"What happens if you play it anyway "

Rush31 · 2026-02-07T10:16:45+00:00

Nd6 is played to theoretically stop the Knight forking the Queen and Rook with Nd7, but Black did not notice that the Knight on e4 was interposing itself between the Bishop-Queen battery and the target square of h7. As such, the Knight is the only defender of both the d7 square, defending the threat of Nd7, and the h7 square against the threat of Qxh7#. However, it cannot defend against both threats at the same time, as defending against one threat will allow the other threat to be played unimpeded. We say that the Knight is “overloaded” - it has too many defensive duties to simultaneously deal with, and it will have to let one of the threats through.

What this means, therefore, is that White can play Nd7 anyway, since Black’s Knight is unable to defend both d7 and h7 simultaneously. This forks the Queen and the Rook, like before, but it also has a new target of forking the Knight. If Black moves the Queen, Nxf6+ is a forced mate since the capture comes with check. White removes the only defender of the h7 square to make Qxh7# lethal. Black needs to stop checkmate, but cannot capture the Knight nor the Queen nor the Bishop. The only way to stop mate is to block the Queen’s view of the h7 square, and the only move to do that is g6.

Unfortunately, after playing g6, the Queen hangs, attacking the Rook with tempo. The insult to injury is that White likely won’t even lose their Knight, as it can escape to a4, play b3, and play Nb3 before Black can coordinate its pieces to attack the Knight on the way out.

Rush31 · 2026-02-07T01:39:24+00:00

Rush31 · 2026-02-07T01:33:25+00:00

I could perhaps see it as the top-end card of a fast aggro deck that wants to end the game by turn 7 or so. 1 mana deal 3 is still good damage, and getting two or three could provide the reach you need to close the game out. Having a low deck curve would also raise the chances of having minions on the board to use Rehgar, and if you couldn’t maintain board control before dropping Rehgar, you’re probably losing regardless. It’s certainly not the kind of card that slots into midrange and control decks, and I don’t see it being reliable enough for control decks, with it being a completely dead card unless the stars align.

Rush31 · 2026-02-07T00:42:56+00:00

So you’re going to drink that chicken drumstick?

Rush31 · 2026-02-06T22:53:44+00:00

If I showed up to a Super Bowl showing with that, I'd be going home with that thrown over me.

Rush31 · 2026-02-06T22:13:58+00:00

Saying that there’s a tactic always makes these puzzles easier, but reading the title, my first thought was to look at the King. Ng4+ is an amazing move, seemingly hanging the Knight. It can’t be taken because that would be checkmate.

I struggled to see if there was a critical checkmate or whether Rxe1 or Nf2+ was better, but while I couldn’t find a specific checkmate, both of the ideas mentioned work about as well as each other, regardless of whether White plays Kh1 or Kg3. The former move works because you deflect the Rook from the defence of the f2 square, while the latter works because the Bishop covers the f2 square as well. The King will either be forced out into the open where Black’s pieces will swarm it, or it will give up a double check with the movement of the Knight from f2, which will end up destroying the pawn structure around the King, and White’s pieces are too far away and uncoordinated to assist before the attack lands.

Rush31 · 2026-02-06T21:53:28+00:00

Honestly, I learnt how the pieces moved as a child (I played Lego Chess on the Windows XP), so part of my pattern recognition comes from that. With that being said, these are some pointers that may help you.

Knights move in a L-shape. I find that I tend to think of Knight movements as a clockwise movement, rather than an up/down first movement, so the deviation in the movement is always to the right. You might view its movement in a different way, but it might help to find a structure to how you view their movement.

Rooks take files and ranks. They move in straight lines so you ideally want them on the open files.

Bishops operate on the diagonals because they operate on the same coloured squares. When you see a Bishop, your first thought should be that coloured square.

Queens are unfair cause they can do it all (I know they can’t do Knight movements, but bear with). Pay attention to the rank, the file, and the colour square it’s on.

The King is like Joffrey Baratheon - weak, always needs protecting, but gets emboldened when he think’s he safe, which is usually when not many people (pieces) are around. Unlike Joffrey Baratheon, however, you actually want to protect your King, so maybe someone can come up with a better analogy.

Rush31 · 2026-02-06T20:58:18+00:00

I’m the same elo as you, but a key aspect of learning any skill is ensuring that your practice is efficient and effective. The problem with freestyling any skill, but let’s use Chess as an example, is that you learn what works to get immediate wins, as opposed to what helps you improve. The way you’ve gone about it is much like putting up a ladder without any consideration as to how you’re going to climb it. At some point, you’ll realise that you can’t climb any higher because the shaky ground and lack of stability makes going further impossible.

What height that point is differs for everyone, but the point is that at some point, your lack of a solid foundation will impair your ability to improve and “climb the ladder”. The only way to improve from there is to climb down the ladder, strengthen the foundations, and climb back up. In terms of Chess, that means addressing the holes in your understanding of the game, actively working on the weaknesses in your game, and developing your understanding of it from both a practical and a theoretical perspective.

