who ever playes the caro kann chalenge me as black

The present state of the art in ICCF correspondence chess is 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5, neither 3 Nc3 nor 3 Nd2.

His ratings are significantly lower (by an average of 400 points; this means a most likely score of approximately 9:1 in a head-to-head match) than mine in all chess time controls except correspondence chess (in correspondence chess, his ratings are simply lower than mine). I'm not trying to emphasize my superiority in this way (and certainly not in the least to offend; in general, there's no reason to be offended by such things; for example, there are many people whose ratings are more than 400 points higher than mine, and this doesn't offend me in the least), I'm simply stating this fact because it's important. The following consequences follow from this:
1.1. He generally plays at a level approximately 400 rating points lower than mine. That is, I have very, very little benefit from playing him. It's basically like a coach playing a student. For free. This is a form of charity.
1.2. In correspondence chess, the rating difference is much smaller than in all other chess time controls. I assume with close to 100% probability that the author of this thread is using the outside assistance methods permitted in correspondence chess (opening books, and something else; I don't remember, since I don't use them at all). I don't use any outside assistance methods in correspondence chess. Therefore, I'm 100% at a huge disadvantage from the start. It means I'll have to play, at least for the first 20 moves, against opening books.
1.3. And this is very, very critical for me, especially for the Caro-Kann Defense. It's too big a handicap, greatly distorting the result. It makes sense to play Black in the Caro-Kann precisely so that you clearly know the opening and your plans for the subsequent period much better than your opponent. With correct play from White, the Caro-Kann leads to difficult positions for Black. These positions are solid and defensible, but they will require a long, long defense to gradually level the position somewhere in the endgame, for example. A typical evaluation, even with simply good, rather than ideal, play, for example, on moves 15-25, is +0.7. When I start a Caro-Kann game, I understand that with simply good (rather than ideal) play from my opponent, the situation will be roughly similar.
1.4. Getting a much better position in the opening against the Caro-Kann as White in correspondence chess (where opening books can be used) is a simple task. It can be achieved in a huge number of ways. In all correct variations (I emphasize this) of the Caro-Kann, White, when playing according to opening books, gets a better position at the end of the opening! It's enough to simply make the moves from the opening book. In correspondence chess (where they can be used), opening books are too big a handicap (the result will be too distorted compared to the actual balance of power, which is the case in all chess time controls except correspondence).
1.5. It makes sense to play Caro-Kann as Black for the following reasons:
1.5.1. You need to know significantly less opening theory than if, for example, you play 1...e5.
1.5.2. A player playing Caro-Kann as Black has much, much more experience with Caro-Kann than their opponents. As a result, objectively worse positions at the end of the opening are often possible, but they often manage to win successfully. This simply reflects the enormous difference in experience in these positions. The difference, for example, is 10-50 times in the number of games played.
1.5.3. Such positions simply suit the player's style better.
What the author of the thread suggests (playing correspondence chess with him in Caro-Kann; in correspondence chess, he'll regularly have an edge based on opening books) dramatically reduces the importance of these factors. The conditions are too unfavorable for Black.
2. I'm already playing too many games simultaneously. I currently have:

42 correspondence games on Lichess;

8 correspondence games on another site.
This is too much for me. I'm currently gradually reducing the number of games. I want to reduce the number of simultaneous games to at least about 25. Recently, I had more games simultaneously, over 60. I'm currently trying to take new games only against opponents with ratings in the 2500 to 2800 range. Anything less is of little interest to me right now (since I'm busy reducing the number of games, I take almost exclusively the highest-priority games – against high-rated opponents).

I CAN PLAY WITH THE AUTHOR OF THIS TOPIC, BUT LIKE THIS. Not correspondence chess. But rapid chess. With a time control, for example: 5+5, or 7+5, or 10+0. A small number of games. For example, 3-5 games. When it's convenient for me (when it's convenient for both of us, this is negotiable). I'll tell the author of the topic in advance: it's unlikely that he'll get this example for his book "How to Beat the Caro-Kann Defense." The previous Caro-Kann who challenged me to play him (we played blitz and rapid) played a match with me and won 0-5 (the Caro-Kann and I beat him 5-0). IF THE AUTHOR OF THIS TOPIC IS INTERESTED IN THIS OPTION, THEN LET THEM WRITE TO ME HERE, AND WE'LL DISCUSS OUR FUTURE STEPS. BUT I'LL TELL HIM THIS CONDITION IN ADVANCE: IF I BEAT HIM BIGLY (FOR EXAMPLE, 5-0), THEN THEN LET HIM CLEARLY TALK ABOUT IT IN HIS BOOK (it could be something like: "I generally play well against Caro-Kann, but I played this opponent (inventor_1) and lost 0-5. There are some very strong opponents who play Caro-Kann").

