15 Dec 04
Originally posted by mateuloseKind of sounds like you are playing the man and not the board. That's probably bad news in any situation, but especially when you are playing over the internet and you don't know your opponent.
Ok, about the 3 games in question:
The game against Gimbitzoid, honestly, how many of you saw Ne6!? Not too many I'm willing to bet, would you expect such a move from a 1380 rated player (at the time I played him), probably not. . . 1380 rated players normally don't make moves like that.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
15 Dec 04
Originally posted by MetamorphosisI too am almost appalled, but not surprised by Donovon's lack of gratitude. A thank-you is definitely in order.
Mateulose, you might want to consider showing a bit of gratitude toward Marauder for all this free chess coaching he's giving you.
Not to steal the limelight from mateulose, but with all this talk of positional vs tactics.... I just completed my second biggest win on RHP Game 822085 Am i right in believing that my move #18w (d6) was my best move of the game, and purely positional?
Whereas my move #13w (Rf1xf6) was primarily tactical and perhaps the 2nd best move I made?
16 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderExactly, you MUST play Nd2 to stop the silly Qa5, followed by Bb5 to win material. I learned that after this game, and spent an hour going over the stupid American CS variation, and that's what I meant by using your knight to block the pin. The opening is purely tactical, very few openings allow moves like Qa5 then Bb5 to be played quickly, it's a penetrator move that usually isn't recommended in most openings. It's a tactical move/idea, black wants to gain time via tactics threatening to win material, and he gains that time by white having to defend the lame tactic by moving a knight twice. That's the whole purpose of the opening, it's a tactical opening, and yes, some Ruy Lopez's are tactical too, for the dude who made fun of me, not all Ruy's are boring no matter what stevetopia tells you. . .
I beginning to think you don't know anything about chess at all. What do you study for 4 hours a day? According to that definition, virtually every opening is tactical; the Lopez, the Nimzo and many others pin the Knights and ...[text shortened]... you material BECAUSE you allowed Ne4 by not playing Nd2. Simple.
16 Dec 04
Anyways, I have a trick question for Marauder when dealing with a newbie like me:
I often come across strange openings that some/many may even consider unsound, these games are no exceptions. Some of them have been tough wins, others, brutal losses early. At first, I used to treat these openings like any other opening, and develop normal "book" moves/ideas, however, my rating suffered bad doing this, and I was told that strange openings require strange responses, that are usually the best to dealing with them. For example, I should not play regular sicilian lines if someone dicides to randomly push pawns strangely and harass my knights with his bishops. I was also told that the reason many of these openings are perhabs unsound is there is probably a tactic available that wins material.
Now, you tell me, that I treat strange openings too tactical and should just patiently develop, treat it like a normal opening, ignore the strange, sometimes threatening moves, sit back and defend, but that's what I did before, and I was rated like 1300 because of it.
So what exactly should I do about strange openings? When should I iniate a tactic? Or should I just wait? Bare in mind, if I wait, it will give my opponent time to recover whatever weakness his weak opening may have created, and all is pretty much pointless then.
Teachers say it's difficult to teach students who win off bad openings, well, the opposite may hold true aswell, it may be hard for you to teach me how to not use bad openings myself and deviate from my book openings, because I always lose against "bad" openings, but when my opponent plays "book"/good openings, I seem to win.
16 Dec 04
If you're in an opening that has one book reply then any other move is probably bad for some reason. Compare the position to the position after the book move and note the differences. It may be a small positional mistake. It may be a huge tactical error. Find out which. If it's positional continue to develop as normal watching for the differences present now. If it's tactical take advantage.
16 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by mateuloseFirst, I would characterize the Cambridge Springs as an "aggressive" opening not a "tactical" one. I have no problem with aggressive openings as Black; I play the Sicilian Najdorf against e4 and I'm currently experimenting with various aggressive openings against d4 like the Semi-Slav and Semi-Tarrasch (I don't like fianchetto openings as Black). I don't play the Cambridge Springs myself because I believe that, generally, early deployment of the Queen to the outside of the Queen side is a dangerous practice for Black. This is a stylistic preference on my part; the CS is certainly sound but you overrate it's tactical potential: it took several bad moves from you to give Black a material advantage even after your inferior 7 Qc2.
Anyways, I have a trick question for Marauder when dealing with a newbie like me:
I often come across strange openings that some/many may even consider unsound, these games are no exceptions. Some of them have been tough wins, others, ...[text shortened]... but when my opponent plays "book"/good openings, I seem to win.
