lichess.org
Donate

A Textbook Blackburne’s Mate

Mrityunjay15

yo! first comment. that blog was CRAZY!

yo! first comment. that blog was CRAZY!
wyscigowa28edited

i actually got to play it in a classical otb game 2 years ago, and in the same fashion - by a queen sac on h6/h3

the game was of course quite inaccurate but beautiful

heres the PGN:
1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. dxe6 fxe6 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. e3 Be6 8. Nf3 Bd6 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. O-O O-O 11. Ng5 Bxh2+ 12. Kh1 Ng4 13. f4 h6 14. Nh3 d4 15. exd4 cxd4 16. f5 Qh4 17. Ne2 Bd5 18. Nef4 Bxf4 19. Kg1 Qxh3 20. gxh3 Bh2#

i actually got to play it in a classical otb game 2 years ago, and in the same fashion - by a queen sac on h6/h3 the game was of course quite inaccurate but beautiful heres the PGN: 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. dxe6 fxe6 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. e3 Be6 8. Nf3 Bd6 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. O-O O-O 11. Ng5 Bxh2+ 12. Kh1 Ng4 13. f4 h6 14. Nh3 d4 15. exd4 cxd4 16. f5 Qh4 17. Ne2 Bd5 18. Nef4 Bxf4 19. Kg1 Qxh3 20. gxh3 Bh2#
Mingus420

Was the use of AI to write this necessary?

Was the use of AI to write this necessary?
IM Lizard1

@Mingus420 said ^

Was the use of AI to write this necessary?

Of course it wasn't, that's also why I didn't bother using it.

@Mingus420 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/8cBlwq8w) > Was the use of AI to write this necessary? Of course it wasn't, that's also why I didn't bother using it.
Mingus420

"The resemblance is almost ridiculous.
Every attacking piece has its textbook role.
The bishop on h7 gives the check.
The knight on g5 protects that bishop while also taking away f7.
The bishop on d4 controls the crucial d4-h8 diagonal, meaning the king cannot escape to h8 or g8.
And Black's own rook on f8 occupies the final square the king might otherwise have used.
The queen sacrifice was the final piece of the puzzle. By playing Qxh6!! and forcing ...gxh6, White removes the h6-pawn and clears the diagonal for the bishop to land on h7.
The result is not merely a checkmate involving two bishops and a knight. It is almost the exact construction you would use if you were trying to demonstrate Blackburne’s Mate on an empty board."

This is not AI?

"The resemblance is almost ridiculous. Every attacking piece has its textbook role. The bishop on h7 gives the check. The knight on g5 protects that bishop while also taking away f7. The bishop on d4 controls the crucial d4-h8 diagonal, meaning the king cannot escape to h8 or g8. And Black's own rook on f8 occupies the final square the king might otherwise have used. The queen sacrifice was the final piece of the puzzle. By playing Qxh6!! and forcing ...gxh6, White removes the h6-pawn and clears the diagonal for the bishop to land on h7. The result is not merely a checkmate involving two bishops and a knight. It is almost the exact construction you would use if you were trying to demonstrate Blackburne’s Mate on an empty board." This is not AI?
IM Lizard1

If you asked AI to comment on any chess position, it would give you some absolute gibberish that has nothing to do with the position and where 50% of the moves are illegal, have you never tried using AI for anything? And the resemblance with the original Blackburne's Mate construction is literally the whole point of the post, so what on Earth makes you think it's AI? If you don't like my style of posts, don't read them, but don't just throw around baseless accusations like that.

