04 May 07
Originally posted by RahimKBoth have thereplace.
You might have to but I don't.
If you had a club in your city and it was afforable wouldn't you rather play in person then online?
I prefer in person. Much funner and you can hang out with other people and chat.
How about the NHL and NBA playoffs, eh?
OTB I could not possibly play 500 games in a year and study the openings and tactics the way I can on-line.
Also I am experiencing endings that I have only ever learnt in theory and never get to OTB.
So I am learning loads and that improves my OTB play (my sole objective of being here really). Next year I will switch to some new openings.
04 May 07
Originally posted by z00tIt depends on where you play these openings...
The King's Gambit and the Grob Busted? Yes. A certain Bobby Fischer announced in the summer of 1961 exactly that the King's Gambit was busted. The article and the 1961 article are here -> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bust.txt
As to how the grob was busted I'm tired and will post that tomorrow. Those of you newbies who have to face the grob/king's gambit can now sleep well at night.
If you stun an opponent by playing them in an OTB tournament chances are that they will not be able to come up with the best moves to refute those lines. On the other hand, if you play these heavily analyzed lines here then you aren't really playing your opponent - you are playing their database!
04 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ArrakisIt is very easy to get them out of their DB early.
It depends on where you play these openings...
If you stun an opponent by playing them in an OTB tournament chances are that they will not be able to come up with the best moves to refute those lines. On the other hand, if you play these heavily analyzed lines here then you aren't really playing your opponent - you are playing their database!
For example in the Grob Tournament I responded 1. ... Nh3 in all my games taking most people out of any DB PDQ. As white there are also plenty of options to get out of the DB quite early.
04 May 07
Originally posted by Dragon FireI can get close to 500🙂
Both have thereplace.
OTB I could not possibly play 500 games in a year and study the openings and tactics the way I can on-line.
Also I am experiencing endings that I have only ever learnt in theory and never get to OTB.
So I am learning loads and that improves my OTB play (my sole objective of being here really). Next year I will switch to some new openings.
8 games a week, 30 min each x 4 weeks = 32.
Plus the monthly tournament games every thursday Game in 110min + 30 seconds inc., 4 games per month for $3.
Thus 36 games a month x 12 months = 432.
Plus there are the standard weekend tournaments 5 games, mostly once a month.
But excluding those, 432 games for $3x12= 36 + $20 club fee = $56.
Woah! 🙂
For me, I prefer OTB over Online any day. That's why I hate those long games which last months and months. Thus, I play a few quick games on here and mainly concentrate on OTB.
To each, his own 🙂
05 May 07
Originally posted by RahimKThose sort of time limits aren't conducive to learning and improving at chess and I discount them totally.
8 games a week, 30 min each x 4 weeks = 32.
My rating at 30 minute Rapidplay is 2075 OTB but at full length games (36 moves in 60 minutes with 15 minutes to finish) it is only 1875 proving that the ability to think quickly does not translate into improved performance in full length games. For that I need RHP.
05 May 07
Originally posted by Dragon FireWell this is what I do.
Those sort of time limits aren't conducive to learning and improving at chess and I discount them totally.
My rating at 30 minute Rapidplay is 2075 OTB but at full length games (36 moves in 60 minutes with 15 minutes to finish) it is only 1875 proving that the ability to think quickly does not translate into improved performance in full length games. For that I need RHP.
I experiment with different openings and ideas during the 30 min games and then the ones I like I spend more time on them and play them in the rated 2 hour games.
Rhp I just play to kill time and mostly play against people I don't see at the club anymore.
I play better chess at the longer time controls. Your full length game timer is still pretty quick in my opinion. I love our Game in 120 minutes + 30 sec increment. 1889 rating for me in that.
I read some articles that Fide was changing it's timers to 60' +15" or something for some of the games. Horrible.
05 May 07
Originally posted by RahimKIt might sound horrible - but to people thinking about getting started in chess it probably sounds great.
Well this is what I do.