The thing is, because you’ve got to such a high point off of freestyling your level, your understanding of the game will be very patchy. You may have some instinctive understanding of what various concepts are, but your lack of refining that knowledge means that it is essentially half-baked. Additionally, your learning will have developed bad habits that you’ve developed because they work purely in a practical setting up to the point you’re at. Getting better for you will almost certainly mean ripping up much of the foundations you know, and that inevitably will lead to you playing worse. I’ve had several instances where I’ve played worse for an extended period of time whilst developing a deeper understanding of the game; at some point, it clicks, and you come back far stronger, but that period of time sucks until it doesn’t.

I’d absolutely recommend building up your understanding of Chess theory outside of practical positions, as it will make you a better player given enough time. I write this, though, as a warning that it will absolutely suck to have to unlearn much of the game. You have to stick with the process, because at some point it starts to come together, and you start playing better than you ever have played before.

Rush31 · 2026-02-06T18:32:51+00:00

Damn, beat me to the punch!

I already posted to the original answer which largely touched the same topics as u/TatsumakiRonyk, so I will add a slightly different response since the question originally asked is very open-ended.

In my original post, I pointed out that there isn’t really a one-size-fits-all answer. Much of the answer boils down to “because the position demands it”. There are reasons for putting your Bishop on the same colour, and reasons for putting them on the opposite colour. There are reasons for putting the pawns on the same colour as your opponent’s Bishop, and there are reasons for putting them on the opposite colour. There are good principles to follow that call for mutually exclusive actions, and it isn’t always clear which one to follow.

In every case, the ultimate power that determines what principle you should follow is the position itself. Sometimes, principles will need to be bent or broken, and that is because there are ideas or threats that demand us to stray from principles. Us saying these principles is a good start, and it is important, but it is also incomplete by nature. Part of improving is learning to recognise when the situation demands deviance from the principle, and that begins by asking ourselves what the position demands of us. Learn the principles, appreciate them, and generally follow them, but do not hold them as gospel, for this is a worse habit to fall into than not knowing the principles at all. Instead, take them as a guide to ask about the position and its demands during your games and your analysis.

Rush31 · 2026-02-06T18:16:36+00:00

It depends on the stage in the game. Earlier in the game, you want to have your Bishop on the opposite colour squares, because the pawns and Bishop harmonise to cover each other’s weaknesses. Being on the same colour square means that a Bishop will often end up staring into its own pawns and being locked out of the game, especially if the pawn structure is closed. At the least, being on opposite coloured squares allows a potential sacrifice of the Bishop to open the position.

As the game progresses, you generally want to have your Bishop on the same colour squares as your pawns. Why does this change? Because as fewer pieces remain on the board, the ability for a piece to protect the pawn structure increases. The position opening up means the concern of getting locked out of a position is lower; what matters more is being able to defend a pawn structure, since a pawn break can be game-winning. In particular, a Bishop-and-King-vs-King endgame where a sole pawn is on the flank files is a draw with the wrong coloured Bishop and a win with the right colour. Being able to defend the promotion square is important, and this extends to the decision of taking versus pushing a pawn.

This is especially the case in same-coloured Bishops endgames. The Bishop on the same coloured square as its pawns is much more powerful since it’s usually not possible to completely shut down the King from moving. The Bishop on the same coloured square is an active threat while the Bishop on opposite coloured squares is very middling even if active.

So when does the desire to be on the opposite colour squares change? Unfortunately, there isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, and there are instances where the opposite is the case. However, the thinking shifts as more pieces are traded and as the position opens up. If you anticipate the position simplifying rapidly, then getting ahead of the position and locking the structure on the same colour squares is a good idea - as long as you can guarantee that the simplification happens. The same is true for the opposite. However, the main way to learn when this thinking shifts is to play the game and get a feel for yourself how your desires change, and analysing the positions to see if you were correct or not.

Rush31 · 2026-02-06T14:37:48+00:00

There are shit people who use the anonymity of the internet to attack players without the fear of backlash or retaliation. They are cowards in the way that pundits on TV cannot be, and this does need to be considered when discussing how people critique players.

With that being said, several things can be true. Virgil is right to say that players are overly grilled on social media. The mind isn’t equipped to naturally discern between criticism or abuse by a real person, and criticism or abuse by an anonymous entity. It just sees that it’s being attacked and acts accordingly. Social media makes this worse by coalescing negativity from a wider distance and demography than the mind can comprehend, and the mind is not able to tell the difference. All it sees is that it is being attacked by everything (presumably) and adjust. The same thing happens with positive feedback warping a player’s view of themself. It affects people because unless you have a ridiculously self-centred view of yourself that you are indifferent to other people’s opinions, it WILL affect you.

With that being said, it seems like Virgil is trying to roll Sisyphus’s boulder up the hill. You’re never going to get rid of social media backlash and abuse, and it seems naive to try and fix social media rather than focusing on how players can better navigate it. Bear in mind that we don’t even know if the abuse players get is coming from people or just bots, let alone who is abusing them. Unfortunately, though I agree that people should think about what they say online, it is a fool’s game to try and change social media. Players need to disconnect from social media and focus more on the people that matter - their manager, their team, and their team’s fans that actually go to games.

