text:
How many queens can check a king without it being checkmate (with no other pieces on the board)?
I am going to write an autobiographical story. The motive is therapeutic. I suffered abuse from my father, and at the age of 20, I developed delusional disorder; the psychosis lasted for 20 years, and I am starting to emerge from it after three years of psychotherapy. A series of coincidences occurred: I was born in 1984 like the novel, appeared in the newspaper at the age of 9 after scoring 3 points in an International Open, well, there are more coincidences, but I won't delve into them.... I will only add that I knew a girl in my town whose name, translated from Spanish to English, is something like Cristine Youkill.
I believed I was selected by Intelligence Services, and that girl was my destiny. Recently, I had lunch with that girl and her family, and not only did I discover that she wanted nothing to do with me, but she also said that my psychosis was due to cannabis, when I had been abused by my father and had experienced the Al-Qaeda attacks as something close; they attacked me for being the character: Winston Smith. I couldn't bear it and, as a recovered addict, I took amphetamines and had a kind of dream. It wasn't exactly a dream; I was awake because I wrote it to a friend via WhatsApp, telling her that it was really happening. It was a kind of trance.
I was Bobby Fisher playing with white pieces. I was both the white king, and Cristine Youkill was the white queen. At a certain moment, I became the black king, and 17 white queens were checking me. 16 of the queens were Princess Leonor, the future Queen of Spain, and the 17th was Cristine herself. I threw the king out the window. The king caught a piece of curtain that served as a parachute. I fell into the street unharmed, holding Jeff Hwang's three volumes of Omaha Pot Limit. A new life awaited me as a survivor and poker player in Malta.
Well, now I want to write a book telling my whole story, including the trance. I want to show at the beginning of each chapter the 16th game that appears in Bobby Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games" titled 'Four Queens between Fischer and Petrosian.' I want the game to transform at the end, and I am playing as black, attacked by those queens.
Well, I think it's not possible 17 queens, I mean, the puzzle is only a black king and only queens in white. The whites are only queens, no other pieces on the board.
What is the maximum number of white queens giving check to a king without it being checkmate, with no other pieces on the board?
If I receive a response, the position will be published, and the winner will be quoted in my book as they wish to be cited.

Do all the queens individually have to be giving a check? Or is it sufficient for the king to be in check by at least one attacker?

@AAM111 All queens should be checking the king

Sorry to seem pedantic and are you really asking 'How many queens can…' or 'How many queens are needed to…'?

@Robbie Goodwin "How many queens can..." Record is 7. Clarify the position could be impossible (more than 9 queens, in my "dream" they were 17).

Does it have to be a legal chess board? You yould always twist the fields such that instead of 8 neighbors, one field has 16. Would look more like a trance, too.

Thanks and despite the 17 in your dream, are you really asking 'How many queens can…' or 'How many queens are needed to…' or is this some kind of trick Question?

I should have not explained well this. Most upvoted answer is what I was searching for. Feel free to edit the technical things! I have no time as I am hospitalized currently and have limited internet access

I would call the latest edits vandalism, nothing less. In fact, it makes most of the answers no longer consistent with the question. Are the users who edited the question planning to also delete these answers?

Rolled back as I told in previous messages. I will rolle back any esit deleting the story. My question my rules if moderators tell I don't violate site policy

@DonQuinKong Sorry my fault I didn't speciphied the position shouldn't be legal. Sorry the others who answered for legal positions.

The question asks for "no other pieces on the board" apart from white queens and a black king. So the other answers looking for legal positions seem to be missing the point.
If we're looking for placements of pieces satisfying all queens are checking the king and it is not checkmate, the maximum is seven. There are only eight directions the queens can be giving check from, and only one white queen can actually be checking the king from each direction (since white queens can't jump). However, since it is not checkmate, the king must be able to move in one direction, which means no queen can be checking from the opposite direction. The queen in the direction the king moves can be captured, which means seven is possible. An example is as follows.
8/8/8/Q3Q3/8/Q1k1Q2/2Q5/Q3Q3 b - - 0 1

You can fill the irrelavent fields with queens, if you want 17. Looks about 37 queens can be on the board. Sounds like a more difficult puzzle, 37 queens on the board and it's not checkmate.

