NEW Hans Niemann Chess Cheating Accusations


Either Hans Nieman is cheating or he soon will become a world top 10 player.

Human beings can be sociopathic, and humans also have a great capacity for delusional thinking.  I have met many narcissistic chess players, and these people can be extremely annoying.  I am pretty sure that narcissism is more common among chess players because competition appeals to people's egos.

This describes Nieman whose egotistical statements have turned opinions against him.  Someone like him might feel entitled to win regardless of ability.  In this case, a person could justify cheating because they think they are not getting the recognition they deserve.  He could be motivated by a desire for acclaim.

I hope Nieman is the next great chess talent, but I don't know if this is true.

If I have time, I will analyze his games from this tournament.

Chess Level 02: Black to play

Fwd: Chess Game

Not a perfect game, but I found it interesting.  Around move 29 I chose to play on the kingside and this plan worked how I intended.

[Event "Columbus Chess Club G/10"]
[Site "Llewellyn Center"]
[Date "2023.11.30"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Coffey, John"]
[Black "Salo, Steve"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "73"]

1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nd4 4. Nxd4 cxd4 5. Ne4 e5 6. d3 Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6
8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Rb8 10. O-O Bb7 11. e3 Bxg2 12. Kxg2 h5 13. exd4 exd4 14. Re1+
Be7 15. Bf4 Rc8 16. h4 Qc6+ 17. Qf3 Kf8 18. Re4 f6 19. Rxd4 Qxf3+ 20. Kxf3 g5
21. hxg5 fxg5 22. Be5 Rg8 23. Rxd7 Ke8 24. Rxa7 Rf8+ 25. Kg2 Rf7 26. b3 Bc5 27.
Rxf7 Kxf7 28. d4 Be7 29. Rh1 Kg6 30. f4 gxf4 31. gxf4 Rd8 32. Kf3 Rf8 33. Ke4
Bb4 34. Rg1+ Kh7 35. Rg7+ Kh6 36. Rb7 Ba5 37. Bg7+ 1-0



One of my best chess tactics

I consider this to be one of my better chess tactics.  Of course, we have seen Grandmasters like Bobby Fischer make similar moves, so chess masters probably consider this to be pretty routine.


The Reason People Don't Get Better At Chess According to Ben Finegold

As a chess YouTuber, Ben Finegold is not my favorite.  His presentation is just not as interesting.  He seems rather casual, less informative, and cocky.  

However, I like the point he makes here, which is that people suck at chess because they blunder and don't learn from their mistakes. 

He is only partially correct.  People try to learn from their mistakes, but they do so by just playing.  It is repeated trial and error.  People don't retain information this way, although if a person played a great deal then they would make progress up to a point, which I think would be around the 1700-1800 level.  It is difficult to get better than this without some serious study.

So the way I learn from my mistakes is that I analyze as many of my games as I have time for, and I have a system for reviewing my past mistakes.  This takes much time, and maybe some people would feel that the time would be better spent just playing.

I strongly believe that studying tactics is critical.  There were specific tactics that I studied that took me from 1800 to 1900, and then a different group of tactics that took me from 1900 to 2000.  I studied tactics 30 minutes a day almost without fail, which meant that I spent hundreds of hours studying tactics.  However, this is something I haven't had time for lately, so my most recent goal is to study tactics for 20 minutes per day.


Some of my chess lesson material


The theme of today's lesson is that a person can often get a winning advantage right out of the opening.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Chess Games from face to face chess lesson plus bonus material
To: John T

This is the first game that I suggest learning by rote:
This game is about weaknesses:

Second game:
This is about Development and Initiative:
Another game to study:

Third game:
This is about tactics:

Another game that I showed to illustrate this idea:

[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewellen Center"]
[Date "Nov 2, 2023"]
[Round "3"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 Bf5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3 b6 7. Ne5 e6 8. Bg5
Be7 9. e4 dxe4 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Bb5+ Ke7 12. Qb4+ Qd6 13. Qxd6+ Kxd6 14. Nxf7+
Ke7 15. Nxh8 Bxd4 16. O-O a6 17. Ba4 b5 18. Bc2 Nc6 19. Bxe4 Bxe4 20. Nxe4 Rf8
21. Rac1 Rc8 22. Rfd1 Bxb2 23. Rc2 Bf6 24. Nd6

This is an opening trap that everyone should know, even if it wasn't part of our lessons.