I don't like the way the author of this topic is trying to show that it's possible to beat Caro-Kann. This method (correspondence chess, where opening books can be used) is a priori not demonstrative. I explained why above. I advise the author of this thread to abandon this method of proof. And to obtain proof not in correspondence chess, but in face-to-face play. All qualified chess players who know the Caro-Kann Defense well and generally understand chess well understand that the method of proof chosen by the author of this thread is completely unrepresentative, useless, proves nothing, is a waste of time, and ultimately misinformation for the less-skilled chess players who read this later. They will not understand that the fact that in correspondence chess (where opening books can be used) in Caro-Kann, with perfect play (according to the opening books), White has an advantage out of the opening in all variations is absolutely inapplicable to their real-life play. In face-to-face chess, this will not help those who read such a book and believe it. They have a 0% chance of remembering all opening theory perfectly. And if they meet an opponent who, for example, has already played over 10,000 Caro-Kann games, they'll be crushed.

My previous Caro-Kann match can be viewed at this link (the link is for game one, and then you can watch all five games in the match):

To calm your worries, my book is not exactly how to get an advantage against the Caro-Kann; it is about gambits against the Caro-Kann and made for the entertainment of the reader to watch gambit play, it is supposed to be like the book KEY CONCEPTS OF GAMBIT PLAY, if fact if legally allowed, I think I will name it GAMBIT GUIDE TO THE CARO-KANN. Also, I am not disrespecting the Caro-Kann; I respect it, hence why I am writing this book.

