- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by moteutschI've learned the hard way that against the better players on this site you damn well better castle on time or it will be a short game.
I think you should wait before castling to make it harder for your opponent to know where to attack.
20 Jun 08
1 edit
"I bet you a Chandler goodie pack it was Anatoly Karpov
at the Edinburgh Chess Club in 1984."
Damn!
Correct (who are you - this place is littered with people I know).
You going to face Jacob in Glasgow next weekend?
(see the lastest C.C.)
As for wether castling will be OK in 50 years time?
I fear computers by then will have destroyed the game and
perhaps castling will not be best in the pure game.
Until then...Get the big boy out of the way and develop a rook.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34Oh, you don't know me. I'm just a fan of your site. I worked out from one of your stories that you were Greenpawn. Generally the only thing chess related that gets me laughing is my own performance but you really do crack me up.
"I bet you a Chandler goodie pack it was Anatoly Karpov
at the Edinburgh Chess Club in 1984."
Damn!
Correct (who are you - this place is littered with people I know).
You going to face Jacob in Glasgow next weekend?
(see the lastest C.C.)
As for wether castling will be OK in 50 years time?
I fear computers by then will have destroyed the g ...[text shortened]... t be best in the pure game.
Until then...Get the big boy out of the way and develop a rook.
Tempted to play in this display actually but know I'd end up spending scary amounts in the bookshops before vomiting up half a gallon of Laphaoig behind some vile tourist pub.
Mind you, as long as I don't hit the chess books it can't be all bad...
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by KatastroofI'm sorry, but you are talking complete nonsense. We already know an enormous amount about the theory and practice of chess, now of course aided by the silicon monsters.
It makes perfect sense.I will clarify my reasoning.
What the strongest players of their time think are the best moves only shows where current human chesstheory stands,it's not proof of the correctness of those moves.Take the sicilian defense,there was a time it was considered rubbish for no decent player would even consider playing it,therefore the less ...[text shortened]... ymore.
We do not know because,as far as we know,the perfect chessgame has yet to be played.
The fact remains that in the clear majority of games it is advisable to castle early. Of course, the stronger you become and the more you understand about the game, you will realise that there are occasions when it is better to delay or even forgo castling. However, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a single strong player on this planet who would disagree with the first sentence of this paragraph.
Believing that it is in a general sense advisable to delay or avoid castling is probably the worst thing someone wishing to improve his chess could do.
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by Northern Ladfirst top ten i saw who spent his time on teaching the right way to play chess for nothing ! thanks ...
I'm sorry, but you are talking complete nonsense. We already know an enormous amount about the theory and practice of chess, now of course aided by the silicon monsters.
The fact remains that in the clear majority of games it is advisable to castle early. Of course, the stronger you become and the more you understand about the game, you will realise ...[text shortened]... y or avoid castling is probably the worst thing someone wishing to improve his chess could do.
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by Northern LadThank you for saying I talk nonsense when you haven't even understood what I said.Please tell me when exactly did I advocate delaying or alltogether avoid castling?All I said is we don't know and what the strongest players of their time think is best is only proof of where current theory stands.
I'm sorry, but you are talking complete nonsense. We already know an enormous amount about the theory and practice of chess, now of course aided by the silicon monsters.
The fact remains that in the clear majority of games it is advisable to castle early. Of course, the stronger you become and the more you understand about the game, you will realise ...[text shortened]... y or avoid castling is probably the worst thing someone wishing to improve his chess could do.
We know an enormous amount on the theory and practice of chess?People thought that a 100 years ago.Capablanca could at least get a draw every game untill Alekhine proved it wasn't so.Karpov and Kasparov reached "the end of chess" several times in their matches yet many new things have been discovered since.
It is a fact that it's advisable to castle early in the majority of games?Yes,as far as we know at present.Again,I never disagreed on that.
What the current strongest players on this planet do isn't proof of it's correctness.That's my whole point.Take my previous example,if you go by what the strongest players do and you lived 100 years ago you'd say the sicilian defense is an inferior opening.