In addition to this, in the Queen's gambit accepted, if Black tries to accept the gambit and hold onto the pawn, it is always bad:

This is a speed game I lost in Utah in the 1990s.

Why 50% of Players Could Be Cheating


The Making of an Expert

true expertise is mainly the product of years of intense practice and dedicated coaching. Ordinary practice is not enough: To reach elite levels of performance, you need to constantly push yourself beyond your abilities and comfort level.


Fwd: Legal Trap

Begin forwarded message:

From: Albert 

I can think of 2 reasons why this YouTube short has over 41,000 views. lol


The Value of Chess Pieces


1 second ago
Bobby Fischer considered the knight to be worth 3 pawns and the bishop to be worth 3.25.  I independently came to the same conclusion, after first valuing the bishop as 3.5.  As evidence for this, a bishop and knight trade for a rook and a pawn is considered a bad deal.  Likewise, in most endings, two bishops are technically winning against two knights, although there are exceptions where the reverse could be true.  So the value of the pieces is very much position dependent.

My friend Al made a video about how valuable the knight can be in practical play between human players.  


Chess Level 08: White to play

This is a simple attack and my opponent allowed a mate in 1.  However, the computer line is complex and I think pretty interesting.



Carlsen: Haven’t Studied Chess Recently; It Showed.

Paul Morphy was considerably better than his contemporaries.   So was Bobby Fischer.  Neither benefited from computers, databases, or modern opening theory.  For this reason, it is harder to compare the skill level of their play with the level of the top current players.

Gary Kasparov was only a bit better than his contemporaries but remained World Champion for 15 years. 

Magnus Carlsen is the closest thing to a perfect human chess player.  He knows more about chess than anyone ever.  He definitely would lose to a computer, but that would be like a math contest against a scientific calculator, or a boxing match with a brick wall.  Computers really are perfect, or at least close enough that we can't tell the difference, whereas all humans make mistakes, including Magnus.

As good as Magnus is, he is only a bit better than his contemporaries.  There are a number of players who are not far behind.
Bobby Fischer reportedly had an IQ of 180.  He was incredibly brilliant.  I have heard that Magnus Carlsen has an IQ of 190.  He is also incredibly brilliant.  I don't know how one quantifies the difference between 180 and 190, especially half a century apart. 

Magnus Carlsen once admitted that he had to drink less to play chess well.  I have seen him play speed chess online while apparently drunk but he still won because he can play intuitively almost perfect chess.  I've seen Russian Grandmasters also win while drunk.  So, therefore, I've been wondering if Magnus Carsen is an alcoholic. 

In this interview, he looks more disheveled than usual.  It is also a bit odd that he decided not to participate in the World Chess Championship, giving up the World Chess Champion title that he has held for ten years.


Presented for your consideration


Magnus Carlsen - Wikiquote

"I think in general the future of classical chess as it is now is a little bit dubious. I would love to see more Fischer [Random] Chess being played over-the-board in a classical format. That would be very interesting to me, because I feel that that particular format is pretty well suited to classical chess as basically you need a lot of time in order to be able to play the game even remotely decently. And you can see that in the way that Fischer [Random] Chess is being played now when it is played in a rapid format. The quality of the games isn't very high because we make such fundamental mistakes in the opening. We don't understand it nearly enough and I think that would increase a lot if we were given a classical time control there. So I would definitely hope for that." — November 2020 [1]

"I'm certainly somebody who hopes for more 960 in classical format because I feel like 960 is not that suited to rapid and blitz because you're just gonna play too poorly. You're just gonna have absolutely no clue, but if you actually have time to sit down and think for half an hour on your first five moves, then maybe you can get some more understanding of the game."— in a stream with Eric Hansen, April 2021 [2] 53:29 - 54:36 [3]

Quotes about Carlsen

You could say that both Fischer and Carlsen had or have the ability to let chess look simple. – Viswanathan Anand
Chessdom - Anand about Chess Classics and his games with Carlsen

In six months of working with Magnus I have seen in him many of the qualities of the great champions. – Garry Kasparov
ChessBase.com - Breaking news Carlsen and Kasparov join forces, 7 September 2009


Chess Game

[Event "Casual G/10"]
[Site "Columbus Indiana Chess Club"]
[Date "2023.04.27"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Makita, Omar"]
[Black "Coffey, John"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A20"]
[BlackElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventType "blitz"]

