08 Dec 09
Originally posted by wormwoodYeah,
yes. is there a point you want to make? 😴
your blitz sux
The single-pawn endgame was drawn all along, the white King was in front of it, no progress to be made... now you've learnt something of it 😉 and you played the 3 vs. 2 very unhandily. 52...g5, why let the pawns split up, very bad timing. You even lost the p on f5 in the exchanges but white missed 64. Rxf5.
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by heinzkatand that was one of the better ones. 😛
Yeah, [hidden]your blitz sux[/hidden]
The single-pawn endgame was drawn all along, the white King was in front of it, no progress to be made... now you've learnt something of it 😉 and you played the 3 vs. 2 very unhandily. 52...g5, why let the pawns split up, very bad timing. You even lost the p on f5 in the exchanges but white missed 64. Rxf5.
08 Dec 09
OTB is the more challenging format. It also gives the least disputed rating of one's chess strength.
CC can be a deep, highly interesting way to play chess, but when you factor beyond the visualization and memory components also the stress, emotions and fatigue issues of OTB chess - I dont think it's a fair comparison.
As far as ratings go, I beat a player in 23 moves rated 1600 who is rated 2240 in
USCf Correspondence Chess. I am guessing he would have beaten me in CC. I do think though OTB strength transfers more readily to CC than vice versa.
08 Dec 09
Originally posted by wormwoodReally we're lazy? I have another idea that is more realistic. Becoming a chess master is obviously not an easy task, after all most clubs maybe have 1 or 2 masters if they are lucky and some 1900 who is a big fish in a small pond right?
2200 with proper training and motivation seems like a reasonable lower limit for anyone without severe cognitive problems. svidler is probably right. the only problem is that most of us are lazy bastards who reach for any excuses instead of putting in the work.
he didn't say that it wouldn't require hard work or take time.
People who surpass 2000 and higher have more than just hard work effort. They have passion. They don't just play the game, they analyze every game and every move after each tournament or played game. They eat sleep and breathe it.
Can anyone do it? No thats a load of bull! I think that surpassing 1900 takes more than just brute memorization, anyone who surpasses 1900 has a lot of talent and a damn good teacher or good books for the most part.
Is it worth it? Have you ever talked to someone who plays that much chess? Just like mastering everything else they are boring if thats all they do.
09 Dec 09
Originally posted by kmac27A master can walk into the room of a 100 randomly selected serious chess players and know that only 3-4 of them can beat him/her consistently.
Really we're lazy? I have another idea that is more realistic. Becoming a chess master is obviously not an easy task, after all most clubs maybe have 1 or 2 masters if they are lucky and some 1900 who is a big fish in a small pond right?
People who surpass 2000 and higher have more than just hard work effort. They have passion. They don't just play the g ...[text shortened]... ays that much chess? Just like mastering everything else they are boring if thats all they do.