@OrigamiEye well, you'd have to say "check, but not checkmate", since you can place a king and 42 queens without it even being check.

This looks nice. It will take me some months to write the book but if there is not a better solution I will contact you for the quote. ty very much

@OrigamilEye all queens should be checking, I think I specified that in the question

How is this not checkmate?  There's nothing to block, and nowhere to move.  Either I'm missing something as a noob, or the number is 6.

@CristobolPolychronopolis Kxf7 gets you out of check (the queen is not protected).

@Universal_learner no worries, and feel free to use without crediting me.

@EspeciallyLime Thanks, didn't think of that at first glance.

While this board state satisfies the question in isolation, I think it is impossible for the king to find himself in this position in the first place, as one cannot move into check, nor ignore an existing check. A question for OP: does this matter for your purposes?

@JakeRobb the question explicitly asks for an impossible position (one with no white king), so I doubt the number of impossible things about it matters.

Tried 8, but looks impossible :) and if people as Rewan hasn't solved for +7 yet....Finally not in android. Directly to editorial. Let me know if your wish is not to be quoted. If no we will put a link to your profile in the footer. I am going to cowrite it with my writing teacher, maybe fict mode and not so autobiographical. A year at least it will take. If you are still active in the site I will contact you if published, something it is not sure but probable.

The only way black can be in check from more than one queen is if a pawn moves forward one move, queens and discovers a check from another queen behind it like this:
[fen "8/3kPQ2/8/8/8/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]

1. e8=Q+

Not the only way! See my answer.

Sorry I should have speciphied the position shouldn't be legal

I'm pretty sure the maximum number is two (under current rules). I can think of two different ways to achieve it. One is a discovered check by a promoting pawn, as in Brian Towers's answer. The other is a double discovered check by an en passant capture:
8/3p4/4k3/4P3/2Q1Q3/8/8/4K3 b - - 0 1

1...d5 2.exd6

This violates the constraint that there be no other pieces on the board other than the queens (unless you're arguing that a pawn is not a "piece", but that doesn't seem to apply here).

@GreenMatt It's no less informative.

Sorry I should have speciphied the position shouldn't be legal

@Brian Towers answer is correct under current chess conventions.
However, you if want to be cheeky, you could abuse the 1980 FIDE rules to achieve  'eight', like so.
[FEN "8/3kPQ2/QQ2r3/2QK4/7Q/7Q/7Q/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. e8=Q Rd6+ 2. Qhxd6 Ke7 3. Qhe6 Kd8 4. Qac8 Ke7 5. Qbc7 Kd8 6. Q5c6 Kd7 7. Qhd8

But the loophole invalidates the answer just as well. Since it's not a check, it doesn't qualify for the question which asks for the queens to check the king :)

@justhalf Yet it shall not dimish the spirit of it. :p

Do we care that RD6+ is an illegal move, as the king is already in check?

@JakeRobb Rd6+ is 'legal' because the bK is then attacked three times, thus the move takes out of check.

@RewanDemontay forgive me, maybe I'm missing something -- but in the initial state shown in the replayer, bK is already checked by two queens (e8 and f7). Rd6+ doesn't address those checks, and is thus illegal. In fact, the initial state is already checkmate, and the bK remains in checkmate throughout all of the moves shown, so none of this is legal (nor what OP asked for).

@RewanDemontay I was indeed missing something. I neglected to follow your link about the 1980 FIDE rule change, and thus was completely unaware of the complexity introduced by the triple check. Incredible! But now I'm wondering how the game proceeds past Ke7, after which point wK is not checked, and any of the white queens, regardless of check, could take the black king.

@JakeRobb There are still legal moved for Black. The base resumption is that king capture is still illegal. If you follow the link further you'll find example problems that will help.

Sorry I should have speciphied the position shouldn't be legal

I believe, if we are talking legal moves to get to that position, the answer would be 6, assuming a Queen captures some black piece at C6 to put the black player in check.

With that said, if you are asking the maximum number that you could put down on a board to have the black player in check, but not mate, the best answer I can come up with is 18:

In your first diagram, only one queen is checking the king, according to the rules.

In the second diagram, 5 of the queens along the left side are not putting the black king in check even if you allow "x-ray" checks to count.

