I'm disappointed to see Wikipedia promote what I consider to be a completely bogus usage, but there it is. AFAIK, the listed book is the only reference the blitzkriegers can come up with. would confirm it, I'd be OK with it, but corroberation of this usage is very hard to find. If Hooper, Whyld, Reinfeld, Horowitz, Chernev, Burgess, Winter, Golombek, Kasparov, etc. Anyone can write a book on anything, and Harvey Kidder is a chess writer totally unknown to me. I think it's utter bullocks, but people involved with scholastic chess assure us that this is established usage in youth chess. Camembert 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Reply I think it's fine to list it in the article (it is referenced, after all), but putting it in the lead-in paragraph and making out that it's as widely used a term as "scholar's mate" itself seems to me rather misleading (I have similar doubts about "four move checkmate" to be honest, but at least that's not in the very first sentence). I've certainly never heard it called blitzkrieg ( this discussion shows I'm not alone), and the Oxford Companion to Chess, for example, doesn't give it as an alternative name (it actually gives blitzkrieg as an alternative name for progressive chess). I have moved this to the end of the article with the other alternative names. The article stated in the first line that scholar's mate was "widely known" as blitzkrieg. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 09:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Reply Animation Z tO bO r 04:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Reply I agree, and added it. o_o Z tO bO r 04:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Reply īut in all seriousness, I think the 2 Bc4 Bc5 example should be the one on the page. g6 move, I've actually used that against somebody when opening with scholar's mate. (Black's best response is to block both threats with 3.Qe7, then chase away White's queen at his leisure.) ~ CZeke 22:49, (UTC) Reply Another "scholarly" response for Black in this line is 3.Nf6, which sensibly attacks the queen but misses the checkmate threat. I did a double-take when I read the bit about 3.g6 being "fine for Black," because I've always seen 2.Bc5, and in that line 3.g6 fails badly: White can respond 4. Wfaxon 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Reply True enough. I think this is why the line is called "Scholar's mate": It is not White, but rather Black who is the Scholar, who sees and responds to a threat but still fails, in contrast to the Fool who has no clue at all. Unfortunately in this page's current version of the mate, Black's motivation is less clear than this example: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5 and Black, seeing that his e-pawn is attacked, defends it with 3.Nc6 only to lose to 4.Qxf7#.
0 kommentar(er)
