Chess games

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Yeah you've gotta try to make your games as sharp as possible to take advantage of your tactical skills; if they're solid you'll find it hard to beat weak players since you'd need to play quite a strong strategic game because they'd be more or less forced to play reasonably accurate moves. Whereas in sharp positions your opponents would have lots of opportunities to make tactical mistakes.

    Still looks good having beaten an 1850. I beat a 2100 on lichess in a simul not long ago (and it wasn't on time; he always had more time left than me). But then again lichess ratings are massively inflated so...
    lol you'd think so but I just blunder tactics in actual games because it doesn't tell me when to look for them. Oh well..
    Yeah I imagine real rating is somewhere in between chess.com and lichess. At least chess.com blitz seems too low and lichess blitz seems too high. Maybe chess.com rapid is pretty accurate (although CN is like 1950 despite being around 2200 or whatever in real life, but I guess that can be attributed to computer impossible).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    lol you'd think so but I just blunder tactics in actual games because it doesn't tell me when to look for them. Oh well..
    Yeah I imagine real rating is somewhere in between chess.com and lichess. At least chess.com blitz seems too low and lichess blitz seems too high. Maybe chess.com rapid is pretty accurate (although CN is like 1950 despite being around 2200 or whatever in real life, but I guess that can be attributed to computer impossible).
    we play chess to have fun. stop worrying about the games/ratings/post game analysis thanks!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    we play chess to have fun. stop worrying about the games/ratings/post game analysis thanks!
    I do not find stagnation fun. I am not happy with my level and want to improve.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I do not find stagnation fun. I am not happy with my level and want to improve.
    yes but you can learn and improve in lots of ways. talking to people, enjoying life, enjoying chess, losing some times. teaching children. there is a lot more to the game than computer analysis.

    It may help your opening memorizations, and tactics, but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. Which is more about a soft touch, and compromise, than anything else!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    we play chess to have fun. stop worrying about the games/ratings/post game analysis thanks!
    Like 13 mentioned some people want to improve. If you don't want to that's fine, you seem happy with your level, which is great, but people who actually go on to play decent chess are the ones who analyse their games. 'Thanks!'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    lol you'd think so but I just blunder tactics in actual games because it doesn't tell me when to look for them. Oh well..
    Yeah I imagine real rating is somewhere in between chess.com and lichess. At least chess.com blitz seems too low and lichess blitz seems too high. Maybe chess.com rapid is pretty accurate (although CN is like 1950 despite being around 2200 or whatever in real life, but I guess that can be attributed to computer impossible).
    If you haven't seen this chess.com article it might help: https://www.chess.com/article/view/t...tical-detector

    Basically you're good at tactics, but need to work on your 'tactical detector', so knowing when to look for tactics. Obviously it is impractical to look for tactics in every position, so some practice is needed specifically in recognising 'tactical positions.'

    chess.com rapid seems pretty accurate yeah. And yeah Jerry should be about 2200-2300 there but like you (and he) said, it's due to him spamming matches against computer impossible lol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    try playing against the computer on a Mac... set the difficulty to 256 and if you manage to win, then congratulations, you are the greatest player in the world
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Like 13 mentioned some people want to improve. If you don't want to that's fine, you seem happy with your level, which is great, but people who actually go on to play decent chess are the ones who analyse their games. 'Thanks!'
    This simply isn't true i'm afraid. and you didn't respond to a single point i made in my last message, so i will post it again, and break it down point by point.

    yes but you can learn and improve in lots of ways. talking to people, (as in more than just one) enjoying life (not just chess), enjoying chess (developing your own game style), losing some times (not just thinking it's all about rankings). teaching children (the ability to stoop down to their level is the sign of a true grandmaster, and something most internet players, are not capable of). there is a lot more to the game than computer analysis.

    It may help your opening memorizations (this is the only reason you had a better position than me in our game root), and tactics (and this), but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. (and this is why you lost) Which is more about a soft touch, and compromise, than anything else! (you clearly don't know what this means, by you response to my questions. Remember i beat you in our game, thanks.)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    If you haven't seen this chess.com article it might help: https://www.chess.com/article/view/t...tical-detector

    Basically you're good at tactics, but need to work on your 'tactical detector', so knowing when to look for tactics. Obviously it is impractical to look for tactics in every position, so some practice is needed specifically in recognising 'tactical positions.'

    chess.com rapid seems pretty accurate yeah. And yeah Jerry should be about 2200-2300 there but like you (and he) said, it's due to him spamming matches against computer impossible lol.
    I did read that article, but it's basic advice is "check for tactics on every move until you get a sense of when there are and aren't tactics, then you don't have to check". There isn't time. I don't see things instantly in the trainer, at least not at higher levels. I could only do this in a proper 90 minute/2 hour game. I'd need to spend like 2 minutes per move at least and you don't have that in things like 30|0 and obviously not lower.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    yes but you can learn and improve in lots of ways. talking to people, enjoying life, enjoying chess, losing some times. teaching children. there is a lot more to the game than computer analysis.