Why not add 25 more queens in c1-c2-c3-c4-c5-d1-d2-d3-d4-e1-e2-e3-f1-f2-g1, e6-f5-f6-g4-g5-g6-h3-h4-h5-h6?

There could be 7 queens all lined up checking the king if one captured a black chess piece which was blocking the rest.
More would be impossible during play.
It’s much more likely that you would get checkmate much earlier or a stalemate.

Now, here is a better question: how long and how many moves would it take two people with the common goal of creating the above scenario to do this intentionally playing Speed Stupid Chess?


text:
Is it possible to capture a queen directly in front of the king?
Can the king capture a queen directly in front of him when he is in check ?

If the queen isn’t protected by another piece, yes

Can the king capture his attacker?

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Why is the 2010 USCC armageddon between Gata Kamsky & Yury Shulman considered rapid not classical?
Similar question: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/41499/why-was-the-2019-wfrcc-called-slow-rapid-when-its-actually-classical-4515-6
Related question: What are examples of tournaments/games 60 minutes to below 120 minutes, and how does FIDE classify them?

It's stated by Jim Ratliff here that there was a 2013 United States Chess Championship (USCC) armageddon w/ armageddon with 45 minutes base time + 5 second increment. This converts to only 50min, so it's still just rapid. However, apparently, there was a 60 minute armageddon w/ auction game in the 2010 USCC (also won by Gata Kamsky).
According to chessgames.com this game is considered rapid just like how the 2019 WFRCC called 'slow rapid' when it's actually classical (45+15=60). It could be worse than Wesley So's case because the armageddon has increment for white. From thisweekinchess:

Gata Kamsky defeated Yuri Shulman in a rapid playoff (Kamsky had black and 25 mins + 5 seconds a move (with draw odds) against Shulman's 1 hour + 5 seconds a move. This came from a bidding process)

Question: Why are they calling this game rapid when the base time for white is at least 60 minutes?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Semi-armageddon: Like armageddon but still has draws
I heard of pie rule, but I doubt this has ever been done in a FIDE tournament in the last, say, 50 years.
Essentially, it's like cake-cutting but you're cutting the cake of evaluation based on starting position instead of the cake of time like armageddon. Like you bid on the position instead of the time. The 1 difference though is that armageddon eliminates draws. (Well you can have draw odds in pie rule, but I highly doubt white has any decent shot here.)
What I envision is a version of armageddon that's simply pie rule but for time, in particular no elimination of draws. I'll call this semi-armageddon. To be explicit:

Regular armageddon: Black has draw odds. Players bid for black. (Usually.)
Introducing semi-armageddon: Original game except players bid for white.

Question: Has this be done or considered? And please mention which part of the considerations, if any, explain what ultimately were or might have been some reasons why these weren't implemented. Eg It's too time consuming to have every pair of players in a swiss tournament bid for white.

Some motivations for doing this:

In the 2023 FIDE World Cup and as prepared to be done in the 2023 world chess championship, they have an alternative to armageddon called 'sudden death' where they play infinite blitz matches until there's a decisive result, but there's no compensation for whomever gets black first.

Round robins & swiss tournaments are often done single, not double like the candidates from 2013-2024 (or quadruple like the candidates before 1963). Even if they do single round robins with odd number of players so that there even amounts of white & black, it's still technically unfair at least in each individual game that one player just gets black for no compensation whatsoever, even if the overall tournament is arguably fair. Actually, the 2022 Sinquefield Cup was a single round robin, and 1 of the issues Magnus Carlsen had with Hans Niemann was:

I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do.

Even just for regular amateur online playing on chess.com or lichess, players just get black for no compensation. This isn't quite a problem in chess960, but I heard in regular chess, there's a thing where players abort and offer rematch to get white.