If you asked AI to comment on any chess position, it would give you some absolute gibberish that has nothing to do with the position and where 50% of the moves are illegal, have you never tried using AI for anything? And the resemblance with the original Blackburne's Mate construction is literally the whole point of the post, so what on Earth makes you think it's AI? If you don't like my style of posts, don't read them, but don't just throw around baseless accusations like that.
Mingus420

What makes me think that part is AI is that I used an AI detector on it and it came out 100% AI. The reason I used an AI detector is because the writing is full of AI patterns, that after a few years of AI writing constituting a large part of new articles and posts one can recognise easily. For example, short sentences, and "it's not merely X, it's Y".
I am not a moralist; I'm not accusing you of doing something "wrong". Furthermore, I'm not saying you used AI to analyse the game, just to write that part of your post. I thank you for taking the time to write an article that demonstrates a concept in the game of chess. However, what I do not get, is why when I politely and curiously asked if you used AI to write this, you denied it and assumed that tone with me.

What makes me think that part is AI is that I used an AI detector on it and it came out 100% AI. The reason I used an AI detector is because the writing is full of AI patterns, that after a few years of AI writing constituting a large part of new articles and posts one can recognise easily. For example, short sentences, and "it's not merely X, it's Y". I am not a moralist; I'm not accusing you of doing something "wrong". Furthermore, I'm not saying you used AI to analyse the game, just to write that part of your post. I thank you for taking the time to write an article that demonstrates a concept in the game of chess. However, what I do not get, is why when I politely and curiously asked if you used AI to write this, you denied it and assumed that tone with me.
pikolinian

I 'm accused of using AI often. I'm not native speaker, so I use simple sentences, very few grammar structures, perhaps some odd word here or there.

@Lizard1 , your text is clear and simple for me. I like your posts very much. Keep up good work :) , please.

I 'm accused of using AI often. I'm not native speaker, so I use simple sentences, very few grammar structures, perhaps some odd word here or there. @Lizard1 , your text is clear and simple for me. I like your posts very much. Keep up good work :) , please.
IM Lizard1

@Mingus420

It’s actually quite fascinating that instead of engaging with the actual content of the post (and there is a lot to discuss), you decided to go into full detective mode, apparently determined to expose me for something I clearly haven’t even done. I’m not sure what exactly you were hoping to achieve with this, other than perhaps some sort of ego boost from believing you’d caught someone red-handed. Also, last time I checked, making baseless accusations against someone and then repeatedly insisting on them doesn’t exactly constitute politeness.

You seem to believe you can simply feed a chess position into ChatGPT, give it a single prompt, and receive a perfectly coherent, detailed analysis without running into illegal moves, positional inconsistencies, or hallucinations. Anyone who has actually experimented with AI-generated chess analysis should know that it’s nowhere near that straightforward. Not to mention that AI detectors are completely unreliable, they just look for patterns associated with AI writing and obviously don’t prove anything.

But more importantly, this was never supposed to be a discussion about whether you personally approve of my writing style or whether some AI detector happens to find it suspicious. The entire point of the comment section was to discuss the chess content of the article, ask questions, exchange ideas, and maybe learn something useful. Instead, you’ve turned it into a completely unnecessary interrogation.

@Mingus420 It’s actually quite fascinating that instead of engaging with the actual content of the post (and there is a lot to discuss), you decided to go into full detective mode, apparently determined to expose me for something I clearly haven’t even done. I’m not sure what exactly you were hoping to achieve with this, other than perhaps some sort of ego boost from believing you’d caught someone red-handed. Also, last time I checked, making baseless accusations against someone and then repeatedly insisting on them doesn’t exactly constitute politeness. You seem to believe you can simply feed a chess position into ChatGPT, give it a single prompt, and receive a perfectly coherent, detailed analysis without running into illegal moves, positional inconsistencies, or hallucinations. Anyone who has actually experimented with AI-generated chess analysis should know that it’s nowhere near that straightforward. Not to mention that AI detectors are completely unreliable, they just look for patterns associated with AI writing and obviously don’t prove anything. But more importantly, this was never supposed to be a discussion about whether you personally approve of my writing style or whether some AI detector happens to find it suspicious. The entire point of the comment section was to discuss the chess content of the article, ask questions, exchange ideas, and maybe learn something useful. Instead, you’ve turned it into a completely unnecessary interrogation.