03 Nov 05
Originally posted by RahimKOne thing I have discovered is that you absolutely have to think to play good chess. Chess is not an easy thing to conquer. For instance, I recently purchased Tactics for the Tournament player by Lev Alburt. It's the third volume in his Russian course series. Very good series of books. Anyway, I work some of the tactics puzzles out in my head, and I worked this particular one out. Alburt says you need to atleast think a minimum of 5 minutes on that tactics puzzle. I rarely find myself thinking 5 minutes on a move, but when I played in USCF tournaments I did think 5 or more minutes on certain moves. I also played terrific chess. It is my opinion that if chess players would think a little longer on their moves, they would come to find out their ratings are perhaps a 100 or more points higher in strength than they realized, you know?
Nice job. I got chessmaster10000 and deep fritz 9. I was playing in some of those standard tournaments chessmaster offers with 10 min for each side and I would win the tournaments with under 1200 but every 30 games or so, i would lose to a 1000-1200 player mostly cus i was playing fast. This was on a 2.4 Ghz labtop, and i heard chessmaster 10000 is much stron ...[text shortened]... g blitz, i think it was 15 min each side and i was just whipping out the moves without thinking.
05 Nov 05
I can beat opponents in the 1900's in chessmaster. As yet, i've never beaten a real one here, though i have on yahoo... The problem with chessmaster is it doesn't know how to lower it's level properly. It generally plays full strength for 10 moves then gives you an obvious blunder. A real 2000 strength player for example will rarely loose a piece stupidly, but will perhaps make slight positional inaccuracies that take a good sequence of moves to exploit, 2000 players in chessmaster make flat blunders! Use it to practice but don't take the rating to mean anything... 😉
05 Nov 05
6 edits
Originally posted by marinakatombYeah, I think I can agree with you on that one. I have noticed there are very clear blunders, also. I see 1600-1800 playing personalities making remedial blunders, and I know that I've never seen a true 1600-1800 player make such blunders in a USCF tournament or in any human atmosphere for that matter. Those errors are extremely rare in those human moments. I was playing a 1 minute bullet game against the 1308 Lacey and kicking the living crap out of her for twenty games straight so I might get my blitz and bullet rating up, and then after I beat her, the game depleted my rating by 2000 points... Screens were popping up all over the place... It's almost like Lacey got very angry at me for playing the Stonewall Attack against her 20 games straight. And, then, I ended up with a -2000+ (yes, that is a minus sign in front of the 2000) rating, and after that, I decided to turn the junk heap off completely! LOL!
I can beat opponents in the 1900's in chessmaster. As yet, i've never beaten a real one here, though i have on yahoo... The problem with chessmaster is it doesn't know how to lower it's level properly. It generally plays full strength for 10 moves then gives you an obvious blunder. A real 2000 strength player for example will rarely loose a piece st ...[text shortened]... smaster make flat blunders! Use it to practice but don't take the rating to mean anything... 😉
p.s. I also am getting rather perturbed with computer chess. It is my absolute opinion that when you play a computer at chess, you are playing a different chess. When you play a human, you are playing real chess as it relates to human beings. I actually am partial to the human chess, because the tactical struggle seems to be analogous with life and that in and of itself is amazingly beautiful.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugOh, well, if you're not referring to the subject in this forum, then people shouldn't be posting in this thread. I didn't know we changed from my thread subject to yours, and yet I'm the one who created the thread. Doesn't RHP say something about posting on the subject the thread specifies? HMmm. I wonder. KABOOM!
If you looked before you posted you may have realised that Scotty was referring to Gambits spelling and not yours. This would be why he quoted Gambit and not yourself.😕
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by powershakerSorry🙁 Anyone see the football on Sunday?
Oh, well, if you're not referring to the subject in this forum, then people shouldn't be posting in this thread. I didn't know we changed from my thread subject to yours, and yet I'm the one who created the thread. Doesn't RHP say something about posting on the subject the thread specifies? HMmm. I wonder. KABOOM!