Who here can claim to play an honest game witho...

Originally posted by zin23
I understand chess far more than you so much so that I make my own chess variants.
And no, I am very well aware of most opening lines

Game 4259560
A quick review of the above game shows that you have no grasp whatsoever on many of the fundamentals of chess. At the moment, I would think you are severely overrated due to you still being provisional. I'd put you at about 1350 or so.

BTW: If you chose to play a game, it's always good to know the rules. Especially, if you're going to mouth off and call others cheats.

D

Originally posted by zin23
First of all I am not a 1400 player - (certainly not on this site) .

I am not talking about preaching about improving your game. I am basically hinting at another thread I was involved in that there is more to chess than studying - IQ has a lot to do with being *really good*.
That is you can study all you want (and you will improve) but you will never b ize it was ok to consult with other material DURING the game. now I know No big deal move on!

You keep making this point, I suppose you think it is anyway, that "you can study all you want but you will never become a GM." Is it that you think the only reason people study is to try to become GMs, or that the only point to studying is to become a GM?

Perhaps for some, and some of them do (and the proof is in the fact that they are GMs, how do you suppose they got there?). I suspect most of us who study chess do so for reasons that have nothing to do with such lofty goals.

When I first learned chess as a kid it was in a very small town with no chess scene, scholastic or otherwise, and after learning to play against a friend I became fascinated enough to see if our local library had any books on the game. Reading through those 4 ancient hard covers was my first "study" of the game, if you call it that, but it was motivated solely out of captivation by both the game and the writing, since I had no practical way to apply any kind of real "study" then (my 1 opponent didn't share my enthusiasm).

Much, much later I discovered the broader world of modern chess, and online, and more opponents and more books that rekindled that same spark of interest. But, though I would like to play better, "becoming a GM" has never been a motive for me. I would say its probably the same for most others. They take it up out of interest and later study out of interest. Out of that very large group a smaller number go on to become GMs, but I doubt many of them had that as a goal, much less an expectation, from the very beginning.

Originally posted by zin23
So stop overreacting. I didn't realize it was ok to consult with other material DURING the game. now I know No big deal move on!

You're the guy who proclaimed "IT IS CHEATING" in all capital letters, called the use of databases "stupid" and said you felt sorry for everyone who did it.

And now suddenly it's "no big deal". 🙄

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Game 4259560
A quick review of the above game shows that you have no grasp whatsoever on many of the fundamentals of chess. At the moment, I would think you are severely overrated due to you still being provisional. I'd put you at about 1350 or so.

BTW: If you chose to play a game, it's always good to know the rules. Especially, if you're going to mouth off and call others cheats.

D

You seem to miss the point. I only joined this site to "get back into chess" for research purposes - I create chess variants and I was comparing the game play.
I understand the fundamentals of chess far more than you - You must be retarded if you think I am 1350 - Did you see the last game I won? I beat a 1500+ player. My older games I did not pay much attention.
And if I put more attention into the game (actually studying) I could easily make 1800 here but I have no intention of wasting my time ..
I will guarantee I will never be below 1450 (unless I lose by time out which I did for two games already)

And - I never called anyone cheats - I just said it makes no sense to look up opening during play. Do you see GMs play that way>\? They look it up BEFORE the game.

Originally posted by zin23
You seem to miss the point. I only joined this site to "get back into chess" for research purposes - I create chess variants and I was comparing the game play.
I understand the fundamentals of chess far more than you - You must be retarded if you think I am 1350 - Did you see the last game I won? I beat a 1500+ player. My older games I did not pay much att ...[text shortened]... look up opening during play. Do you see GMs play that way>\? They look it up BEFORE the game.

It's easy to claim to be better than others and far more capable than your results indicate with no evidence.

Originally posted by zin23
You seem to miss the point. I only joined this site to "get back into chess" for research purposes - I create chess variants and I was comparing the game play.
I understand the fundamentals of chess far more than you - You must be retarded if you think I am 1350 - Did you see the last game I won? I beat a 1500+ player. My older games I did not pay much att ...[text shortened]... look up opening during play. Do you see GMs play that way>\? They look it up BEFORE the game.

zin23: just said it makes no sense to look up opening during play. Do you see GMs play that way>\?

Yes, when they are playing correspondence chess like we are here.

Originally posted by zin23
[bYou must be retarded if you think I am 1350 - Did you see the last game I won? I beat a 1500+ player. My older games I did not pay much attention.
And if I put more attention into the game (actually studying) I could easily make 1800 here but I have no intention of wasting my time ..
I will guarantee I will never be below 1450 (unless I lose by time out whi ...[text shortened]... o look up opening during play. Do you see GMs play that way>\? They look it up BEFORE the game.[/b]

You mean the one where your opp dropped a piece in the opening and later walked into mate? This is the game you cite as proof that you're under-rated and "could easily make 1800+ here."

Talk is cheap. Personally I don't see you making much progress, not because of your current performance, but because of your attitude. You talk as though you know all the answers and this game, the study of it, and this site are all beneath you. At least that's the vibe you're giving off in this thread.

Originally posted by scandium
Talk is cheap. Personally I don't see you making much progress, not because of your current performance, but because of your attitude. You talk as though you know all the answers and this game, the study of it, and this site are all beneath you. At least that's the vibe you're giving off in this thread.

Progress? What dont you understand about people playing chess for fun? I am merely recapping what I read GMs say about improving chess = dont believe me then listen to yourself talk then, I dont care. You are better served doing tactical puzzles etc than memorizing openings.
I am in agreement with the first poster - no point in playing by looking up a databases. Look it AFTER the game and learn from your mistakes. Standard commonsense advice from GMs you can read anywhere - nothing to do with me.
So go ahead criticize my play - I dont devote all my time studying chess like you guys. and I have spent far too much time on this site. I am finished posting and playing here. So goodbye, live in your own ignorance. BYE


check out some of my variants:
http://chess.computerwebservices.net/birds.php

Originally posted by zin23
Progress? What dont you understand about people playing chess for fun? I am merely recapping what I read GMs say about improving chess = dont believe me then listen to yourself talk then, I dont care. You are better served doing tactical puzzles etc than memorizing openings.
I am in agreement with the first poster - no point in playing by looking up a datab ...[text shortened]... norance. BYE


check out some of my variants:
http://chess.computerwebservices.net/birds.php

Thanks for the link. Comment posted.