1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6 4. Nc3 d5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 Nc6 8.
Qa4 Be7 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O Be6 11. Rd1 Qb6 12. Ng5 Rfd8 13. b3 Ng4 14. Nxd5
Bxd5 (14... Qxf2+ 15. Kh1 Bxd5 16. e4 Bxe4 17. Rxd8+ Rxd8 18. Qxe4 Rd1+) 15.
Qxg4 Bxg2 16. Rxd8+ Rxd8 17. Kxg2 Qd4 18. Qxd4 Nxd4 19. Ne4 Nc2 20. Rb1 Rd1 21.
Nc3 Rd7 22. e3 Ne1+ 23. Kf1 Nf3 24. Kg2 Ne1+ 25. Kh3 Nd3 26. Ne4 f5 27. Nd2
Nxc1 28. Rxc1 Rxd2 29. Rc8+ Kf7 30. Rc7 Rxa2 31. Kg2 b5 32. Rb7 b4 0-1

Omar is a new player at the Columbus Chess Club who I think plays close to my level.


World Chess Championship cutting to the chase


One has to wonder if Magnus Carlsen would have made the same mistakes.  I doubt it.  He tends to be cool under pressure and more consistent overall.

If the match ends in a tie, there is a playoff day this Sunday using rapid time controls.  The games are played at 3 PM Kazakhstan time, which is 5 AM Indiana time.  I could see myself getting up early to watch the playoff.

"The match is best of 14 games; a score of at least 7½ would win the world championship. If the score is equal after 14 games, tiebreak games with faster time controls will be played:[36]

A match consisting of 4 rapid games with 25 minutes per side and a 10-second increment starting with move 1 will be played. If a player scores 2½ points or more, he would win the championship.

If the score is equal after the rapid portion, a mini-match of two blitz games will be played, with a time control of 5 minutes per side and a 3-second increment starting with move 1. If a player scores 1½ points or more, he would win the championship. If the blitz mini-match is tied, another mini-match with the same conditions will be played to decide the winner of the championship.

If both blitz mini-matches are tied, a single game with a time control of 3 minutes per side and a 2-second increment starting with move 1 will be played, and the winner would win the championship. A drawing of lots shall decide which player plays with the white pieces. If this game is drawn, another blitz game with reversed colours will be played with the same time control, and the winner would win the championship. This process will be repeated until either player wins a game.



Chronos Chess Clock Repair/LCD Repair


Much to my amazement, this method fixed the display problem on one of my Chronos chess timers. I used my mother's hair dryer. I heated the ribbon cable to the point that it was almost too hot to touch. Then I rubbed my finger across it to make the cable stick better. No more display problems.

I've thrown away at least 3 Chronos clocks in Salt Lake City because they had stopped working. I kept the clocks in the trunk of my car year-round which seemed to ruin them. They are sensitive to heat, cold, and moisture. It is possible that my old clocks were fixable.

These clocks were considered top-of-the-line, were pretty expensive compared to other game timers, and are now collector items because they are not made anymore.


Re: Chess Puzzle - Magnus Carlsen

I usually have a knack for solving mate in 2 chess problems, some of which can be very difficult.  I have a technique that I use to find the answer more quickly.  

This problem seemed pretty hard.  I kept looking at everything that didn't work.  

I got it in 6 minutes.  

When I first started solving composed puzzles, there were some that took me half an hour to figure out, but I got better at it with practice.  

Best wishes,

John Coffey

On Mar 26, 2023, at 6:10 PM, Albert wrote:

Just for fun. Magnus solved it in less than 2 minutes.

The Cruelest Mate


Interesting Chess Game #2

I tried making an aggressive sacrifice in the opening.

[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Mar 2, 2023"]
[Round "3"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "James Behmke"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. d3 Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Nf3 Bg4 8.
Be2 Nc6 9. O-O Be7 10. Ng5 Bxe2 11. Qxe2 Bxg5 12. Qh5 O-O 13. Bxg5 Qd7 14. Bf6
gxf6 15. exf6 Kh8 16. Rf4 Rg8 17. Rh4

Interesting Chess Game

I decided to give up the exchange for some passed pawns. It might not
have been technically accurate at first, but it turned into a winning

