English Chess Forum

Last night i probably had my best ever game of chess i beat a opponent rated 39 points higher than myself in 17 moves does this count as a minature

William Metcalfe wrote:Last night i probably had my best ever game of chess i beat a opponent rated 39 points higher than myself in 17 moves does this count as a minature

Miniature is generally 25 moves or less (rating of players doesn't matter). Sometimes 20 moves or less. I believe there are some large collections that stick to a rigid definition, and there are plenty of game collections with "miniatures" in the titles.

100 Soviet Chess Miniatures:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zj2vdV6QXxUC

101 Brilliant Chess Miniatures:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bGQOAAAACAAJ

Modern chess miniatures:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WvlkHAAACAAJ

For more, see this Google Books search:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&tb ... iatures%22

I had a few chess miniatures published by Richard James and Mike Fox in their CHESS column. I think the ones they collected were limited to very short ones. The game I won which got published was a nine-move win!!

Yes, of course it does, Billyboy! Well played!!

Paul Bielby wrote:Yes, of course it does, Billyboy! Well played!!

Well, you are more than 39 points higher, so you weren't the victim!

Thanks Paul i know the grade does not matter but its nice to play well against much higher rated players lol

I just found two nice miniatures in an old university bulletin I found from 2000 (some eleven years ago). The games are David Moskovic vs Russsell White (0-1, 24 moves) and Joe Conlon vs Simon Spivack (1-0, 16 moves). Both from the County Championships for that year. I wonder if Simon is reading this thread?

One more miniature from the dusty old tomes. I think I can be forgiven for posting this one, as it is clearly directly relevant to current ECF matters (as you will see!). The following is the entire game with annotations from 2000.

Source: Dragon (Michaelmas 2000, page 44)

C. de Mooi - Christopher Kreuzer
Golders Green, London, 30 minutes, 2000
Notes by Christopher Kreuzer

1.e4 c5
2.Nc3 d6
3.f4 e6
4.Nf3 a6
5.a4 Nc6
6.Bc4 Nf6
7.d3 d5
8.exd5 exd5
9.Qe2+ Be7
10.Bb3 Bg4
11.h3?

[11.Qf2 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 Nd4 followed by ...Nxb3 gives White doubled b-pawns, though it is not clear what further advantage Black can play for.]

11...Nd4
12.Qf2? Bxf3
13.gxf3



13...Ne4!!

A deep move with a far from obvious follow-up. The immediate threat of Bh4 is revealed, while the direct attack on the queen precludes the defence 14.h4; and if the queen moves: 14.Qg2 Bh4+ and 15...Ng3/f2+ wins the exchange, while 14.Qe3 Bh4+ and 15.Bf2 is a spectacular queen trap. The primary threat prevents the pawns capturing the knight, but surely the knight can capture...?

14.Nxe4 Bh4!!

Finally revealing the true purpose of 13.Ne4: namely to lure the White knight from c3 to g3, sacrificing a whole knight in the process! Merely winning a pawn with 14...dxe4 is beneath contempt.

15.Ng3 Bxg3
16.Qxg3 Qe7+
17.Kd2

[17.Be3 Nxb3 (17...Qxe3+ 18.Kd1) 18.cxb3 Qxe3+ 19.Kd1 Qxd3+]

17...Qe2+
18.Kc3 b5!



The final irony. The knight was lured from c3, unprotecting e2; the queen was also dragged from its protection of e2; and the now vacant c3 square becomes the last resting place of the White monarch. It's mate next move. 0-1

I've only played one game which could possibly be described as a miniature, and it's not really much to be proud of; there was no brilliant combination, my opponent was much lower graded, dropped a pawn to a fairly simple tactic and then rapidly caved in. It was supposed to be a full length league game, but was finished in under 10 minutes.