@Inventor_1 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/UrgsWiXf) > His ratings are significantly lower (by an average of 400 points; this means a most likely score of approximately 9:1 in a head-to-head match) than mine in all chess time controls except correspondence chess (in correspondence chess, his ratings are simply lower than mine). I'm not trying to emphasize my superiority in this way (and certainly not in the least to offend; in general, there's no reason to be offended by such things; for example, there are many people whose ratings are more than 400 points higher than mine, and this doesn't offend me in the least), I'm simply stating this fact because it's important. The following consequences follow from this: > 1.1. He generally plays at a level approximately 400 rating points lower than mine. That is, I have very, very little benefit from playing him. It's basically like a coach playing a student. For free. This is a form of charity. > 1.2. In correspondence chess, the rating difference is much smaller than in all other chess time controls. I assume with close to 100% probability that the author of this thread is using the outside assistance methods permitted in correspondence chess (opening books, and something else; I don't remember, since I don't use them at all). I don't use any outside assistance methods in correspondence chess. Therefore, I'm 100% at a huge disadvantage from the start. It means I'll have to play, at least for the first 20 moves, against opening books. > 1.3. And this is very, very critical for me, especially for the Caro-Kann Defense. It's too big a handicap, greatly distorting the result. It makes sense to play Black in the Caro-Kann precisely so that you clearly know the opening and your plans for the subsequent period much better than your opponent. With correct play from White, the Caro-Kann leads to difficult positions for Black. These positions are solid and defensible, but they will require a long, long defense to gradually level the position somewhere in the endgame, for example. A typical evaluation, even with simply good, rather than ideal, play, for example, on moves 15-25, is +0.7. When I start a Caro-Kann game, I understand that with simply good (rather than ideal) play from my opponent, the situation will be roughly similar. > 1.4. Getting a much better position in the opening against the Caro-Kann as White in correspondence chess (where opening books can be used) is a simple task. It can be achieved in a huge number of ways. In all correct variations (I emphasize this) of the Caro-Kann, White, when playing according to opening books, gets a better position at the end of the opening! It's enough to simply make the moves from the opening book. In correspondence chess (where they can be used), opening books are too big a handicap (the result will be too distorted compared to the actual balance of power, which is the case in all chess time controls except correspondence). > 1.5. It makes sense to play Caro-Kann as Black for the following reasons: > 1.5.1. You need to know significantly less opening theory than if, for example, you play 1...e5. > 1.5.2. A player playing Caro-Kann as Black has much, much more experience with Caro-Kann than their opponents. As a result, objectively worse positions at the end of the opening are often possible, but they often manage to win successfully. This simply reflects the enormous difference in experience in these positions. The difference, for example, is 10-50 times in the number of games played. > 1.5.3. Such positions simply suit the player's style better. > What the author of the thread suggests (playing correspondence chess with him in Caro-Kann; in correspondence chess, he'll regularly have an edge based on opening books) dramatically reduces the importance of these factors. The conditions are too unfavorable for Black. > 2. I'm already playing too many games simultaneously. I currently have: > - 42 correspondence games on Lichess; > - 8 correspondence games on another site. > This is too much for me. I'm currently gradually reducing the number of games. I want to reduce the number of simultaneous games to at least about 25. Recently, I had more games simultaneously, over 60. I'm currently trying to take new games only against opponents with ratings in the 2500 to 2800 range. Anything less is of little interest to me right now (since I'm busy reducing the number of games, I take almost exclusively the highest-priority games – against high-rated opponents). > 3. I CAN PLAY WITH THE AUTHOR OF THIS TOPIC, BUT LIKE THIS. Not correspondence chess. But rapid chess. With a time control, for example: 5+5, or 7+5, or 10+0. A small number of games. For example, 3-5 games. When it's convenient for me (when it's convenient for both of us, this is negotiable). I'll tell the author of the topic in advance: it's unlikely that he'll get this example for his book "How to Beat the Caro-Kann Defense." The previous Caro-Kann who challenged me to play him (we played blitz and rapid) played a match with me and won 0-5 (the Caro-Kann and I beat him 5-0). IF THE AUTHOR OF THIS TOPIC IS INTERESTED IN THIS OPTION, THEN LET THEM WRITE TO ME HERE, AND WE'LL DISCUSS OUR FUTURE STEPS. BUT I'LL TELL HIM THIS CONDITION IN ADVANCE: IF I BEAT HIM BIGLY (FOR EXAMPLE, 5-0), THEN THEN LET HIM CLEARLY TALK ABOUT IT IN HIS BOOK (it could be something like: "I generally play well against Caro-Kann, but I played this opponent (inventor_1) and lost 0-5. There are some very strong opponents who play Caro-Kann"). > 4. I don't like the way the author of this topic is trying to show that it's possible to beat Caro-Kann. This method (correspondence chess, where opening books can be used) is a priori not demonstrative. I explained why above. I advise the author of this thread to abandon this method of proof. And to obtain proof not in correspondence chess, but in face-to-face play. All qualified chess players who know the Caro-Kann Defense well and generally understand chess well understand that the method of proof chosen by the author of this thread is completely unrepresentative, useless, proves nothing, is a waste of time, and ultimately misinformation for the less-skilled chess players who read this later. They will not understand that the fact that in correspondence chess (where opening books can be used) in Caro-Kann, with perfect play (according to the opening books), White has an advantage out of the opening in all variations is absolutely inapplicable to their real-life play. In face-to-face chess, this will not help those who read such a book and believe it. They have a 0% chance of remembering all opening theory perfectly. And if they meet an opponent who, for example, has already played over 10,000 Caro-Kann games, they'll be crushed. > 5. My previous Caro-Kann match can be viewed at this link (the link is for game one, and then you can watch all five games in the match): To calm your worries, my book is not exactly how to get an advantage against the Caro-Kann; it is about gambits against the Caro-Kann and made for the entertainment of the reader to watch gambit play, it is supposed to be like the book KEY CONCEPTS OF GAMBIT PLAY, if fact if legally allowed, I think I will name it GAMBIT GUIDE TO THE CARO-KANN. Also, I am not disrespecting the Caro-Kann; I respect it, hence why I am writing this book.

PowerfulPatzer edited

@tpr said ^

The present state of the art in ICCF correspondence chess is 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5, neither 3 Nc3 nor 3 Nd2.

I am playing 3 Knc3. Call me a fool who is not using the most deadly line, the advanced variation, but I like the 3 Knc3 lines.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/0n5z2ekP) > The present state of the art in ICCF correspondence chess is 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5, neither 3 Nc3 nor 3 Nd2. I am playing 3 Knc3. Call me a fool who is not using the most deadly line, the advanced variation, but I like the 3 Knc3 lines.