In c-squared podcast (csqpod) w/ Hikaru Nakamura, around 1:02:18, Hikaru tells Fabiano Caruana & Cristian Chirila that Hikaru wished they could keep tiebreakers in world chess championships classical somehow. Hikaru wanted, as I understand, classical sudden death, which I guess is a classical version of what happened in the 2023 World Cup. I believe this is extremely unfair because at least in blitz sudden death, white doesn't have that much advantage. But this can now work if they do classical semi-armageddon. They could do just classical armageddon, but in a later episode w/ Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, around 2:22 (it's a clip from the full episode), MVL & Fabi say they don't like 'super long armageddon's.'


text:
On the utilisation scope of chess book analytical notations
Subject: usefulness of annotating games
In his volume "My games", Gary Kasparov provides commentary, in addition to the pgn (potable game notation) of his encounter's deployment variant-speculations: alternate options.
This engenders in the prospective reader, what may be characterised as the litany of theoretical-hertiage-development-backlog in the motion toward performance, in chess.
By introducing this additional relation, the author invokes what may be viewed of as the framework of existing educational systems, in chess.
As they may have existed in the former USSR.
Sadly, though, from what can be gathered, our former world champion actually garners, not an addition to his game moves, but, possibly, what may be described as, bland gesturing, toward the past; and not, as ought be, it's incorporation into what could, should, or has the potential, to be.
The question is this: if one were to compile a catalogue of encounters over-the-board, and if such a thing still presents the potential to formulate wholesale unity: by the consideration of the aforementioned, what is it that lends utilisable credence to such a thing, by way of annotating remarks?


text:
Can the rip, tide, car-ry me home?
[Event "Hourly Bullet Arena"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/klfXSKWU"]
[Date "2024.03.28"]
[White "NileshMondal"]
[Black "healLan"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2024.03.28"]
[UTCTime "07:01:25"]
[WhiteElo "1426"]
[BlackElo "1447"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-8"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+5"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "60+0"]
[ECO "B50"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: Modern Variations"]
[Termination "Time forfeit"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 { B50 Sicilian Defense: Modern Variations } 3. d3 Nf6 4. Nc3 g6 5. Bg5 Bg7 6. Bxf6 Bxf6 7. Be2 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O Bg7 10. Rab1 e5 11. Nd5 Be6 12. Qc3 Bxd5 13. exd5 Nd4 14. Nxd4 cxd4 15. Qd2 Qf6 16. c4 b6 17. Qb4 Qd8 18. a3 a5 19. Qb3 Qc7 20. Bf3 Qc5 21. Rfe1 Rae8 22. Qb5 Qxb5 23. cxb5 Rc8 24. a4 Rc2 25. b3 Rfc8 26. Red1 f5 27. h3 e4 28. dxe4 fxe4 29. Bxe4 Re2 30. Bf3 Ree8 31. Kh2 Rf8 32. Re1 Rf4 33. Re6 Rcf8 34. Rxd6 R8f6 35. Rd8+ Rf8 36. Rxf8+ Bxf8 37. Kg3 Bc5 38. Kxf4 d3 39. Rd1 d2 40. Rxd2 Bb4 41. d6 Bxd2+ 42. Ke4 Bb4 43. d7 Be7 44. Ke5 Bd8 45. Ke6 Kf8 46. Bc6 g5 47. g4 h6 48. Kf5 h5 49. Kg6 h4 50. Kh5 Ke7 { Black wins on time. } 0-1


text:
Balancing white advantage but still has draws
I heard of pie rule, but I doubt this has ever been done in a FIDE tournament in the last, say, 50 years.
Essentially, it's like cake-cutting but you're cutting the cake of evaluation based on starting position instead of the cake of time like armageddon. Like you bid on the position instead of the time. The 1 difference though is that armageddon eliminates draws. (Well you can have draw odds in pie rule, but I highly doubt white has any decent shot here.)
Question: What are other attempts besides pie rule  or in the other post semi-armageddon where there are ways to balance out white's advantage in a single game without eliminating draws? And please mention which part of the considerations, if any, explain what ultimately were or might have been some reasons why these weren't implemented. Eg for semi-armageddonIt's too time consuming to have every pair of players in a swiss tournament bid for white.


text:
How does FIDE define fast classical?
Related: How does FIDE define slow rapid & fast rapid?

Like in the 2019 WFRCC & 2022 WFRCC, FIDE is once again using this undefined term 'slow rapid' in the 2024 Grenke Chess Classic. This seems to be synonymous with another undefined term 'fast classical'.
Link 1 - Chess.com Tournament Page
https://www.chess.com/events/2024-grenke-chess-classic-round-robin#format

Players compete in a double round-robin, with two rounds happening each day. Games are in the "fast-classical" time control, with players having 45 minutes for the entire game and a 10-second increment. On the event's last day, players compete in playoffs to determine their final placements, with first playing vs. second, third vs. fourth, and fifth vs. sixth.

