 One online player]] managed to make a move so bad that it wraps around the world and becomes unironically amazing in spite of itself. After trading advantage back and forth with their opponent for the entire game, they wind up in a position where they can deliver checkmate on their next move. They can deliver ''check'' with their bishop in two different ways, but only one of them wins. The other ''loses by force'' (that is, after playing it the opponent’s only remaining legal move is [[SurpriseCheckmate to deliver checkmate]].) They play the wrong one, but in doing so, [[NecessaryFail goes down in history]]. The chance that a similar position will occur again in an organic game where both sides are sincerely trying to win is so microscopic that the player deserves some praise despite losing. And when asked, they said they truly didn’t see the opponent’s mate in 1, and [[AssumedWin thought they'd won]].
to:
* Awesome moments are not always winning. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew_n0SDjT0 One online player]] managed to make a move so bad that it wraps around the world and becomes unironically amazing in spite of itself. After trading advantage back and forth with their opponent for the entire game, they wind up in a position where they can deliver checkmate on their next move. They can deliver ''check'' with their bishop in two different ways, but only one of them wins. The other ''loses by force'' (that is, after playing it the opponent’s opponent's only remaining legal move is [[SurpriseCheckmate to deliver checkmate]].) They play the wrong one, but in doing so, [[NecessaryFail goes down in history]]. The chance that a similar position will occur again in an organic game where both sides are sincerely trying to win is so microscopic that the player deserves some praise despite losing. And when asked, they said they truly didn’t didn't see the opponent’s opponent's mate in 1, and [[AssumedWin thought they'd won]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The Legal Trap, which allows you to sacrifice ''a queen'' and still win in less than ten moves.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* While it's most common between rookies, successfully executing a Scholar's mate or a Fool's mate is a very good way to humilitate the opponent in four moves or less respectively.
to:
* While it's most common between rookies, successfully executing a Scholar's mate or a Fool's mate is a very good way to humilitate the opponent in four moves or less two respectively.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* While it's most common between rookies, successfully executing a Scholar's mate or a Fool's mate is a very good way to humilitate the opponent in four moves or less respectively.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
accuracy, pronouns (do we actually know who this person is?)
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
* Awesome moments are not always winning. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew_n0SDjT0 One online player]] managed to make a move so bad that it wraps around the world and becomes unironically amazing in spite of itself. After trading advantage back and forth with his opponent for the entire game, he winds up in a position where he can deliver checkmate on his next move. He can deliver ''check'' in two different ways, but only one of them wins. The other ''loses by force'' (that is, after playing it the opponent’s only remaining legal move is [[SurpriseCheckmate to deliver checkmate]].) He plays the wrong one, but in doing so, [[NecessaryFail goes down in history]]. The chance that a similar position will occur again in an organic game where both sides are sincerely trying to win is so microscopic that the player deserves some praise despite losing. And when asked, he said he truly didn’t see the opponent’s mate in 1, and [[AssumedWin thought he’d won]].
to:
* Awesome moments are not always winning. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew_n0SDjT0 One online player]] managed to make a move so bad that it wraps around the world and becomes unironically amazing in spite of itself. After trading advantage back and forth with his their opponent for the entire game, he winds they wind up in a position where he they can deliver checkmate on his their next move. He They can deliver ''check'' with their bishop in two different ways, but only one of them wins. The other ''loses by force'' (that is, after playing it the opponent’s only remaining legal move is [[SurpriseCheckmate to deliver checkmate]].) He plays They play the wrong one, but in doing so, [[NecessaryFail goes down in history]]. The chance that a similar position will occur again in an organic game where both sides are sincerely trying to win is so microscopic that the player deserves some praise despite losing. And when asked, he they said he they truly didn’t see the opponent’s mate in 1, and [[AssumedWin thought he’d they'd won]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 31 (click to see context) from:
* [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaskett%27s_Puzzle Plaskett’s puzzle]] was shown to a group of grandmasters at a tournament, none of whom could solve it. Then one of them, Mikhail Tal, went for a walk, had a EurekaMoment, and rushed back with the solution. But the real moment of awesome is that, even more than 30 years later, chess engines are ''[[AIBreaker still]]'' unable to work out the solution. So, for just this one situation, [[ArtificialStupidity there is still one instance where humans are better than computers at chess]].
to:
* [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaskett%27s_Puzzle Plaskett’s puzzle]] was shown to a group of grandmasters at a tournament, none of whom could solve it. Then one of them, Mikhail Tal, went for a walk, had a EurekaMoment, and rushed back with the solution. But the real moment of awesome is that, even more than 30 years later, Even once chess engines are ''[[AIBreaker still]]'' surpassed human grandmasters they were unable to work out solve the solution. So, for just this one situation, [[ArtificialStupidity there is still one instance where humans are better than computers at chess]].position. This lasted until around 2015, now engines can find a mate in 41 moves despite a flaw in the original solution.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Emanuel Lasker faced off against Edward Lasker in the sixth round of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_1924_chess_tournament New York 1924 tournament]], one of the strongest of its time. [[https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272756 The game]] lasted an epic 103 moves each (a typical game lasts more like 40 each), took fourteen hours over three sessions to complete, and featured missed winning chances for both sides. In the end it was ''Emanuel'', the former world champion, who, in a seemingly lost position, forced a near-miraculous draw with a lone knight and king against a king, rook, and pawn -- beforehand it was thought that such a position would always be lost with correct play.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** This game is so iconic that other great games are often called "[player name]'s Immortal" or use the adjective "immortal" in some other way -- for examples of which, see the rest of this page.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Everyone who saw the video agreed that this was awesome unironically and that the player deserved recognition despite blundering. This is NOT making fun of him.
Added DiffLines:
* Awesome moments are not always winning. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew_n0SDjT0 One online player]] managed to make a move so bad that it wraps around the world and becomes unironically amazing in spite of itself. After trading advantage back and forth with his opponent for the entire game, he winds up in a position where he can deliver checkmate on his next move. He can deliver ''check'' in two different ways, but only one of them wins. The other ''loses by force'' (that is, after playing it the opponent’s only remaining legal move is [[SurpriseCheckmate to deliver checkmate]].) He plays the wrong one, but in doing so, [[NecessaryFail goes down in history]]. The chance that a similar position will occur again in an organic game where both sides are sincerely trying to win is so microscopic that the player deserves some praise despite losing. And when asked, he said he truly didn’t see the opponent’s mate in 1, and [[AssumedWin thought he’d won]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQuPYiJq1A Immortal Sacrifice Game]] went further than even Morphy or Anderssen would dream. Greg Serper sacrificed [[WeHaveReserves every single piece he ever controlled]] (including promoted pawns—yes, he sacrificed a queen thrice!) and still managed to win, obtaining more control of the board than probably any player in history.
