That's just cruel.
Checkmate with 3 queens!
I used to aim for the maximum number of queens when I played the kids at primary school, but I grew out of it.
Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you had the chance
I wouldn't do it if I had the chance, as I would have checkmated long before this.
I used to aim for the maximum number of queens when I played the kids at primary school, but I grew out of it.
For me, I aim for the maximum number of knights or bishops on the board (but so far, it has not come to fruition yet, since at least a pawn is lost in almost all my games).
i know i screwed up a few times in this game, but nevertheless, the finale was good.
Getting three queens was wasting time
or
If you just wanted queens, why not four?
I used to aim for the maximum number of queens when I played the kids at primary school, but I grew out of it.
For me, I aim for the maximum number of knights or bishops on the board (but so far, it has not come to fruition yet, since at least a pawn is lost in almost all my games).
I never managed more than six queens either. Losing pawns was not the only problem, I was a real whizz at stalemate in those days.
If you just wanted queens, why not four?
Obviously possible, but then it gets a bit fiddly finding a mate with the queens where none of them are redundant. Something tells me this may not be the fastest way.
Any advance on 11 moves to checkmate with 4 queens but not with 3 (White's king and rook taking no part)?
I used to aim for the maximum number of queens when I played the kids at primary school, but I grew out of it.
Promoting to a knight/bishop is more fun. Most my promotions are so late in the game that I will promote to a queen only if I feel that I can mate in a couple of moves. I assume my opponent doesn't want to live too long in a losing game and wants to seek his revenge on me in the following game.
i know i screwed up a few times in this game, but nevertheless, the finale was good.