Inventor_1

edited

@PowerfulPatzer said ^

To calm your worries, my book is not exactly how to get an advantage against the Caro-Kann; it is about gambits against the Caro-Kann and made for the entertainment of the reader to watch gambit play, it is supposed to be like the book KEY CONCEPTS OF GAMBIT PLAY, if fact if legally allowed, I think I will name it GAMBIT GUIDE TO THE CARO-KANN. Also, I am not disrespecting the Caro-Kann; I respect it, hence why I am writing this book.

Very good! I wish you success in writing a good book! And 100%, with such a title and such a premise, it's colossally better than yet another "how to beat the Caro-Kann Defense" (for example, I've seen a ton of videos like that, with tons of weak beginners writing excited comments in anticipation of their future victories, only to be brutally disappointed in practice when it suddenly turns out that experienced Caro-Kann players don't fall into their standard traps, long known to almost all experienced Caro-Kann players, for example). The way you've now presented your idea—I really like it! Very good!
What do you think of my proposal (which was in point 3)? I can play against you, but exactly like this (and with the condition mentioned there).
And I recommend you pay attention to my advice from point 4. However, I'd like to clarify: I'm not 100% advocating for correspondence games to be excluded from the book. No. But I highly recommend including the vast majority of games in the book in no-absentia. Because absentia games are very, very, very unrepresentative in this case. I already explained this in more detail in my first comment.

@PowerfulPatzer said [^](/forum/redirect/post/HiLXFjFh) > To calm your worries, my book is not exactly how to get an advantage against the Caro-Kann; it is about gambits against the Caro-Kann and made for the entertainment of the reader to watch gambit play, it is supposed to be like the book KEY CONCEPTS OF GAMBIT PLAY, if fact if legally allowed, I think I will name it GAMBIT GUIDE TO THE CARO-KANN. Also, I am not disrespecting the Caro-Kann; I respect it, hence why I am writing this book. Very good! I wish you success in writing a good book! And 100%, with such a title and such a premise, it's colossally better than yet another "how to beat the Caro-Kann Defense" (for example, I've seen a ton of videos like that, with tons of weak beginners writing excited comments in anticipation of their future victories, only to be brutally disappointed in practice when it suddenly turns out that experienced Caro-Kann players don't fall into their standard traps, long known to almost all experienced Caro-Kann players, for example). The way you've now presented your idea—I really like it! Very good! What do you think of my proposal (which was in point 3)? I can play against you, but exactly like this (and with the condition mentioned there). And I recommend you pay attention to my advice from point 4. However, I'd like to clarify: I'm not 100% advocating for correspondence games to be excluded from the book. No. But I highly recommend including the vast majority of games in the book in no-absentia. Because absentia games are very, very, very unrepresentative in this case. I already explained this in more detail in my first comment.

PowerfulPatzer

@Inventor_1 said ^

absentia. Because absentia

It would be fun to play. About putting you in the book, I am planning to if your games are instructive or exciting. Also don't expect much out of me; I am not a good blitz player. I mostly do correspondence and classical time controls, it seems the slower the better I play.

@Inventor_1 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/sliXhprV) > absentia. Because absentia It would be fun to play. About putting you in the book, I am planning to if your games are instructive or exciting. Also don't expect much out of me; I am not a good blitz player. I mostly do correspondence and classical time controls, it seems the slower the better I play.

PowerfulPatzer

And about me using opening books, I am mainly using the one I am writing as there are few examples of my gambits vs the caro-kann. And it will probably stay this way except maybe in blitz as grandmasters don't like to play gambits in slow time controls.

Inventor_1

edited

@PowerfulPatzer said ^

absentia. Because absentia

It would be fun to play. About putting you in the book, I am planning to if your games are instructive or exciting. Also don't expect much out of me; I am not a good blitz player. I mostly do correspondence and classical time controls, it seems the slower the better I play.

The condition I mentioned went something like this:

you don't have to include the game with me in the book; you can include it or not—it's your choice;
but include the result of the mini-match; for example, with the wording I mentioned.

But perhaps you don't want to accept that condition. That's fine. I understand. You had one proposal, I had another. Both aren't entirely satisfactory to one of us. That's fine. So, let's just not play that mini-match. Just play with other people.
Once again, I repeat: good luck with writing the book! We'll conclude our discussion here; we've discussed everything (and the discussion in the forum thread continues, of course).

