lichess.org
Donate

Nakamura–Duda: An Immortal Game

IM Lizard1

@Dragon_123456 said ^

It seems AI generated

It's quite fascinating that whenever I put in multiple hours into creating a post, trying to provide genuinely high-quality educational material, I get accused of using AI. Maybe you could at least mention what about it feels AI instead of just throwing plain accusations like that.

@Dragon_123456 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/UKMemkZ2) > It seems AI generated It's quite fascinating that whenever I put in multiple hours into creating a post, trying to provide genuinely high-quality educational material, I get accused of using AI. Maybe you could at least mention what about it feels AI instead of just throwing plain accusations like that.
Dragon_123456

It’s just that you are an IM and you are writing like a player who is 1800 and overly enthusiastic about chess (no offense to your actual strength, it takes skill to be an IM). Sorry if I came on wrong, I said it seems like AI wrote it because the text was way too enthusiastic and the way your pointed out the irony seemed like AI. If you actually wrote it kudos to you!

It’s just that you are an IM and you are writing like a player who is 1800 and overly enthusiastic about chess (no offense to your actual strength, it takes skill to be an IM). Sorry if I came on wrong, I said it seems like AI wrote it because the text was way too enthusiastic and the way your pointed out the irony seemed like AI. If you actually wrote it kudos to you!
invictus_master-2905

@Lizard1 said ^

It seems AI generated

It's quite fascinating that whenever I put in multiple hours into creating a post, trying to provide genuinely high-quality educational material, I get accused of using AI. Maybe you could at least mention what about it feels AI instead of just throwing plain accusations like that.

@Lizard1 said ^

It seems AI generated

It's quite fascinating that whenever I put in multiple hours into creating a post, trying to provide genuinely high-quality educational material, I get accused of using AI. Maybe you could at least mention what about it feels AI instead of just throwing plain accusations like that.

It’s like school, except you don’t lose grades on this (:

@Lizard1 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/vjthcfIn) > > It seems AI generated > > It's quite fascinating that whenever I put in multiple hours into creating a post, trying to provide genuinely high-quality educational material, I get accused of using AI. Maybe you could at least mention what about it feels AI instead of just throwing plain accusations like that. @Lizard1 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/vjthcfIn) > > It seems AI generated > > It's quite fascinating that whenever I put in multiple hours into creating a post, trying to provide genuinely high-quality educational material, I get accused of using AI. Maybe you could at least mention what about it feels AI instead of just throwing plain accusations like that. It’s like school, except you don’t lose grades on this (:
invictus_master-2905

@Lizard1 said ^

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/lizard1/blog/nakamura-duda-an-immortal-game/zEQWsMGi

@Lizard1 said ^

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/lizard1/blog/nakamura-duda-an-immortal-game/zEQWsMGi
It’s actually amazing

@Lizard1 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/owTqTSNB) > Comments on https://lichess.org/@/lizard1/blog/nakamura-duda-an-immortal-game/zEQWsMGi @Lizard1 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/owTqTSNB) > Comments on https://lichess.org/@/lizard1/blog/nakamura-duda-an-immortal-game/zEQWsMGi It’s actually amazing
Chess_player_2581edited

Dragon's right it is strange for an IM to be so excited about this game. ...Qa3 shows great vision but it's a fairly standard pattern, and ...Qa1+ is practically a puzzle rush tactic. Nakamura played a very poor game, nothing "immortal" about it.

Dragon's right it is strange for an IM to be so excited about this game. ...Qa3 shows great vision but it's a fairly standard pattern, and ...Qa1+ is practically a puzzle rush tactic. Nakamura played a very poor game, nothing "immortal" about it.
IM Lizard1

@Chess_player_2581 said ^

Dragon's right it is strange for an IM to be so excited about this game. ...Qa3 shows great vision but it's a fairly standard pattern, and ...Qa1+ is practically a puzzle rush tactic. Nakamura played a very poor game, nothing "immortal" about it.

And don't you think it's also a bit strange to be so unnecessarily judgmental of someone's writing style when they're simply trying to put out interesting and useful chess content?

First of all, not everyone reading my blog is an IM. For many readers, a move like ...Qa3 or ...Qa1+ might genuinely be mind-blowing, something they've never seen before. Am I supposed to deliberately suppress any enthusiasm just to make sure that someone of your level doesn't find my excitement "strange"?

Besides, most of my excitement wasn't even about ...Qa1+ in isolation. It was about the whole irony in this game: on move 7, the queens seemed destined to be exchanged, yet somehow Duda ended up sacrificing his queen twice and delivering checkmate, with Nakamura begging Duda for a queen exchange with Qc2 in the end: not really just an everyday occurrence.

I've also made it very clear in the post that this game was not representative of Nakamura's actual strength and that Duda's spectacular finish was only possible because Nakamura made serious mistakes. A game doesn't have to be a flawless display of chess by both sides to be entertaining, memorable, or worth writing about.

Since when does having a title mean you're no longer allowed to enjoy chess, appreciate an unusual sequence of events, or share that enthusiasm with an audience that includes players of all levels? Ultimately, you're criticizing not so much the chess content of the post as the fact that I chose to present it enthusiastically. And I'm genuinely curious what you would prefer: that I strip all personality and excitement out of my writing, describe every interesting move in the driest possible terms, and make sure never to sound impressed by anything that a sufficiently strong player might consider routine?

I personally write for people who enjoy chess, not for the approval of a some readers who apparently think that being a strong player should make someone immune to excitement. And I certainly don't see why your personal threshold for what constitutes an impressive move should determine how everyone else is allowed to react to it.

@Chess_player_2581 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/GebU767M) > Dragon's right it is strange for an IM to be so excited about this game. ...Qa3 shows great vision but it's a fairly standard pattern, and ...Qa1+ is practically a puzzle rush tactic. Nakamura played a very poor game, nothing "immortal" about it. And don't you think it's also a bit strange to be so unnecessarily judgmental of someone's writing style when they're simply trying to put out interesting and useful chess content? First of all, not everyone reading my blog is an IM. For many readers, a move like ...Qa3 or ...Qa1+ might genuinely be mind-blowing, something they've never seen before. Am I supposed to deliberately suppress any enthusiasm just to make sure that someone of your level doesn't find my excitement "strange"? Besides, most of my excitement wasn't even about ...Qa1+ in isolation. It was about the whole irony in this game: on move 7, the queens seemed destined to be exchanged, yet somehow Duda ended up sacrificing his queen twice and delivering checkmate, with Nakamura begging Duda for a queen exchange with Qc2 in the end: not really just an everyday occurrence. I've also made it very clear in the post that this game was not representative of Nakamura's actual strength and that Duda's spectacular finish was only possible because Nakamura made serious mistakes. A game doesn't have to be a flawless display of chess by both sides to be entertaining, memorable, or worth writing about. Since when does having a title mean you're no longer allowed to enjoy chess, appreciate an unusual sequence of events, or share that enthusiasm with an audience that includes players of all levels? Ultimately, you're criticizing not so much the chess content of the post as the fact that I chose to present it enthusiastically. And I'm genuinely curious what you would prefer: that I strip all personality and excitement out of my writing, describe every interesting move in the driest possible terms, and make sure never to sound impressed by anything that a sufficiently strong player might consider routine? I personally write for people who enjoy chess, not for the approval of a some readers who apparently think that being a strong player should make someone immune to excitement. And I certainly don't see why your personal threshold for what constitutes an impressive move should determine how everyone else is allowed to react to it.