No, the huge queen blunder looks like he just forgot you'd just taken on c1. It's what he should have played instead of 31. Bh6, since it threatens mate with 32. Qg5+ Kh8 33. Qh6+ Kg8 34. Qh7#.
Coul there have been logic behind these moves?
Sort:
Somebody could have went on his account while it was still logged on and purposely made him lose. My friend did that to me before.
GoatnotsheepThe2nd wrote:
Somebody could have went on his account while it was still logged on and purposely made him lose. My friend did that to me before.
LOL
There's a chance he thought he could trick you into a stalemate by giving up all of his pieces, but that looks rather doubtful.
Yea I don't think he was looking for a stalemate I belive he accidently blundered his queen away by not seeing your queen at c1 and realised he couldn't win, then just played a bad move because he was still mad about loosing his queen.
I would say there is no logic behind those moves at all, just blunders.
Most of the game is provided for context, skip to move 34 for the action.
Previous play was a simple, non-interesting game between two beginners. I'd appreciate any critique of this stage, as I am at the stage where I need all the advice I can get. However, after 34 is when it gets interesting. My opponent started wildly giving up his pieces. Look at the moves-they are too bad (and too plentiful) to be blunders. Was there some reasoning behind it, cause I'm just perplexed?
After my opponent was left with four pawns and a lone king against a queen, rook, and six pawns, he let his clock run (about thirteen minutes left). I disconnected, and thus lost (common risk in playing long games in live chess).
But I just can't understand why, after a game of mediocre play, he suddenly degraded to a three-year-old pushing pieces randomly. So I ask the community of players better than myself-was there some motive behind those moves or was it really just weak play?