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by Katastroofyeah, and maybe the earth is hollow and populated by space nazis. "as far as we know" it isn't, but hey, "we don't know."
Thank you for saying I talk nonsense when you haven't even understood what I said.Please tell me when exactly did I advocate delaying or alltogether avoid castling?All I said is we don't know and what the strongest players of their time think is best is only proof of where current theory stands.
We know an enormous amount on the theory and practice of ch ...[text shortened]... do and you lived 100 years ago you'd say the sicilian defense is an inferior opening.
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by wormwoodVery funny remark.Haha,hilarious 😞
yeah, and maybe the earth is hollow and populated by space nazis. "as far as we know" it isn't, but hey, "we don't know."
Do you deny chesstheory evolves?Do you deny the play of past masters has been improved on?Do you think the play of our current topplayers will never be improved on?
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by KatastroofOf course, chess has developed as one can see from the strongest players of their time such as Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Keres, Tal, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov etc. But one thing they all had in common. In the majority of their games they will have striven to castle early. No temporary fashion, I don't think.
Thank you for saying I talk nonsense when you haven't even understood what I said.Please tell me when exactly did I advocate delaying or alltogether avoid castling?All I said is we don't know and what the strongest players of their time think is best is only proof of where current theory stands.
We know an enormous amount on the theory and practice of ch ...[text shortened]... do and you lived 100 years ago you'd say the sicilian defense is an inferior opening.
I really do believe, as I said before, that we (at least some of us) already understand enough about chess to know that it's highly unlikely that the tendency to castle early will ever be seriously reversed. The only way this might happen would be if there was a sudden large trend towards very slow closed openings with gradual build-ups, where it wouldn't always be so important to castle early. This I think is unlikely to happen, partly because the world of chess would die of boredom and partly because it would involve white voluntarily giving up the initiative that comes with the first move.
I'm sorry if I expressed myself rather forcefully in my earlier post, but you have to realise there are a lot of near-beginners and low-rated players on this site who are keen to improve their game. They can do without such unhelpful advice as this thread implies.
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by Alex232Yeah, but these types of threads are great entertainment. Maybe I'll start some threads of my own, like "Avoid the center", "Move the same piece as much as possible". or "Attack early with the queen". 😀
This thread is rubbish and probably was started by someone who thinks that he is good because he can beat all his friends.
21 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Katastroofwe're not talking about general chess theory, we're talking about a fundamental specific move, castling. entertaining the silly notion that the 'theory' of castling could somehow suddenly change, is as ludicrous as believing the basic endgame theory could change. it can't.
Very funny remark.Haha,hilarious 😞
Do you deny chesstheory evolves?Do you deny the play of past masters has been improved on?Do you think the play of our current topplayers will never be improved on?
castle early. especially if you don't yet understand why early castling is so fundamental. and some day, when you begin to understand the reasons, THEN it'll be time to make exceptions. but not a day sooner. otherwise you'll be just running around with scissors.
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamEven the big boys can be influenced by conventional thinking.
Just look at games by the big boys and tell me they don't castle in order to secure their King and hook up their Rooks, then we'll have something to talk about.
Take the Ruy Lopez opening for example. White normally castles as early as move 4 in line 1 E4 .. E5
2 NF3 .. NC6
3 BB5 .. NC3
4 00
Castling is clearly an inferior move !!! 4 NC3 is stronger even 4 Qe2 is a better move.
Yet i've never seen any book that gives 4 00 with a ?!. Incredible
21 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by bryanoLike I said, these kinds of threads are great fun. 😀
Even the big boys can be influenced by conventional thinking.
Take the Ruy Lopez opening for example. White normally castles as early as move 4 in line 1 E4 .. E5
2 NF3 .. NC6
3 BB5 .. NC3
4 00
Castling is clearly an inferi ...[text shortened]... a better move.
Yet i've never seen any book that gives 4 00 with a ?!. Incredible
(And I'm assuming you meant 3...Nf6, right?)