@PowerfulPatzer said [^](/forum/redirect/post/LWx6j2Y8) > > absentia. Because absentia > > It would be fun to play. About putting you in the book, I am planning to if your games are instructive or exciting. Also don't expect much out of me; I am not a good blitz player. I mostly do correspondence and classical time controls, it seems the slower the better I play. The condition I mentioned went something like this: - you don't have to include the game with me in the book; you can include it or not—it's your choice; - but include the result of the mini-match; for example, with the wording I mentioned. But perhaps you don't want to accept that condition. That's fine. I understand. You had one proposal, I had another. Both aren't entirely satisfactory to one of us. That's fine. So, let's just not play that mini-match. Just play with other people. Once again, I repeat: good luck with writing the book! We'll conclude our discussion here; we've discussed everything (and the discussion in the forum thread continues, of course).

PowerfulPatzer

Hey guys, I am about to stream with CIU_Ak about the caro-kann

PowerfulPatzer

e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Ngf6 11. Bd2 e6 12. O-O-O Be7 13. Kb1 O-O 14. Ne4 a5 15. g4 Nxg4 16. Rdg1 f5 17. Qb3 Rf7 18. Qxe6 Nf8 19. Qb3 a4 20. Qc4 b5 21. Qxc6 fxe4 22. Rxg4 exf3 23. Bxh6 Bf6 24. Rhg1 Qe8 25. Qxf6 Rxf6 26. Rxg7+ Kh8 27. Rg8+ Kh7 28. Be3 Qf7 29. R8g3 Ra5 30. d5 Qxd5 31. Rg7+ Kh8 32. Bd4 Qxd4 33. h6 b4 34. h7 Qxf2 35. Rg8+ Kxh7 36. R8g7+ Kh6 37. Rg8 Ng6 0-1

[Event "rated rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/ZjTDWgdZ"]
[Date "2026.08.12"]
[Round "-"]
[White "PowerfulPatzer"]
[Black "CIU_Ak"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "ZjTDWgdZ"]
[UTCDate "2026.08.12"]
[UTCTime "18:22:28"]
[WhiteElo "1835"]
[BlackElo "2333"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-5"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+1"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[ECO "B19"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Classical Variation, Lobron System"]
[Termination "Normal"]

e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Ngf6 11. Bd2 e6 12. O-O-O Be7 13. Kb1 O-O 14. Ne4 Qb6 15. Ne5 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Nxe4 17. Qxe4 Qxf2 18. Be3 Qf5 19. Qxf5 exf5 20. Rd7 Bg5 21. Bxg5 hxg5 22. Rxb7 a5 23. h6 Rfe8 24. h7+ Kh8 25. Rxf7 Rxe5 26. Rc7 Rae8 27. b3 Re1+ 28. Rxe1 Rxe1+ 29. Kb2 Kxh7 30. Rxc6 Rg1 31. Rc5 Kg6 32. Rxa5 Rxg2 33. Ra6+ Kh5 34. Rd6 Re2 35. a4 f4 36. a5 Re8 37. Rd7 g4 38. Rxg7 Ra8 39. b4 f3 40. Rf7 Kh4 41. c4 Rg8 42. Rh7+ Kg3 43. a6 f2 44. Rf7 Kg2 45. b5 f1=Q 46. Rxf1 Kxf1 47. b6 g3 48. a7 g2 49. b7 g1=Q 50. b8=Q Qd4+ 51. Kb3 Rg2 52. Qf8+ Kg1 53. a8=Q Rb2+ 54. Ka4 Qd1+ 0-1

[Event "rated rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/GIIirdrt"]
[Date "2026.08.12"]
[Round "-"]
[White "PowerfulPatzer"]
[Black "CIU_Ak"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "GIIirdrt"]
[UTCDate "2026.08.12"]
[UTCTime "19:42:57"]
[WhiteElo "1827"]
[BlackElo "2335"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-4"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+1"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[ECO "B18"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Classical Variation, Main Line"]
[Termination "Normal"]