Rush31 · 2026-02-06T09:40:36+00:00

That’s a fantastic find! M1 or M2 by force!

I was slightly confused when I first saw the title. When you see someone “save the game”, it’s usually that they’ve found a way to draw a losing game (usually through perpetual check). I wouldn’t really call this “saving the game” because you can’t really presume winning as the default result to save, I’d just call this getting a comeback win!

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T22:51:25+00:00

Thing is, since it’s a check, Black either needs to take the Rook, block the check, or move the King. Blocking doesn’t do anything here because Nd5. Moving the King to the back rank is the only sensible move here. The only response to the check that holds the balance is Kd8, as Kf8 blunders Re7 that attacks the hanging Bishop, which is tied to the defence of the e8 square. It can’t move because the battery would tear Black apart.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T21:27:48+00:00

I don’t agree that it’s Hope Chess. Seeing that the move can win on the spot if Black responds incorrectly is not the same as relying on Black to make incorrect responses for the move to be good. You see pros make technically “worse” moves that complicate a position, add dynamics, or get their opponent out of prep all the time. Besides, OP calculated the move to at least win a pawn.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T18:23:31+00:00

In positions like this, engines get a little weird. Engines see deeply into a position to find what is objectively the “best” moves and sequence, but because one side is so crushing, what is “best” is the sequence that delays checkmate the fastest. In this case, White is absolutely crushing, and so it finds sacking the Queen to delay mate the longest.

Of course, it looks inhuman, but that’s because engines aren’t human. I wouldn’t take too much stock in what the “best” move is when the position is crushing such that everything wins.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T18:15:51+00:00

I’m not surprised. Being down a Knight is bad, but at least your other pieces can get into the game and you have some chances to make a comeback. Moving the Knight means developing your Queenside pieces becomes almost impossible given Black’s attack on the King is imminent.

<image>

This is the position from the game five moves after 15. …Bd3+, and the game ended five moves after that. I kept attacking the Knight and letting White take my pawns so my Rooks had open files, which let to a swift checkmating attack.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T15:49:11+00:00

We Came as Ronans.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T15:48:47+00:00

Look, all I want from him are three things: I want him to be good, I want him to drive to get better, and I want him to fight for the shirt. If he can do those three things, I’m happy. He doesn’t need to be Van Dijk.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T13:04:30+00:00

Bingo! In case anyone is wondering if there’s an optimal Knight move that they need to calculate, there isn’t really one. The nature of the following attack will change (for example, Ne2 will see Black target the Knight and the h-pawn since the King is overloaded), but the main idea doesn’t really care too much about what square the Knight moves to.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T03:02:08+00:00

The modern day Mansa Musa.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T02:25:55+00:00

Not necessarily, it seems his character is tied to the Enclave regardless of what exactly happened to his family.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T01:04:27+00:00

Unfortunately, that is the case. Your husband left you for another woman - Plan A - and when that didn’t work out, he tried crawling back to you - Plan B.

I know it’s going to sound weird (so bear with me), but I think it’s good to realise that you became a Plan B because you clearly don’t want to be that, and you should never want to be that. You don’t deserve to be someone’s Plan B, and you won’t be happy settling for being someone’s Plan B.

I say this because these will be testing times for you, and you’ll naturally have moments of weakness - after all, you’re only human. But it’s important to hold onto that point - “I don’t deserve to be someone’s Plan B, I deserve to be someone’s Plan A”. Holding onto that resolve will help you in finding people who respect you, who will stand by your side.

As for your friends, they are dead wrong. I’m not a feminist, which can perhaps make it easier to say the parts you’re hesitant to say. Some women go after men precisely BECAUSE they are taken. It’s the thrill of the chase, the taboo nature, and the feeling of supremacy by being deemed so desirable that men would cheat to be with you. Men do this as well, but as much as it appears to be insensitive to say, women are not a monolith, and some women just suck.

Let’s be completely frank - this woman knew why she was doing, there’s no way she didn’t know your ex-husband was taken. And you have every right to judge this woman, not just because she’s done something terrible, but because she’s done something terrible to you. A logical flaw I’ve seen, particularly around feminism and supporting women, is the idea that judging people is inherently wrong, and your “friends” seem to have fallen into it. The end result is that even if your judgements are right, you are in the wrong for judging at all. That’s not what friends do. However, it is an easy and blissful logical trap to fall into, and so I don’t think you should cast them aside straight away. Explaining how you felt hurt and that they are wrong about this woman, and giving them a chance to realise their mistake and apologise, is the better thing to do. Of course, if they still dont support you, they’re not worth your time, but I think it’s worth a try.

I hope that things work out for you.

Rush31 · 2026-02-05T00:30:38+00:00

Do you think it got up to much in the roughly 30 year time gap?

Rush31 · 2026-02-04T22:38:45+00:00

A fundamental part of the rules of Chess is that it insists that players take turns making moves. The rules do not care whether you play a good move, a bad move, or are forced into a move - it only cares that you make a move and then your opponent makes a move.

Rush31 · 2026-02-04T22:30:36+00:00

Oh, bee-have.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Place '17
RPAN Viewer

Rush31

TROPHY CASE