08 Jun 08
Originally posted by Mahoutlol, yes, you are absolutely correct, but all my opponents are taking ages to move, its 00:45 in Glasgow and i really did think that i could glean something about the thought process and the differing criteria that players use to decide on their candidate moves, other than tactics - regards Robbie.
To "argue pointlessly, in the face of all opposition for a principle that i don't even understand myself" maybe an entertaining tactic but is surely an unsound strategy for chess improvement...but I think you know this.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by MahoutI knew that he was arguing pointlessly in the face of all opposition for a principle that he didn't even understand himself, but I was amazed to hear him admit it. Not only is this an unsound strategy for chess improvement, but unfortunately, it's also an unsound strategy for gaining respect in these forums...and I DON'T think he understands this.
To "argue pointlessly, in the face of all opposition for a principle that i don't even understand myself" maybe an entertaining tactic but is surely an unsound strategy for chess improvement...but I think you know this.
BTW, Robbie, have you looked at the Heisman Novice Nook article that I linked to? Not that I really care any more. I'm done wasting my time in this thread. (Yeah, I know, I said that once before, but this time I REALLY mean it. 🙂 )
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by Mad RookWell I always think a few "characters" in the forums add a little excitement...so long as we're not overrun with them. And the responses we get are often very concise and informative. No harm in testing the evidence.
I knew that he was arguing pointlessly in the face of all opposition for a principle that he didn't even understand himself, but I was amazed to hear him admit it. Not only is this an unsound strategy for chess improvement, but unfortunately, it's also an unsound strategy for gaining respect in these forums...and I DON'T think he understands this.
BTW, R ...[text shortened]... in this thread. (Yeah, I know, I said that once before, but this time I REALLY mean it. 🙂 )
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSome of the other considerations for move selection are king safety, development, mobility, and space. [Of course, even though you may groan when I say this, it is best to make sure there are no obvious tactical shots first - what is the point in going off on a long-term plan if you can win the other guy's Queen? Or if he can win yours?]
hi, my apologies for that, it just seems strange, no not strange, unusual but refreshing never the less that someone as highly rated as yourself should be interested in what I have to think, with the exception of greenpawn34 most of those other guys couldn't care less, so i was taken aback that's all. talk to me more about the differing criteria tha ...[text shortened]... of move, as for tactics, i cannot honestly say, pins, skewered pieces, x-rays, forks etc etc.
In lieu of obvious tactics [like you said - on move one for White, there obviously aren't any], you use the above considerations to formulate a plan. And that's where chess gets harder. You have to weigh those things and try to figure out which is the most important consideration in the position.
09 Jun 08
oh maddened rook and mahout, you misunderstand, if i had a rating of 2000 you would listen to what i had to say, but because i am presently a mere 1500 you dismiss what i had to say as the babbling of a 'character' and as someone unworthy of respect, perhaps you are correct, I barely have any self respect, why should i crave it from others?
if you thought it was a waste of time, what can i say other than you missed the entire point. Look at your own thought process, what are the dynamics and criteria that formulates YOUR decision making process, the selection and application of candidate moves to facilitate a strategy etc etc, perhaps there may be something lacking, and just because i don't understand it fully at present myself does not mean that it will remain elusive forever as i have the humility to admit it and thus remain open to learning.
kind regards Robbie.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by SwissGambiti thankyou most earnestly for this, not only does it corroborate what i was trying to say in a very succinct and lucid way, you may distance yourself, i fully understand, but more than this, perhaps with your credentials others may come to appreciate this viewpoint also - regards Robbie.
Some of the other considerations for move selection are king safety, development, mobility, and space. [Of course, even though you may groan when I say this, it is best to make sure there are no obvious tactical shots first - what is the point in going off on a long-term plan if you can win the other guy's Queen? Or if he can win yours?]
In lieu of ob ...[text shortened]... those things and try to figure out which is the most important consideration in the position.
09 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHey Robbie...I said "character" not "babbling"...that was your term. I was responding to Mad Rooks post and contesting that your contribution has value...OK the praise was a bit thin as it was a compliment to the responses you provoked...so I agree that was a little disrespectful. But your original post lacked brevity and seemed to be more of a reactionary mocking of others opinions rather than a clear presentation of your ideas...hence the suggestion that it's value was in the responses it provoked.
oh maddened rook and mahout, you misunderstand, if i had a rating of 2000 you would listen to what i had to say, but because i am presently a mere 1500 you dismiss what i had to say as the babbling of a 'character' and as someone unworthy of respect, perhaps you are correct, I barely have any self respect, why should i crave it from others?
if as i have the humility to admit it and thus remain open to learning.
kind regards Robbie.