e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Ne5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. f4 e6 12. Bd2 Be7 13. O-O-O O-O 14. Ne4 Nxe4 15. Qxe4 Nf6 16. Qe3 Qd5 17. Rhe1 Qxa2 18. Bc3 a5 19. g4 b5 20. g5 Nh5 21. gxh6 b4 22. Nxc6 Bf6 23. hxg7 Bxg7 24. Ne7+ Kh8 25. Qf3 Nf6 26. Re5 bxc3 27. Rh5+ Nh7 28. bxc3 Qa3+ 29. Kd2 Qxe7 30. Qe4 Bh6 31. Rxh6 f6 32. Rg1 a4 33. Rgg6 a3 34. Rxf6 Rxf6 35. Qxa8+ Rf8 36. Qa5 Rxf4 37. Qe5+ Rf6 38. Rxf6 Qxf6 39. Qb8+ Qf8 40. Qa7 Qf4+ 41. Kd1 Nf6 42. Qxa3 Ne4 43. Qa8+ Kh7 44. Qb7+ Kg6 45. h5+ Kxh5 46. Qh7+ Kg4 47. Qg6+ Kf3 48. Qh5+ Kf2 49. Qe2+ Kg3 50. Qd3+ Kg2 51. Qe2+ Nf2+ 0-1

[Event "rated rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/skZcBeku"]
[Date "2026.08.12"]
[Round "-"]
[White "PowerfulPatzer"]
[Black "Kalastaa"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "skZcBeku"]
[UTCDate "2026.08.12"]
[UTCTime "20:34:47"]
[WhiteElo "1796"]
[BlackElo "2090"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-11"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+80"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[ECO "B18"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Classical Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]

e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Nd7 6. Nxf5 Qa5+ 7. Bd2 Qxf5 8. Bd3 Qe6+ 9. Ne2 g6 10. O-O Bh6 11. Nf4 Qd6 12. Qf3 Qxd4 13. Be3 Qe5 14. Rfe1 Qf6 15. Qg3 e5 16. Bd2 O-O-O 17. Bc3 Bxf4 18. Qh3 Ne7 19. Rad1 Nd5 20. Ba5 Bg5 21. Bxd8 Rxd8 22. Be4 Nc7 23. Rd3 h5 24. Red1 Qe6 25. Qf3 f5 26. Bxc6 Qxc6 27. Qg3 e4 28. Rc3 Nc5 29. Rxd8+ Bxd8 30. Qe3 Qd6 31. g3 Qd1+ 32. Kg2 N5e6 33. Qxa7 h4 34. Qb6 h3+ 35. Kxh3 Qf1# 0-1

