Talk:Fool's mate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Chess Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 one such fool ...= 1.1 Where to put this animated GIF I made? I want to include it but it looks to crowd the article. 2 Variation 3 WikiProject Chess Importance 4 Different sort of mate.

[edit] one such fool ...=

One such fool's mate was between Mayfield vs Trinks in 1959 and lasted only three moves: 1.e4 g5 2.Nc3 f5 3.Qh5#.

Mike Fox and Richard James in The Even More Complete Chess Addict (Faber and Faber, 1993) make mention (page 177) of a game with the same moves played in the 1959 US Open, but they claim the players were called Masefield and Trinka. Anybody know for sure, or are we going to have to say "some sources say this, others say that" in the article? --Camembert

Got it off chessgames.com, the reference might help, so here's the link: [1] Dysprosia 03:34, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - I've changed the article to say "some say this, some say that" for the time being. Hopefully one day we'll find something by some pedantic chess historian that explains this inconsistency - it is, I'm sure you'll agree, a most important matter a chess historian will enlighten us on this. --Camembert

A couple of years later, it's Edward Winter to the rescue. I've put in a reference to some numbers of Chess Notes where he deals with this (there may be more in the future). I think it's worth dealing with in the article, because even if the game is of doubtful authenticity, it is quite widely given as a genuine short game in various books and so on. --Camembert 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a diagram of the above. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Took me a while looking at the diagram on the article page to realize that it was white who was in the mated position. Should be clarified. --RealGrouchy 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to put this animated GIF I made? I want to include it but it looks to crowd the article.

(Tombrownofbaltimore)

Could this be done/redone with the wiki board colours? ChessCreator (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variation

There's a shorter variation of that. It was between Lance Darling and Richard Wood in 1983. It's right behind this link.Alexius08 (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Chess Importance

Changed importance to high from top, while this would be useful for any encyclopedia it's not essential and this is reflected in it's low linkage for a previously top rated article. ChessCreator (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this mate is more anecdotic than important, I have changed its assessment as Mid-importance. SyG (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving it back to High, while Top was to much, Mid seems to low with High about right as it has lots of appeal to novice players. It's also the type of thing you would find in an encyclopedia. SunCreator (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different sort of mate.

I heard the following chess problem:

White moves, black moves reflexively. Mate in four moves.

What I mean by black moves reflexively is that black makes the same moves white does on reflexion. So if white plays e4 then black plays e5. If white plays Nf3 then black plays Nf6, etc.

Does anyone know how a mate would develop under that rule and if so, if it would be a fool's mate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.79.158.214 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)