Is there a rule or measure that a checkmate move is better rated than any other move in same position that unavoidably allows for checkmate in second move?
Well, in chess.com a move that forces checkmate is better than M1, i played a match where a move that forces checkmate was great, even throught there was M1 hanging.
Yes. Mate in 1 is better than any other move that isn't mate in 1. Fastest win.
@micael09 said in #2:
> Well, in chess.com a move that forces checkmate is better than M1, i played a match where a move that forces checkmate was great, even throught there was M1 hanging.
Chess.com is much worse than lichess, and they even ask money for it. Especially the analysis is RIDICOLOUS.
@micael09 said in #2:
> Well, in chess.com a move that forces checkmate is better than M1, i played a match where a move that forces checkmate was great, even throught there was M1 hanging.
Chess.com is much worse than lichess, and they even ask money for it. Especially the analysis is RIDICOLOUS.
This is a philosophical question. If ur playing against a gangster, the answer would be: maybe not.
I once saw someone argue that, after 1 g4 e5 2 f4, it would be more thematic to accept the pawn sacrifice.
@arvheckjays said in #3:
> Yes. Mate in 1 is better than any other move that isn't mate in 1. Fastest win.
>
>
>
> Chess.com is much worse than lichess, and they even ask money for it. Especially the analysis is RIDICOLOUS.
That's why i specified chess.com, even throught i know lichess.org is better, that's why i changed for here.
> Yes. Mate in 1 is better than any other move that isn't mate in 1. Fastest win.
>
>
>
> Chess.com is much worse than lichess, and they even ask money for it. Especially the analysis is RIDICOLOUS.
That's why i specified chess.com, even throught i know lichess.org is better, that's why i changed for here.
If you are trying to tire your opponent so that a team member has an easier time in a future match, then I suppose a longer mate sequence is better.
@TomMarquardt said in #1:
> Is there a rule or measure that a checkmate move is better rated than any other move in same position that unavoidably allows for checkmate in second move?
You can define rules and measures as you like. E.g. there have been many attempts to create the longest games on lichess. In this case, a mate is, of course, a bad move.
Also, I remember the streamer Jan Gustafsson having several times quoted a former grandmaster: If you have the choice between taking the queen or mating, then take the queen, because the checkmate may not be a mate at all.
> Is there a rule or measure that a checkmate move is better rated than any other move in same position that unavoidably allows for checkmate in second move?
You can define rules and measures as you like. E.g. there have been many attempts to create the longest games on lichess. In this case, a mate is, of course, a bad move.
Also, I remember the streamer Jan Gustafsson having several times quoted a former grandmaster: If you have the choice between taking the queen or mating, then take the queen, because the checkmate may not be a mate at all.
@sheckley666 said in #8:
> You can define rules and measures as you like. E.g. there have been many attempts to create the longest games on lichess. In this case, a mate is, of course, a bad move.
>
> Also, I remember the streamer Jan Gustafsson having several times quoted a former grandmaster: If you have the choice between taking the queen or mating, then take the queen, because the checkmate may not be a mate at all.
"The checkmate may not be a mate at all" quote is off-topic. We're talking about situations where you're sure about the mate.
> You can define rules and measures as you like. E.g. there have been many attempts to create the longest games on lichess. In this case, a mate is, of course, a bad move.
>
> Also, I remember the streamer Jan Gustafsson having several times quoted a former grandmaster: If you have the choice between taking the queen or mating, then take the queen, because the checkmate may not be a mate at all.
"The checkmate may not be a mate at all" quote is off-topic. We're talking about situations where you're sure about the mate.
IMHO, more important point is that just as the checkmate may not be an actual checkmate, the queen may not be exactly for free just as well. I would even say that missing a trap after picking a "free" queen is more likely than missing that a move I believe is a checkmate is not.