[Event "rated rapid game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/RFqpKHCs"] [Date "2026.08.12"] [Round "-"] [White "PowerfulPatzer"] [Black "CIU_Ak"] [Result "0-1"] [GameId "RFqpKHCs"] [UTCDate "2026.08.12"] [UTCTime "17:52:26"] [WhiteElo "1839"] [BlackElo "2333"] [WhiteRatingDiff "-4"] [BlackRatingDiff "+0"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "900+10"] [ECO "B19"] [Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Classical Variation, Lobron System"] [Termination "Normal"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Ngf6 11. Bd2 e6 12. O-O-O Be7 13. Kb1 O-O 14. Ne4 a5 15. g4 Nxg4 16. Rdg1 f5 17. Qb3 Rf7 18. Qxe6 Nf8 19. Qb3 a4 20. Qc4 b5 21. Qxc6 fxe4 22. Rxg4 exf3 23. Bxh6 Bf6 24. Rhg1 Qe8 25. Qxf6 Rxf6 26. Rxg7+ Kh8 27. Rg8+ Kh7 28. Be3 Qf7 29. R8g3 Ra5 30. d5 Qxd5 31. Rg7+ Kh8 32. Bd4 Qxd4 33. h6 b4 34. h7 Qxf2 35. Rg8+ Kxh7 36. R8g7+ Kh6 37. Rg8 Ng6 0-1 [Event "rated rapid game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/ZjTDWgdZ"] [Date "2026.08.12"] [Round "-"] [White "PowerfulPatzer"] [Black "CIU_Ak"] [Result "0-1"] [GameId "ZjTDWgdZ"] [UTCDate "2026.08.12"] [UTCTime "18:22:28"] [WhiteElo "1835"] [BlackElo "2333"] [WhiteRatingDiff "-5"] [BlackRatingDiff "+1"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "900+10"] [ECO "B19"] [Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Classical Variation, Lobron System"] [Termination "Normal"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Ngf6 11. Bd2 e6 12. O-O-O Be7 13. Kb1 O-O 14. Ne4 Qb6 15. Ne5 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Nxe4 17. Qxe4 Qxf2 18. Be3 Qf5 19. Qxf5 exf5 20. Rd7 Bg5 21. Bxg5 hxg5 22. Rxb7 a5 23. h6 Rfe8 24. h7+ Kh8 25. Rxf7 Rxe5 26. Rc7 Rae8 27. b3 Re1+ 28. Rxe1 Rxe1+ 29. Kb2 Kxh7 30. Rxc6 Rg1 31. Rc5 Kg6 32. Rxa5 Rxg2 33. Ra6+ Kh5 34. Rd6 Re2 35. a4 f4 36. a5 Re8 37. Rd7 g4 38. Rxg7 Ra8 39. b4 f3 40. Rf7 Kh4 41. c4 Rg8 42. Rh7+ Kg3 43. a6 f2 44. Rf7 Kg2 45. b5 f1=Q 46. Rxf1 Kxf1 47. b6 g3 48. a7 g2 49. b7 g1=Q 50. b8=Q Qd4+ 51. Kb3 Rg2 52. Qf8+ Kg1 53. a8=Q Rb2+ 54. Ka4 Qd1+ 0-1 [Event "rated rapid game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/GIIirdrt"] [Date "2026.08.12"] [Round "-"] [White "PowerfulPatzer"] [Black "CIU_Ak"] [Result "0-1"] [GameId "GIIirdrt"] [UTCDate "2026.08.12"] [UTCTime "19:42:57"] [WhiteElo "1827"] [BlackElo "2335"] [WhiteRatingDiff "-4"] [BlackRatingDiff "+1"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "900+10"] [ECO "B18"] [Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Classical Variation, Main Line"] [Termination "Normal"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Ne5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. f4 e6 12. Bd2 Be7 13. O-O-O O-O 14. Ne4 Nxe4 15. Qxe4 Nf6 16. Qe3 Qd5 17. Rhe1 Qxa2 18. Bc3 a5 19. g4 b5 20. g5 Nh5 21. gxh6 b4 22. Nxc6 Bf6 23. hxg7 Bxg7 24. Ne7+ Kh8 25. Qf3 Nf6 26. Re5 bxc3 27. Rh5+ Nh7 28. bxc3 Qa3+ 29. Kd2 Qxe7 30. Qe4 Bh6 31. Rxh6 f6 32. Rg1 a4 33. Rgg6 a3 34. Rxf6 Rxf6 35. Qxa8+ Rf8 36. Qa5 Rxf4 37. Qe5+ Rf6 38. Rxf6 Qxf6 39. Qb8+ Qf8 40. Qa7 Qf4+ 41. Kd1 Nf6 42. Qxa3 Ne4 43. Qa8+ Kh7 44. Qb7+ Kg6 45. h5+ Kxh5 46. Qh7+ Kg4 47. Qg6+ Kf3 48. Qh5+ Kf2 49. Qe2+ Kg3 50. Qd3+ Kg2 51. Qe2+ Nf2+ 0-1 [Event "rated rapid game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/skZcBeku"] [Date "2026.08.12"] [Round "-"] [White "PowerfulPatzer"] [Black "Kalastaa"] [Result "0-1"] [GameId "skZcBeku"] [UTCDate "2026.08.12"] [UTCTime "20:34:47"] [WhiteElo "1796"] [BlackElo "2090"] [WhiteRatingDiff "-11"] [BlackRatingDiff "+80"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "900+10"] [ECO "B18"] [Opening "Caro-Kann Defense: Classical Variation"] [Termination "Normal"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Nd7 6. Nxf5 Qa5+ 7. Bd2 Qxf5 8. Bd3 Qe6+ 9. Ne2 g6 10. O-O Bh6 11. Nf4 Qd6 12. Qf3 Qxd4 13. Be3 Qe5 14. Rfe1 Qf6 15. Qg3 e5 16. Bd2 O-O-O 17. Bc3 Bxf4 18. Qh3 Ne7 19. Rad1 Nd5 20. Ba5 Bg5 21. Bxd8 Rxd8 22. Be4 Nc7 23. Rd3 h5 24. Red1 Qe6 25. Qf3 f5 26. Bxc6 Qxc6 27. Qg3 e4 28. Rc3 Nc5 29. Rxd8+ Bxd8 30. Qe3 Qd6 31. g3 Qd1+ 32. Kg2 N5e6 33. Qxa7 h4 34. Qb6 h3+ 35. Kxh3 Qf1# 0-1

PowerfulPatzer

Here's the link to the YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybMFKzQfpo

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.