[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Mar 2, 2023"]
[Round "2"]
[White "James Behmke"]
[Black "John Coffey"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. f4 d5 4. Nf3 d4 5. Ne2 Nf6 6. d3 Nc6 7. Ng3 Be7 8. Be2
O-O 9. O-O Ng4 10. e5 f5 11. h3 Ne3 12. Bxe3 dxe3 13. c3 g5 14. fxg5 Bxg5 15.
Nxg5 Qxg5 16. Nh5 f4 17. Nf6+ Rxf6 18. exf6 Qxf6 19. Bh5 e5 20. Bg4 Bxg4 21.
Qxg4+ Kh8 22. g3 Rg8 23. Qf3 Qg6 24. Kh2 Qxg3+ 25. Qxg3 Rxg3 26. Rg1 Rf3 27.
Rgf1 e4 28. dxe4 Ne5 29. Rxf3 Nxf3+ 30. Kg2 Nh4+


Chat GPT

Talk about Paul Morphy.

Paul Morphy (1837-1884) was an American chess player who is widely regarded as one of the greatest chess players of all time. He was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, and began playing chess at a very young age, learning the game from his father and uncle. Morphy showed an early talent for chess and quickly developed his skills.

In 1857, Morphy traveled to New York to compete in the first American Chess Congress. He won the tournament, defeating several of the best players in the country, including Alexander Beaufort Meek and Louis Paulsen. Following his success in New York, Morphy traveled to Europe to compete against the best chess players in the world.

In Europe, Morphy quickly established himself as a dominant force in chess. He defeated many of the top players of the time, including Adolf Anderssen, the winner of the 1851 London Chess Tournament, and Howard Staunton, the leading English player. Morphy's style of play was aggressive and attacking, and he was known for his brilliant combinations and sacrifices.

Despite his success, Morphy's career was relatively short-lived. He retired from competitive chess at the age of 21 and returned to his law studies in Louisiana. Morphy's retirement from chess was a great loss to the game, and many chess historians speculate about what he might have achieved had he continued to play.

Despite his brief career, Morphy's contributions to chess have been significant. He was one of the first players to emphasize the importance of developing the pieces in the opening, and he introduced several new attacking ideas that are still used by chess players today. Morphy's games continue to be studied and admired by chess players around the world, and he remains one of the most celebrated figures in the history of the game.

Talk about Paul Morphy in the style of Jordan Peterson

Well, Paul Morphy was a fascinating figure, and his story speaks to many of the fundamental aspects of human nature that I often discuss in my work.

Morphy was a brilliant chess player, and his success can be attributed in part to his extraordinary talent and dedication. But I believe that there were deeper psychological factors at play that contributed to his greatness.

Morphy was deeply curious and passionate about the game of chess, and he devoted himself to mastering its intricacies and strategies. He was also a natural risk-taker, unafraid to take bold moves and make sacrifices in pursuit of victory.

But I think what really sets Morphy apart is his ability to channel his emotions and intuition into his play. He was known for his aggressive style, which often involved sacrificing pieces in order to gain an advantage. This kind of bold, intuitive play requires a deep understanding of oneself and one's emotions, as well as the ability to channel those emotions into productive action.

Morphy's story also illustrates the importance of pursuing one's passions, even in the face of opposition or criticism. Morphy's family did not always support his interest in chess, and he faced significant challenges and setbacks throughout his career. But he remained committed to his love of the game, and ultimately achieved great success as a result.

In conclusion, Paul Morphy's life and career exemplify many of the themes that I often explore in my work - the importance of pursuing one's passions, the power of intuition and emotion, and the role of risk-taking and determination in achieving greatness. He was a remarkable figure who continues to inspire and fascinate people to this day.

Was Paul Morphy crazy?

There is no evidence to suggest that Paul Morphy was clinically insane or suffering from any kind of mental illness. While he did exhibit some eccentricities in his behavior, such as his tendency to pace and mutter to himself during games, these are not necessarily indicators of mental illness.

Some historians have suggested that Morphy may have suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), based on his reported need to touch each chess piece before making a move. However, this is purely speculative and there is no way to know for sure.

It's worth noting that Morphy lived in a time when mental illness was not well understood, and people with mental health issues were often stigmatized or marginalized. As a result, it's possible that Morphy's behavior may have been misinterpreted or unfairly judged by his contemporaries.

In any case, while Morphy was certainly a unique and sometimes eccentric figure, there is no reason to believe that he was insane or suffering from any kind of mental illness. Instead, he was a brilliant and passionate chess player who dedicated his life to mastering the game that he loved.