Link 2 - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenke_Chess_Classic#2024

The tournament returned in 2024 after a five-year hiatus. For the first time the tournament will be played in a rapid time control (45+10) instead of the usual classical.[15]

The Link '[15]' is the following:

Link 3 - Chess.com Article by Colin_McGourty 2024Feb05
https://www.chess.com/news/view/carlsen-ding-liren-grenke-chess-classic

World Champion GM Ding Liren and World Rapid Champion GM Magnus Carlsen top the field for the GRENKE Chess Classic, which returns March 26-31 after a five-year hiatus. Carlsen will be looking to win a third title to add to his wins in 2015 and 2019, with GMs Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Richard Rapport, Vincent Keymer, and Daniel Fridman completing the six-player field. The games will be played at an unusual "slow rapid" format, with two 45-minute games each day.

and then

This year marks a return to the original six-player event, with the organizers explaining that the format was curtailed so that it doesn’t overlap with the Candidates Tournament in Toronto that starts on April 4. That doesn’t mean fewer games, however, since the players will play two 45-minute games each day, with a 10-second increment per move. The slow-rapid (fast-classical?) format is one that Carlsen has championed as a potentially better way to decide world championship matches.

Link 4 - twitter chess24 - 2024Mar26

The games in this year's #GRENKEChess Classic feature a fast-classical/slow-rapid 45+10 time control, so there are two rounds today!


text:
Why not challenge the Oak?
[Event "Rated Bullet game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/SvddnsRp"]
[Date "2024.03.29"]
[White "Hannes150487"]
[Black "healLan"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2024.03.29"]
[UTCTime "15:26:51"]
[WhiteElo "1068"]
[BlackElo "1421"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-14"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+2"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "60+0"]
[ECO "A01"]
[Opening "Nimzo-Larsen Attack: Classical Variation"]
[Termination "Time forfeit"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]
[FEN ""]

1. b3 d5 { A01 Nimzo-Larsen Attack: Classical Variation } 2. Bb2 e6 3. e3 Bc5 4. Nf3 Bb6 5. Be2 Nc6 6. d3 Bd7 7. e4 Nf6 8. exd5 exd5 9. d4 O-O 10. c4 a6 11. cxd5 Nxd5 12. Nc3 Ba7 13. Nxd5 Be6 14. Bc4 Nxd4 15. Nxc7 Bd5 16. Bxd5 Rc8 17. Nxd4 Qe7+ 18. Qe2 Qxc7 19. O-O Rce8 20. f3 Rxe2 21. Bxf7+ Rxf7 22. Rfd1 Qc2 23. Kh1 Qxb2 24. Nc2 Qxc2 25. Rd8+ Rf8 26. Rad1 Rxg2 { Black wins on time. } 0-1


text:
Fischer mode backfiring
The idea of Fischer mode is (beside others) to shorten the game somewhat (without shortening the actual thinking time).
Now, the nightmare of any tournament director is two people playing a sea snake (that's what it is called in German), maybe a QP/Q endgame, unto the draw in the 250th move. Ruining the whole schedule (especially if it is a Swiss tournament).
What is the longest game (not move-wise, but time-wise) played after the advent of Fischer mode?


text:
Why wasn't Magnus sanctioned for cheating Danya TWICE on lichess?
Magnus cheated Daniel 'Danya' Naroditsky TWICE on lichess:

2020 - got help from Aryan Tari
2021 - got help from David Howell (soon after Magnus cheated Ian 'Nepo' Nepomniachtchi in the 2021 classical WCC)

The CEO of chessable, Geert van der Velde, even brought this up in 2022Sep with the Hans Niemann vs Magnus controversy.
Question: Why wasn't Magnus sanctioned for either of these?
I understand that touch move is something to be claimed by opponent during the game, so that's why Magnus wasn't sanctioned for cheating Nepo. Same reason as when Magnus cheated Alireza Firouzja in 2019 blitz WCC.


text:
Ethics of scratch boards in live games
Re these questions:

would a board for calculating "non-blindfold" help GMs in slow games?

