Unbreakable One-Point Africa Honeypot!

This honeypot is way too strong!
♟️Nakhmanson Gambit Chessable Course: www.chessable.com/nakhmanson-...
♟️Use Code "SCHRANTZ1" to Save 10% on Chessup products: playchessup.com/?ref=Schrantz1
MAIN CHANNEL: / jonathanschrantz
Twitch: / vampirechicken
Discord: / discord
Lichess: lichess.org/@/zolpi
Support my content: paypal.me/jonathanschrantz

[@MatthiasCliche]

3:15 VampyChicky when he plays the South America gambit: "This Unknown Risk Strategy is RIDICULOUSLY POWERFUL" VampyChicky watching red play the South America gambit: "What are you doing, how are you not defending over here! That's an insane play by him"

[@nangzdk]

Took you a long time to notice the evil idea of removing red from Asia. You mentioned it when he had a 25 stack and at that point it wasn't an option. But earlier when he was stalking white with a 9-13 stack he would have been an easy remove. Red would have been crazy trapped behind purple and pink!

[@iLunafreya]

24:19 perhaps you could block the red kills by putting Troops in yakuts? (near alaska)

[@TreeCamper]

Southern continents are noob country today. WOW 😯

[@sean3533]

Can’t believe Jonathan didn’t recognize the ol’ South America gambit!

[@davidholland4713]

Africa 1 point only able to hit EU is interesting. It could have been a disaster for you if someone had eliminated white's exterior. But as they didn't you got a troop bonus over white and since they wanted to avoid a sewersidal war with blue EU they couldn't get any kills the whole game. I think you played the whole game pretty well. White didn't have a great situation at the start of the endgame down 45 to 65 and a card and 4 territories to 35, but with a trade. I see that as a losing position with equal skill, and they weren't fast enough attacking or decisive enough, wasting time thinking when they had to hit as many territories as possible to gain territory advantage. Most likely they had to also roll your 21 to limit your ability to take territory with a trade, but they were too slow and didn't do either.

[@Chadner]

Are you kidding, dude? You had an awesome performance this game. Say, if we ran this through an engine it might say you had a missed win on turn whenever but that doesn't mean anything. It's just an algorithm's opinion. I think I get what you're saying about how risk is different from chess and I think the whole point of the "missed win" treats the game as a soulless puzzle that you are supposed to beat as efficiently as possible to move on to your next schedule task. That's not how I value games. I think Risk is more like football (soccer) in the way that there is room for more storytelling. The 'turns' don't matter. I mean, whatever happened on turn 3 of this game, or minute 14, has probably no effect to the end result of the game. I guess you can look at chess like that too. Maybe we should. Even if they make perfectly efficient football playing robots, I am not gonna watch that crap. Maybe for the curiosity, but honestly I don't care for perfection when it comes to game play of any sport or game. The whole point of these games, to me, is the drama, the story of the match. The characters, the betrayal, the unexpected attack, the crazy move that changes the result. The result is secondary to the entertainment. And if the highest level is not entertaining then that's not a level I would care for anyway. Football is too chaotic to have any perfection, so even if it's rigged to the bone there still some entertainment there. Chess, when autistic cyborgs are playing, it can be fun and helpful, but honestly, I am not that impressed. Come on, if someone said to you, hey let's play a game that, because I am an autistic artificial person, I can calculate in my head all the possible combinations of every move you possibly could ever make? Do you wanna play that? No! So yeah, cool that you can do that but now you are not really playing the game, just so you know. It's like baking every possible cake to make the best cake. You still threw away millions of cakes! That's not a positive outcome, aren't you supposed to be the smart one here? So anyway, what I am saying is that you did good man. That was... A cool game to watch. That South America grab, turn one leaving only two juicers sitting on Colombia was insane. How he got to hold that. It was like playing without a goalie for 5 minutes and not getting scored on. Or hanging a queen for two turns and your opponent missing it.

[@wahnsihansi]

Okay, I am certainly not reading the other three quarters of your text, but I liked the first quarter so you get a thumbsup

[@hornetgamer8980]

To me, purple's NA "buffer" play would have made sense as a punt if the Africa player were a bully. Once it was clear that EU and Africa were at peace their only hope was to pull those troops back to Asia.

[@theinacircleoftheancientpu492]

Perhaps you could have given up Europe to hold Asia? Idk if that would work though.

[@vidaes6503]

32:10 aka the Stockfish cold shower.

[@riffbw]

Given how the honeypots were set up, I'm curious why you opted not to go for the 6 cards on a red and pink double kill. I was with the logic that white was too strong, but you were also contemplating how it was just a move for 2nd place either way. I felt like going after the triple kill and 6 more cards would have given you as good of chances for the win since you could trade in after taking South America and guard that side while White tears up everything else. No offense to your play, but I think white misplayed that endgame worse than you did giving you the win. Your initial assessment that white was in the winning position and could strike you first was spot on which lead to my initial question, why not take the cards and turn ins rather than letting Red and Pink use the cards?

[@Hellmuth4]

u should do an fzero 99 stream

[@stevenjumper5781]

What a stupid game! Haha