Was Bobby Fischer crazy?

Bobby Fischer was a legendary American chess player who achieved international fame for his historic victory over Boris Spassky in the 1972 World Chess Championship. Fischer's behavior in his later years was often erratic and controversial, leading some people to speculate that he may have been mentally ill.

It's difficult to say for certain whether or not Fischer was clinically insane or suffered from a mental illness, as he was never formally diagnosed. However, he did exhibit many symptoms of mental illness, including paranoia, delusions, and extreme mood swings.

Fischer's behavior became increasingly erratic in the years following his victory over Spassky, and he became known for his controversial public statements and bizarre behavior. He also became increasingly reclusive and isolated, cutting off contact with many of his friends and family members.

Some experts have suggested that Fischer may have suffered from a form of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which could explain his erratic behavior and extreme moods. However, this is purely speculative, and without a formal diagnosis, it's impossible to know for sure.

In any case, it's clear that Fischer's later years were marked by significant mental and emotional turmoil. While his contributions to the game of chess remain significant, it's important to remember that he was a complex and troubled individual who struggled with a range of personal and psychological challenges.


Chess Game

No surprise here. I've done this trap maybe dozens of times.

[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Feb 9, 2023"]
[Round "2"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "John Tasca"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d6 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 Bg4 6. d5 Ne5 7. Nxe5 Bxd1 8.
Bb5+ Qd7 9. Bxd7+ Kd8 10. Nxf7+ Kxd7 11. Kxd1 h6 12. Nxh8 Nf6 13. Nc3 g5 14.
Ng6 Bg7 15. e5 Ng4 16. e6+ Ke8 17. Ke2 Bd4 18. h3 Ne5 19. Nxe5 Bxe5 20. f4 gxf4
21. Rf1 Kd8 22. Bxf4 Bxf4 23. Rxf4 Kc7 24. Rf7 Re8 25. Rc1

Best wishes,

John Coffey


This seems like a lot of trouble.


They get the board setup wrong every time.

Best wishes,

John Coffey


Draw by resignation?

Draw by resignation: Under FIDE Laws, a game is drawn if a player resigns and no sequence of legal moves would allow the opponent to checkmate that player.

5.1.2    The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw.

Apparently, this is a new rule.  Common practice would be that the player who resigns loses the game regardless.

This doesn't seem to be part of the U.S. Chess Federation rules, meaning that this rule would only apply to international tournaments.


Over The Board Mouse Slip?!


Levy Rozman is fond of saying that if you make this move then he will call you an idiot.  But if Magnus Carlsen makes this move then it is brilliant.

The Woodpecker Method


Before Michael De La Maza published his book "Rapid Chess Improvement", he wrote an article by the same name.  Before he published this article, he sent it to me to get my suggestions, because I had a website since around 1996 that advocated the same idea.  I believed in doing a large number of tactical problems repeatedly to build pattern recognition.  When I did this myself, I saw my rating go from 1800 to 2000.

I can't guarantee that this is the best way to improve one's chess tactics.  For myself, my goal was to be able to see the vast majority of 1, 2, and even 3-move combinations instantly.  However, doing new puzzles might also be good.

My website hasn't changed much since I first published it.  It is dated.  At that time, the Internet (World Wide Web) was relatively new, and most people didn't have access to it.  Chess Life gave me an "award" for the website, but there weren't many chess websites at the time.

Chess Game against Novag Super Constellation level 1.

This game is interesting because I don't normally beat level 1.  Here I blew the endgame, but so did the computer.   The 39-year-old chess computer can't see deep enough to play the endgame correctly.