Jones, M - Davies, W
Coventry League, 2007

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nxd4 exd4 5.O-O c6 6. Bc4 b5 7. Bb3 Bc5 8. Qh5 Qe7 9. Bxf7+ Qxf7 10. Qxc5 Nf6 11. Qxd4 d5 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Re1+ Ne7 14. Qd6 a5 15. Qxc6+ Bd7 16. Qxa8+



Here my opponent tried to play 16... Nc8, before I pointed out that the knight is pinned. The only legal move, 16... Bc8, is met by 17. Qxc8#, so he resigned. 1-0

My opponent as White forgot an (obvious) intermediate pawn check on move 11 and got in deep trouble. I liked leaving both Rooks for his Queen to take.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4 f6 9. Nf4 Nxd4 10. Qh5 Ke7 11. Ng6 hxg6 12. Qxh8 Nxe5 13. Bb1 Qc7 14. Kd1 Kf7 15. b3 Bd7 16. Bb2 Ba3 17. Qxa8 Bxb2

http://tinyurl.com/pgn4web-20CF4608

Not sure I ever played a proper miniature in the sense of "worth looking at". Certainly lost a fair few games in under 20 moves in my time by blundering pieces, though... * cough *

Here is a relatively short win from days of yore, though hardly impressive enough to be a real miniature. Was a fairly fast game - barely 40 min for both sides' moves, in a 40 moves in 75 min time control. ! and ? from my old score book.

A Elliott - J Gallagher Islington U-16 tournament Dec 1976

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. d4 cd: 4. c3 dc: 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6 7. 0-0 b5?! 8. Bb3 Bb7 9. Qe2 g6? 10. Bg5 Nge7? 11. Bf6! Rg8 12. e5 Qc7 13. Rac1 Nf5 14. Rfd1 Be7 15. Ne4 d5? 16. ed: Nd6: 17. Nd6:+ Bd6: 18. Be6:! fe: 19 Qe6:+ Kf8 20. Rd6: Rc8 21. Rd7 1-0

Re the link to 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures that Christopher Kreuzer posted, intrigued to see the book is still about, as I remember reading it in the Oxford City Library in about 1975.

AustinElliott wrote: Here is a relatively short win from days of yore, though hardly impressive enough to be a real miniature. Was a fairly fast game - barely 40 min for both sides' moves, in a 40 moves in 75 min time control. ! and ? from my old score book.
A Elliott - J Gallagher Islington U-16 tournament Dec 1976

A future big fish as a victim though. Joe is now a Swiss GM as well as a highly regarded author and Kings Gambit expert.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

AustinElliott wrote: Here is a relatively short win from days of yore, though hardly impressive enough to be a real miniature. Was a fairly fast game - barely 40 min for both sides' moves, in a 40 moves in 75 min time control. ! and ? from my old score book.
A Elliott - J Gallagher Islington U-16 tournament Dec 1976

A future big fish as a victim though. Joe is now a Swiss GM as well as a highly regarded author and Kings Gambit expert.

Hi Roger. Yes, I've been wondering if it was the J (Joe) Gallagher. There is a fair chance, as Joe G was born in 1964 so could well have been playing in an Islington U-16 as a 12 yr old in 1976. On the other hand, there's no identifying second initial in my scorebook, and Gallagher is a reasonably common name.

Playing on the 1970s junior scene I did come up against quite a few of the later famous, usually losing, but occasionally managing a result - I remember getting comprehensively "miniatured" by a not-quite 12 yr-old Daniel King on the Black side of a King's Gambit Declined, and then a year or two later managing to bore him to a draw playing White in a Bb5 Sicilian. I did once beat Daniel's elder brother, who was also a good player. And I think I also have a "J.J Cox" in my (brief) list of long-ago victims who later became well-known players or authors.

I'd suggest that towards the higher ends of the grading food chain, that miniatures (games decided in under 20 moves) are a little more common. This is simply because of the greater propensity of players to resign when something goes seriously wrong early on against someone who can usually be trusted to win won positions. So a game where someone is tricked out of a piece inside 15 moves is a miniature whereas at lower levels the game continues in case the favour might be returned.

I think this counts, and you should be able to play it through in your head:

1 e4 c5
2 Nf3 Nc6
3 d4 cxd4
4 Nxd4 Nxd4
5 Qxd4 e6
6 Nc3 Nf6
7 e5 Ng8
8 Ne4 Ne7
9 Nd6 mate

Played at the Berks & Bucks congress around 1976, one of the low sections, probaly 40 moves in 2, don't know who against.

Roger de Coverly wrote:I'd suggest that towards the higher ends of the grading food chain, that miniatures (games decided in under 20 moves) are a little more common. This is simply because of the greater propensity of players to resign when something goes seriously wrong early on against someone who can usually be trusted to win won positions.

You might well have a point. I remember seeing the famous game which Anand resigned as Black in six moves - though not so famous that I can remember who was playing White off the top of my head - repeated in a local league game. The 'victim' in that one managed to struggle on a piece down for the entire 2hr 40 minute playing session I think.