27 Sep 09
2 edits
Dan's opponent there was way too strong though. 😀
To quote DANVM, "I have to get my hands on the books he reads". 🙂
No really, help us out, we are still crap at chess, give us some tips, what have you been doing during the last years, if you would be so kind.
27 Sep 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitI highly doubt that any rating on a site such as RHP qualifies as Master rating. Any serious OTB player can probably give any of us a quick painful lesson in chess. Only played a few good players on this site, and most are not even first page material. such as Mike Perkins, BobbyChess, Pawnriot, etc.. Very doubtful that you are looking for a serious explanation into why I play better now than 2 years ago, so stick to the subject of this thread and analyse the game, or PM if you're really looking for answers.
I was thinking more in the timeframe Jun '08, when you played this game as a 1768 player:
Game 4932508
Indeed, a quick glance at the rating graph indicates that you were averaged out at roughly 1700 over about 200 games.
Your low point came from a mass-timeout/resignation spree when you apparently left the site.
Then, when you came back slightly over a year later, you were suddenly a master. 😵
27 Sep 09
Originally posted by DanVMYou don't get 2300 unless you consistently defeat your underlings, though. Somehow I doubt the player I won 2 games fairly easily against 17 months ago would drop a single game to me now.
I highly doubt that any rating on a site such as RHP qualifies as Master rating. Any serious OTB player can probably give any of us a quick painful lesson in chess. Only played a few good players on this site, and most are not even first page material. such as Mike Perkins, BobbyChess, Pawnriot, etc.. Very doubtful that you are looking for a serious explanatio ...[text shortened]... to the subject of this thread and analyse the game, or PM if you're really looking for answers.
You weren't even here 2 years ago. First game is dated April 08. Once again FACTS rear their ugly head.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by wormwoodAbout as funny as this member's approach to the early struggle: User 437675
this one cracked me up. 🙂
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by RECUVICOh I have missed this GM's posts, they never ceased to amuse me.
[pgn]3759097[/pgn Most of us are very familiar with Bishop x h7 but is it always as correct as it might first appear? Decide here,1/was it correct at the time and 2/why did an excellent game opponent resign and 3/was that decision correct? This is not for the faint hearted or ocassional chess player,the correct answers are not as easy as they might seem to b ...[text shortened]... ons will provide my own personal answers,but they may not be the same as yours!-----------------
I wonder why he stopped sharing his GM level chess knowledge with us, maybe he was ashamed of not knowing how to notate the moves?
12 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Ajuinthere's nothing wrong with QGA, although many beginning players often believe so. it's a dangerous weapon in capable hands.
What's so funny about it?
gelfand vs anand 1993:
well, I guess this is irrelevant, not being the same line. I just went to chessgames.com and picked the first QGA black won.
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodQGA is very much ok,yes.I've played it often.
there's nothing wrong with QGA, although many beginning players often believe so. it's a dangerous weapon in capable hands.
But he said 4.... b5 is very dubious,at least that's how I understood it.He has a point there although 'very dubious' is perhaps a bit too harsh.But hey,it's his opinion.
edit: maybe we should discuss this in a separate thread.This one's actually about Rudell's book....ehr.....I mean Bxh7 sacs