[Event "CB-Emu"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2023.01.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Coffey, John"]
[Black "Novag Super-Constellation lv1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A05"]
[WhiteElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[EventDate "2023.01.05"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 b5 3. Bg2 Bb7 4. O-O e6 5. d3 d5 6. c4 dxc4 7. dxc4 Qxd1 8.
Rxd1 bxc4 9. Ne5 Bxg2 10. Kxg2 Nbd7 11. Nxc4 Bc5 12. Nc3 O-O 13. Bf4 Nb6 14.
Na5 Nbd5 15. Nxd5 Nxd5 16. Rac1 Nxf4+ 17. gxf4 Bd6 18. e3 g6 19. Nc4 Rfb8 20.
b3 Rd8 21. Nxd6 Rxd6 22. Rxd6 cxd6 23. e4 f5 24. f3 Rf8 25. Kg3 Kg7 26. Rc7+
Rf7 27. Rxf7+ Kxf7 28. Kf2 Kg7 29. Ke3 Kf7 30. Kd4 Kf6 31. e5+ Ke7 32. exd6+
Kxd6 33. b4 h6 34. a4 g5 35. fxg5 hxg5 36. b5 e5+ 37. Kc4 g4 38. fxg4 fxg4 39.
a5 e4 40. Kd4 e3 41. Kxe3 Kc5 42. b6 {??} axb6 43. axb6 Kxb6 44. Kf4 Kc5 45.
Kxg4 Kd4 {???} 46. h4 Ke5 47. Kg5 Ke6 48. Kg6 Ke7 49. Kg7 Ke6 50. h5 Ke7 51. h6
Kd6 52. h7 Ke7 53. h8=Q Ke6 54. Qd8 Kf5 55. Qd4 Ke6 56. Kg6 Ke7 57. Qd5 Ke8 58.
Kf6 Kf8 59. Qd8# 1-0

Novag Super Constellation Level 1

[Event "CB-Emu"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.02.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Coffey, John"]
[Black "Novag Super-Constellation Level 1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E21"]
[WhiteElo "2016"]
[BlackElo "2018 (on level 7)"]
[PlyCount "124"]
[EventType "rapid"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 b6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. e3 O-O 8. Be2
d5 9. O-O c5 10. cxd5 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Bxc3 12. bxc3 exd5 13. Bf3 Rd8 14. c4 Bb7
15. Rc1 Na6 16. cxd5 Bxd5 17. Bxd5 Rxd5 18. Qb3 Rdd8 19. Qb5 Nc5 20. Nb3 Nxb3
21. axb3 a6 22. Qc6 Qxc6 23. Rxc6 b5 24. Rfc1 Rd2 25. Kf1 a5 26. Rb6 a4 27.
bxa4 Rxa4?! {This barely favors White, whereas 27... bxa4 barely favors Black.  Even the infinite level makes the wrong move here.} 28. Rxb5 Raa2 29. Rf5 g6 30. Rf4 Kg7 31. g3 g5 32. Rf3 g4 33. Rf4 {Diagram.} Kg6?? {The game was technically a draw up to this point.  At first, it is hard to understand how the computer could drop a pawn when it is looking 4 plies ahead.  The computer is afraid of 33... h5 34. Rc7, but Black draws by playing both rooks to the first rank with a mate threat.   Then White has to go for a perpetual check with Rcxf7+.  Even the infinite level takes 12 hours to see the draw with a 10 ply search after 33... h5 34. Rc7.  To see that 33... h5 draws takes around 80 hours where the computer only reaches an 11 ply search depth!} 34. Rxg4+ Kh7 35. Rf4 Ra7 36. Rc6 Rb7 37. Rh4 Kg7 38. Rhxh6 Rbb2 39. Rhf6 Re2 40. Rf4 Rec2 41. Rxc2 Rxc2 42. h4 Kg6 43. g4 Kg7 44. Kg2 Kf8 45. g5 Kg7 46. Kg3 Rc1 47. Kg4 Rg1+ 48. Kf5 Rh1 49. e4 Rh3 50. e5 Rd3 51. h5 Rh3 52. h6+ Kf8 53. e6 Rh1 54. g6 {I thought that this was me trying to get too fancy, but Stockfish doesn't have a problem with it.} fxg6+ 55. Kxg6+ Ke7 56. Rf5 Kxe6 57. Rh5 Rg1+ 58. Rg5 Rd1 59. h7 Rd8 60. Kg7 Rd7+ 61. Kh6 Rxh7+ 62. Kxh7 Kf7 1-0

The Super Constellation fails at deep calculation.  It sees shallow tactics very well, which is where its strength comes from, so it appears to be pretty strong at speed chess.  It is not clear if the computer can calculate three-fold repetition or any repetition on a deep search because the 8-bit hardware limitations would make this check very inefficient.  This might be the reason the computer fails in the above position.  The computer would not normally search deep enough to see a three-fold repetition anyway.

Other than missing the draw, the Super Constellation played a very solid game.  According to Stockfish, I made no mistakes in this game.  This is what it takes because the computer will punish small errors.