It's true that time served players with high ratings will command some respect here but there are plenty of good (and well received) contributions from players with low ratings too...if you skim through the forums you'll find some. I will study and judge the content of your posts and ignore the rating.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by MahoutI apologise most profusely, once again you are correct, i make it a point never to get personal and violated this principle , (except with greenpawn34 cause hes my adoptive dad and worthy of the most strict censure), and had i not been blinded i would have recognised the obvious value of what you were saying, thanks dude.
Hey Robbie...I said "character" not "babbling"...that was you're term. I was responding to Mad Rooks post and contesting that your contribution has value...OK the praise was a bit thin as it was a compliment to the responses you provoked...so my apologies if that was a little disrespectful.
It's true that time served players with high ratings will command ...[text shortened]... ions from players with low ratings too...if you skim through the forums you'll find some.
If you have a site with your guitar playing on it, i would be more than interested to listen- kind regards Robbie.
09 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHehe yep ...you can kind of say what you want to your adoptive dad...it goes with the territory. Thanks for your interest but my guitar playings best kept off the net for now as I'm just learning with my teenage son. We've been know to murder a Greenday track. We have understanding neighbors. This week-end we're off to the Isle Of Wight music festival and have promised to embarrass ourselves on the rock up and play stand...so you could come and see us live... and I'd be up for a game of chess after the set!
I apologise most profusely, once again you are correct, i make it a point never to get personal and violated this principle , (except with greenpawn34 cause hes my adoptive dad and worthy of the most strict censure), and had i not been blinded i would have recognised the obvious value of what you were saying, thanks dude.
If you have a site with your guitar playing on it, i would be more than interested to listen- kind regards Robbie.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell it's like this: two years ago, when I was 1500, I asked xanthos (2000): looking back, what advice would you give to a beginning player? he answered:
oh maddened rook and mahout, you misunderstand, if i had a rating of 2000 you would listen to what i had to say, but because i am presently a mere 1500 you dismiss what i had to say as the babbling of a 'character' and as someone unworthy of respect, perhaps you are correct, I barely have any self respect, why should i crave it from others?
if ...[text shortened]... as i have the humility to admit it and thus remain open to learning.
kind regards Robbie.
"tactics, tactics, tactics."
two years and 103,000 tactical problems later I'm rated 1959. take heed.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou look for tactics for both sides first - that's the point!
...Look at your own thought process, what are the dynamics and criteria that formulates YOUR decision making process, the selection and application of candidate moves to facilitate a strategy etc etc...
Any thought process that looks for positional gains before tactical considerations is doomed to failure.
Do you really not understand this simple concept?
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThats a good suggestion actually.
You look for tactics for both sides first - that's the point!
Any thought process that looks for positional gains before tactical considerations is doomed to failure.
Do you really not understand this simple concept?
First look for tactics (for both sides).
If there are no tactical plays that are worth making look at improving the positions of your pieces (i.e. get the strategy right).
The latter is actually much harder than the former but it is the former that will help your play the most.
I tend to be a very tactical player and am often looking for tactical plays when there are none so often I get myself into terrible strategically lost positions.
09 Jun 08
OK, I know I've promised twice to not post again in the two "Daddy and Son" threads, and I've broken that promise twice. 😞
But I'm going to add a little intrigue to this thread. I'd like to address a few issues, but I'll only do so if Robbie performs one specific action. However, I'm not going to say what that action is. Robbie will simply have to correctly guess what it is. If he doesn't perform that required action, then I won't post again in either of these two threads. (And I REALLY, REALLY mean it this time! Honestly I do!!!) However, I realize that it's possible that Robbie doesn't want the maddened rook to post any more in the thread, so I'm not sure how much of an incentive this really is. 😉
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by wormwoodso you have, if my arithmetic is correct, achieved in two years, on average a rating increase of 250 points per year, is this not the case. while i, by relegating tactical exercises to when i can be bothered and instead have sought to understand the underlying strategical importance of any moves that are made, have gained, let me see, just wait till i look at my profile, 300 points since December last year, mmmm, interesting is it not, so if i continue to focus on trying to gain understanding by whatever means, relegating tactics to when i am bored/in between my opponents moves, by the end of the year i should be rated around 1800, and if such should be the case i am certainly coming to getcha! take heed.😛
well it's like this: two years ago, when I was 1500, I asked xanthos (2000): looking back, what advice would you give to a beginning player? he answered:
"tactics, tactics, tactics."
two years and 103,000 tactical problems later I'm rated 1959. take heed.