Ethics of scratch boards in puzzles

There is a built-in feature of a 'scratch board' in correspondence but not in puzzles or live games. By scratch board, I mean you have a physical board or an analysis board where you move pieces around to see things, but of course the engine is off.
Definitely, this is cheating in OTB. I talk more about this below. However, many things are allowed for online that aren't allowed OTB eg drawing arrows, pre-moves, auto promotions to queen, auto punches of clock, keyboard extensions (formerly), etc.
Here's my pitch for live games:

Scratch boards tell you only what you think. They just help you see more clearly. With scratch boards, everything is from your thinking only. You're just externalising your thinking. I don't think they're any different from calculators in poker (but not GTO solvers - that's outright using an engine) that tell you your hand strength.

In response to the above question, I don't think scratch boards actually help for calculating. I believe this is just to limit the number things that players bring to the playing area for security measures and to reduce distractions. If it were really helpful, then we could argue that Wesley So's 'writing notes' could really be helpful. You can look up the rationale for the 'writing notes' thing. It's not definitely not about being helpful. Similarly, in in-person poker games, my suspicion is they won't allow writing notes eg to calculate hand strength for reasons other than 'it's helpful.'

The following is whataboutism, but they even allow time management extensions, which I think are much worse because:

They're not built-in.
Like evaluation bar cheating, the extension tells you what another player thinks (namely a machine for evaluation bar cheating and an automated process based on real time information for the time management extensions).

And here's another whataboutism:

You can even refer to opening books in correspondence. Again, this is worse because they're telling what you another player thinks (namely the geek/nerd who came up with the opening variation you're playing).

Actually, here are 2 things that distinguish scratch boards, and even like arrows if those ever get removed, from a time management extension:

I think statistics (evaluation, move times, etc) are completely useless to determine if someone 'cheated' by using a scratch board or arrows. But I believe you can detect time management extension cheating like how you can detect evaluation bar cheating & even the regular telling-you-moves cheating.

Scratch boards & arrows I believe won't help superGMs. Same as poker: I don't believe poker calculators (but not GTO solvers) would help poker pro's. But time management extensions would!

Question: How are scratch boards cheating/unethical, in particular while time management extensions & opening books are allowed/ethical?


text:
In superGM tournaments are time management extensions forbidden?
An extension was released in 2021Feb: Hikaru and GothamChess Tell You to MOVE (Time Management Extension). After a certain amount of elapsed time, you get notified by a voice of Hikaru Nakamura or Levy Rozman.
I ask about this (for regular amateur games) here: How isn't a time management extension cheating / unethical?
Question: In online superGM tournaments, such as Meltwater Champions Chess Tour, Rapid Chess Championship, Chess.com Global Championship, Speed Chess Championship, etc, are such time management extensions (even if they wouldn't help cf Link1. Link2) like this cheating / unethical?

No top player has thought about using these so it's purely hypothetical


text:
Is this game too complicated?
[Event "Rated Classical game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/j457oH3R"]
[Date "2024.03.31"]
[White "healLan"]
[Black "LordSalva"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2024.03.31"]
[UTCTime "10:45:23"]
[WhiteElo "1467"]
[BlackElo "1427"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+7"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-5"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "1800+15"]
[ECO "C70"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez: Morphy Defense, Caro Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 { C70 Ruy Lopez: Morphy Defense, Caro Variation } 5. Bb3 Nf6 6. O-O Nxe4 7. Re1 Nxf2 8. Kxf2 Bc5+ 9. Kf1 Qf6 10. Qe2 O-O 11. c3 d6 12. d4 Nxd4 13. cxd4 Bxd4 14. Be3 Bxe3 15. Bd5 Bb7 16. Bxb7 Rab8 17. Qxe3 Rxb7 18. Nc3 b4 19. Nd5 Qf5 20. Qe4 Qxe4 21. Rxe4 b3 22. axb3 Rxb3 23. Nxc7 Rxb2 24. Nxa6 Rfb8 25. Nxb8 Rxb8 26. Rd1 f6 27. Rxd6 Rb1+ 28. Ne1 { Black resigns. } 1-0