    It may help your opening memorizations, and tactics, but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. Which is more about a soft touch, and compromise, than anything else!
    Yeah but computer analysis isn't all I do. Indeed, myriad other resources are better for chess I think, and I use them. Computer analysis is just a pretty decent way of measuring how accurate your play is, as they are so strong. I recognise that it is less useful in quiet positions where many moves are not mistakes or inaccuracies as such but can still be criticised. Of course it is also excellent for tactics, as the top engines simply don't miss a trick, and often times they show you surprising moves. I lose loads lol. Simply playing games against better opponents gives you a trial by fire where endgames are concerned. I have learnt a lot about king activity and the value of particular pawns by being crushed in endings by superior opponents despite initially having a strong advantage from the middlegame.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Yeah but computer analysis isn't all I do. Indeed, myriad other resources are better for chess I think, and I use them. Computer analysis is just a pretty decent way of measuring how accurate your play is, as they are so strong. I recognise that it is less useful in quiet positions where many moves are not mistakes or inaccuracies as such but can still be criticised. Of course it is also excellent for tactics, as the top engines simply don't miss a trick, and often times they show you surprising moves. I lose loads lol. Simply playing games against better opponents gives you a trial by fire where endgames are concerned. I have learnt a lot about king activity and the value of particular pawns by being crushed in endings by superior opponents despite initially having a strong advantage from the middlegame.
    As i said already 13, endgames , are more about a soft touch. But once you have the basic ideas down, you can start cutting corners, and consolidating on your position. Actually chess is also a psychological struggle, not dissimilar to poker in that respect. I think in these games where you have been pounded in the end game, it is more a case of your opponent having some slight non material advantage (time say), and being able to exploit this to annihilation, whilst you were thinking about something else. Although without seeing the games, it would be impossible to say for sure!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    This simply isn't true i'm afraid. and you didn't respond to a single point i made in my last message, so i will post it again, and break it down point by point.

    yes but you can learn and improve in lots of ways. talking to people, (as in more than just one) enjoying life (not just chess), enjoying chess (developing your own game style), losing some times (not just thinking it's all about rankings). teaching children (the ability to stoop down to their level is the sign of a true grandmaster, and something most internet players, are not capable of). there is a lot more to the game than computer analysis.

    It may help your opening memorizations (this is the only reason you had a better position than me in our game root), and tactics (and this), but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. (and this is why you lost) Which is more about a soft touch, and compromise, than anything else! (you clearly don't know what this means, by you response to my questions. Remember i beat you in our game, thanks.)
    The 'games/ratings/post game analysis' are all incredibly important. Everyone but you agrees. You said not to worry about them when they are the most important things in chess (games and game analysis in particular).

    'you clearly don't know what this means, by you response to my questions. Remember i beat you in our game, thanks'
    is pathetic.
    You play in a very similar style to a beginner (devoid of any positional understanding); you just blunder a little less. Don't act like you know everything please. You're in no position to instruct others.

    And this: "opening memorizations (this is the only reason you had a better position than me in our game root), and tactics (and this), but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. (and this is why you lost)"
    is all absolute rubbish trying to justify the fact that your position was worse for the whole game. I haven't memorised a single opening line, I am simply able to recognise terrible play. You simply play like a beginner; that's that. If you can't accept it; I can't help you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    The 'games/ratings/post game analysis' are all incredibly important. Everyone but you agrees. You said not to worry about them when they are the most important things in chess (games and game analysis in particular).

    'you clearly don't know what this means, by you response to my questions. Remember i beat you in our game, thanks'
    is pathetic.
    You play in a very similar style to a beginner (devoid of any positional understanding); you just blunder a little less. Don't act like you know everything please. You're in no position to instruct others.

    And this: "opening memorizations (this is the only reason you had a better position than me in our game root), and tactics (and this), but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. (and this is why you lost)"
    is all absolute rubbish trying to justify the fact that your position was worse for the whole game. I haven't memorised a single opening line, I am simply able to recognise terrible play. You simply play like a beginner; that's that. If you can't accept it; I can't help you.
    No i play like someone who doesn't have machine analysis to back my games up. And i still beat you.

    You clearly still don't have a clue about any of the stuff i was talking about, now leave me alone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't read your reply; you're on my ignore list now. Enjoy your stay ok? thanks
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    I didn't read your reply; you're on my ignore list now. Enjoy your stay ok? thanks
    you've got no respect you know?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When folks get greedy and take a pawn before castling in bullet..
    Yeah I missed mate in 1 but it's one minute lel https://www.chess.com/live/game/1723200446
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    When folks get greedy and take a pawn before castling in bullet..
    Yeah I missed mate in 1 but it's one minute lel https://www.chess.com/live/game/1723200446
    Lol rekt
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Lol rekt
    typical bullet trash talk
    just won a 10|0 960 tournament...but only 3 games and two were against...well, less than stellar players, who I mated before developing all pieces. I quite enjoy 960. It is fun because you are forced to think about the opening.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    typical bullet trash talk
    ?

    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    just won a 10|0 960 tournament...but only 3 games and two were against...well, less than stellar players, who I mated before developing all pieces. I quite enjoy 960. It is fun because you are forced to think about the opening.
    Might try 960, seen a few games (by Jerry and some top GMs) but never actually played. Yeah it's nice that it's immune to theory/memorisation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Pwease can i pway cheess wiv you?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 2, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

Quick Link:

Unanswered Forum Games Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.