The following two endgames are more at the "Expert" level.
I didn't realize that these stats were available.
About a minute into this, Magnus Carlsen does something extraordinary.
I used to be fond of the #15 puzzle, and even Bobby Fischer was fond of it. The 19nth century puzzle maker Sam Lloyd claimed that he invented it, but it was actually invented by a 19nth century postmaster named Noyes Chapman.
It seems to me that the puzzle is a precursor to the Rubicks' Cube. Both involve sliding pieces in a limited way. It is possible to take apart and reassemble both in a way that can't be solved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_puzzle
Cutting to the chase, at 6:20 in the video the eight-year-old girl makes a blunder against some street trash talker, but then she sets a trap which he falls for, and then she destroys the guy. I missed the later Rook to f2 check that was very powerful.
In the USCF online rated blitz tournament last night, I had some good games against higher rated players especially after they seemed to play risky moves in the opening. I beat one master and lost to two others. I started the tournament as number 20 out of 67 players and finished 11nth.
I had not played one of these online tournaments in about 5 months, but I need the practice and want to make it a weekly habit.
This is an overhyped chess game by two low-rated YouTuber chess players, but apparently, there was a $10,000 wager on the line, with reportedly the money going to charity. I think that the comments are instructive, although he sometimes praises mediocre moves. There were some good moves in this game, but also some not-so-good.
I just realized that there is a second game in the video. The second game is simpler than the first. The lower-rated player just fell apart quickly. The higher-rated 1100 player seems a little better than his rating.
P.S. I remember a time, say before the year 1990 when any chess rating below 1200 was considered meaningless. I heard people ask, "How can you be any worse than terrible?" You could have a good-sized tournament with nobody rated below 1200 participating, which was usually the case. However, since about 1990, scholastic chess rose to such prominence, where the average kid might be rated 800, so the low ratings really did start to mean something. Also, with the boom of Internet Chess over the last year, I know some adults who have 800 and 900 online ratings. (Whereas some people might be intimidated playing others online, it is possible to go onto chess.com, get a rating, and then use the settings where you only play people close to your rating.)
The astonishing thing about this brilliant game is that Morphy was playing eight people blindfolded. Have we seen such brilliance from modern players?