I experiment with different openings and ideas during the 30 min games and then the ones I like I spend more time on them and play them in the rated 2 hour games.
Rhp I just play to kill time and mostly play against people I don't see at the club anymore.
I play better chess at the longer time controls. Your full length game ...[text shortened]... that Fide was changing it's timers to 60' +15" or something for some of the games. Horrible.
06 May 07
Originally posted by wormwoodTBH, I think it should be 45 - people get bored, that's why chess isn't gaining much popularity.
well, I think it's ridiculous that they're currently having 4-6 hour games, mostly ending into a draw. 60 + 15 sounds like an improvement to me.
06 May 07
Originally posted by wormwoodMy problem with that timer is that they would use that for a lot of qualifing matches by the actual match would be regulation timer.
well, I think it's ridiculous that they're currently having 4-6 hour games, mostly ending into a draw. 60 + 15 sounds like an improvement to me.
It's hard switching from one timer to another.
I know they changed some stuff and maybe started a new rating for the new time controls but if they want to use the quick timers for qualifying matches then they should use the exact same timers in the world championship matches.
See how the player like that! I doubt Kramnik would be happy.
06 May 07
Originally posted by cmsMasterThe standard of chess won't improve with faster time controls and there will probably be a new breed of, younger, players who are the top rated players at faster games but it certainly creates more interest, particularly for spectators.
TBH, I think it should be 45 - people get bored, that's why chess isn't gaining much popularity.
Take cricket as a comparable example. The interset in one day games is far greater than that in 5 day tests which frequently end in meaningless draws. 5 day tests should be banned as should "infinite" length chess games. A time control such as 30 moves in 1 hour, 30 in a second hour then 15 minutes to complete sounds great to me. We have a total of 2.5 hours per game in our league (7.30 to 10.00) because that is all the time available. As I said earlier the chess is not as good but blunders are a great leveller and create more exciting games.
... but you still need time to work on those openings properly and to study and improve tactics which is where the slower times of internet chess really help as my rating here is proving.
06 May 07
Originally posted by RahimKyea, that doesn't sound very good. like 100m dash qualifications for a 200m run.
My problem with that timer is that they would use that for a lot of qualifing matches by the actual match would be regulation timer.
It's hard switching from one timer to another.
I know they changed some stuff and maybe started a new rating for the new time controls but if they want to use the quick timers for qualifying matches then they should use t ...[text shortened]... he world championship matches.
See how the player like that! I doubt Kramnik would be happy.
then again, I think some radical changes are necessary to make chess more spectator friendly. namely much shorter time controls. that will of course shake the top a bit, the best now would still be very good, but not necessarily the best. they'd have to reasses their skills, and work to improve whatever aspect they'd be doing worse than the new top players.
of course, the current elite would cry aloud for their lost status, like the primadonnas they've shown themselves to be. but that's a really petty reason for not letting the game to evolve into a more interesting and practical form. no individual interests should come before that goal. the rules have been changed many times before, people just need to get on the changing times and requirements.
shorter time controls = less accurate playing = less draws.
sounds like a lot more exciting game to me. no draws yet in the kramnik vs. aronian rapid match for example.
08 May 07
3 edits
My opponent resigned in theoretical playable position 😀
[Event "RHP Blitz rated"]
[Site "www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2007.5.8"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Korch"]
[Black "najdorfslayer"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. f2-f4 e5xf4 3. Ng1-f3 g7-g5 4. h2-h4 g5-g4 5. Nf3-e5 Ng8-f6 6. Ne5xg4 Nf6xe4 7. d2-d3 Ne4-g3 8. Bc1xf4 Ng3xh1 9. Qd1-e2 Qd8-e7 10. Ng4-f6 Ke8-d8 11. Bf4xc7 Kd8xc7 12. Nf6-d5 1-0
09 May 07
Some dude has listed a few variants of the so called grob here -
http://nestore.mysteria.cz/analyses.htm
Wikipedia rightly calls it an unconventional chess opening where White immediately moves the king knight's pawn two squares ahead: 1.g4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob's_Attack