02 Aug 08
Anyone who has Chessmaster and sees the games in the Academies should be exposed to more than just "open with knights before bishops".
Wormwood,
It looks like you are proving Mad Rook's point. Even though I'm far from being good in the eyes of the chess world, I still think I'm good. I'm much better than I used to be. I have the feeling even if I continue to get better for the next few years, I still be able to say the same thing.
I've come to the conclusion that as you get better at chess and two things happen:
1. You shrink the pool of comparable opponents.
2. You lose to better players
03 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad RookOh; it was a typo? Sorry. Given the rest of your post, I thought it was some obscure reference to water from some Roman river or something (Cassiac sounds Roman, no?). I even googled Cassaic waters before I asked. 🙂
It's bottled water from Albion. If you drink it during a chess game, you play chess like a Roman god. 😛
Gee, give me a break on the typo. 😵
03 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34That game looked too beautiful to be true, and alas, yes, it was full of blunders actually.
You are turning your back on a beautiful game.
Of course you are not very good at it - your IQ is too high.
One last try to get you to stay. Play over the following game.
If you do not marvel at it's beauty and it does not fill you with pleasure.
If you not get a desire to be able to create something
as magnificent as this - then farewell fr oard.
(thanks again you Tubby Tart)
It still gives me pleasure - and it's Friday.....yippee
11...b6 (Nb6) and 13...fxg5 (fxe5) turn out to be blunders by black, made in a totally winning position. (so my precious Rybka says🙂 )
03 Aug 08
5 edits
Originally posted by EladarTo me, something else happens as "I get better":
Anyone who has Chessmaster and sees the games in the Academies should be exposed to more than just "open with knights before bishops".
Wormwood,
It looks like you are proving Mad Rook's point. Even though I'm far from being good in the eyes of the chess world, I still think I'm good. I'm much better than I used to be. I have the feeling even if I con happen:
1. You shrink the pool of comparable opponents.
2. You lose to better players
1)I begin to understand how bad I actually play.
2)I begin to understand how difficult it is to become a "good chess player."
I think being "good" at chess could be measured by the ratio of the games in which you have played blunder-free (against reasonable opposition) and have an aesthetical value. mine is right now 0 to some hundred games. These of course are hard to actually measure, but I believe there's no way of defining good in concrete terms.
When I think I won a game "brilliantly", I get devestated (again and again) by the blunders I have actually made throughout the game when I check out the game with my engines.
I don't remember the game, but in a super-gm game, one GM had made a brilliant sacrifice (not a combinational one, a 'real' sacrifice), and the other one had said something like "Well I was losing, but I knew I was being part of a true masterpiece that would be a part of the history of brilliancies in chess." That's some good chess attitude!
I really would love to create something like that at some stage in my life. getting off topic here, so I'm stopping myself at this moment 🙂.
03 Aug 08
Originally posted by sh76Sorry, I thought you were razzing me about my typo.
Oh; it was a typo? Sorry. Given the rest of your post, I thought it was some obscure reference to water from some Roman river or something (Cassiac sounds Roman, no?). I even googled Cassaic waters before I asked. 🙂
It was just a metaphoric reference to Caissa, the goddess of chess. The water part of it wasn't important; It just gave me a chance to use the words "jetsam and flotsam". 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caissa
05 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Eladarwell, to me it seems it's just the opposite: the better I get, the worse I feel. -even though you do get some satisfaction from being able to do something right, mostly you actually see just more failures, weaknesses and inaccuracies in your play. you start realizing how bad you are at the things you thought you were good at.
Anyone who has Chessmaster and sees the games in the Academies should be exposed to more than just "open with knights before bishops".
Wormwood,
It looks like you are proving Mad Rook's point. Even though I'm far from being good in the eyes of the chess world, I still think I'm good. I'm much better than I used to be. I have the feeling even if I con happen:
1. You shrink the pool of comparable opponents.
2. You lose to better players
it goes something like this:
800-1000: "I'm AWESOME!!!, I beat everybody I know easily, I ROCK!"
1200: "actually, I'm pretty good, and definitely far better than my rating"
1400: "yeah, I'm okay, well rounded, my openings, tactics, endgame are all pretty good. I'm probably at least 1600."
1600: "my tactics are pretty good, openings okay, endgame not so much."
1800: "I'm pretty average, know basic tactics, okay openings, but not that good middlegame. my endgames suck."
2000: "I'm pretty horrible on all areas, and win mostly with tactical swindles. I guess my bare basics are sort of there, but really, I'm crap."
yeah, that's about it. 🙂 I wonder if there will ever come a point where you'd feel like you really know your chess?
even bobby said the famous "patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check" about himself.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by wormwoodSo that's what I have to look forward to after I improve. 😵
well, to me it seems it's just the opposite: the better I get, the worse I feel. -even though you do get some satisfaction from being able to do something right, mostly you actually see just more failures, weaknesses and inaccuracies in your play. you start realizing how bad you are at the things you thought you were good at.
it goes someth ...[text shortened]... famous "patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check" about himself.
Sounds about right though. Seems true for most things in life...the more you learn the more you realize how much more you don't understand.
05 Aug 08
You have played 8, lost 8. I looked at one of your games against an 1100 player. Indeed, you are horrible. How long have you been playing? If you're new to the game, stick with it, you may have some potential. If you have been playing for some time, perhaps you should quit.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by GuychHmm, I think you may have misunderstood my humor. I didn't mean that "good" is 100 points over Eladar's rating. I meant "good" is 100 points over your own rating. Therefore, "good" is always just a little out of reach. 🙂
Thanks Mad Rook,
I must be good then 😀
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by Mad RookGuych can correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpreted his response to be a humorous counter-play on your comment.
Hmm, I think you may have misunderstood my humor. I didn't mean that "good" is 100 points over Eladar's rating. I meant "good" is 100 points over your own rating. Therefore, "good" is always just a little out of reach. 🙂
I thought he was playing on the fact that everyone thinks they're better than they really are and so therefore since he is, in fact, 100 points better than his own rating, he must be good.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by sh76It's possible that he meant that... Although I thought I was the only one around here that cracks jokes...
Guych can correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpreted his response to be a humorous counter-play on your comment.
I thought he was playing on the fact that everyone thinks they're better than they really are and so therefore since he is, in fact, 100 points better than his own rating, he must be good.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by sh76Ha Ha, that was my first thought as I was posting my previous comment!
Tell that to greenpawn34 🙂
BTW, the original poster hasn't moved since starting this thread. So he really may be gone for good. I suspect we're just talking among ourselves at this point.