You'd have to give a more specific example of a "weird" opening for me to propose proper countermeasures; it varies with the situation. An example I run into frequently is White playing 2 Bc4 in the Sicilian. I've already given you my plan to counter it in another thread: e6, a6, b5 quickly reaching a standard Sicilian position with White losing a tempo and being thrown on the defensive. Note I never told you to "sit back and defend" and I certainly never told anyone to ignore tactical threats. Tactical threats are most effectively dealt with by eliminating the threatening piece or blocking the line of attack with protected pawns. And it's not "defensive" to develop your pieces to their most effective squares; it the very heart of chess and the key to attack (and attack you must if you want to win).
16 Dec 04
Originally posted by mateuloseIMO you don't really have the right to call certain moves "silly," "stupid" or "lame" unless you come up with a refutation or a continuation which benefits your position after said move.
Exactly, you MUST play Nd2 to stop the silly Qa5, followed by Bb5 to win material. I learned that after this game, and spent an hour going over the stupid American CS variation, and that's what I meant by using your knight to block the pin. The opening is purely tactical, very few openings allow moves like Qa5 then Bb5 to be played quickly, it's a penetr ...[text shortened]... the dude who made fun of me, not all Ruy's are boring no matter what stevetopia tells you. . .
Otherwise, it is YOU who come off as "silly," "stupid," AND "lame."
Bah!
16 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by tmetzler18 d6 was a fine move which immobilized Blck's Queenside and prevented him from getting much needed reinforcements to his exposed King. I would regard it as "positional" in that sense, though it quickly allowed you to make a tactical combo. Black should have played 18 Rh8 and tried to get that Rook in front of his King; he's still in trouble but he might have survived. Well-played finish, Tmetzler.
I too am almost appalled, but not surprised by Donovon's lack of gratitude. A thank-you is definitely in order.
Not to steal the limelight from mateulose, but with all this talk of positional vs tactics.... I just completed my second ...[text shortened]... f6) was primarily tactical and perhaps the 2nd best move I made?
Hate to burst your bubble, but the less pretty 13 Bxh6 would have won a pawn without any compensation for Black and if he took the Bishop, he would have been worse off than he was in the actual game!
16 Dec 04
Originally posted by tmetzlerActually I would rate move 13 higher than move 18 because the rook sac is what made everything that followed possible. I would also rate the exchange as positional because no material was won but a huge weakness was created about the newly denuded black king. Following the theme of this thread, always exploit (and acknowledge) positional differences. In this case it was an overworked defender (g7) created when support was removed from the knight (no calculation is neccessary to spot it!).
Am i right in believing that my move #18w (d6) was my best move of the game, and purely positional? Whereas my move #13w (Rf1xf6) was primarily tactical and perhaps the 2nd best move I made?
Personally for move 13 I perfer Bxh6 picking up the free pawn and maintaining the rook but your move certainly has more shock value and probably isn't any worse. It certainly spooked your opponent into playing an unsound defense. A matter of taste I guess.
Move 18 is certainly positional and was easily the best move available to you in that setup, it effectively removed the rook and bishop from the game and cut his army in half. But you probably already knew that... 😉
16 Dec 04
Originally posted by XanthosNZthats simply not true. Sometimes two three or even four moves are all about equally strong, they simply lead to different games. And just because you make a little mistake does not mean you can be punished immediately and destroyed , like mateulose tried to do to me. (i.e. if you play 1. e3 or 1. h6 black does not have a forseeable forced win, only through extensive and intensive rigorous study of a position and PATIENCE to maintain initiative can one assure a win) So if you see a move youve never seen before, don't look for a forced win, it might not be a bad move. Also, book moves tend to allow a small advantage to white, perhaps the "blunder" your opponent makes by leaving the book merely equalizes the position and does not gove black any real advantage! So mateulose, yes, strange openings may require strange responses, but strange does not mean ignore all positional and tactical factors, which Qxb2 did.
If you're in an opening that has one book reply then any other move is probably bad for some reason. Compare the position to the position after the book move and note the differences. It may be a small positional mistake. It may be a huge tactical error. Find out which. If it's positional continue to develop as normal watching for the differences present now. If it's tactical take advantage.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
16 Dec 04
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks No1, egsmith... (Interesting that the two people with replies are two players I'm playing in the 1day timeout league 🙂
Hate to burst your bubble, but the less pretty 13 Bxh6 would have won a pawn without any compensation for Black and if he took the Bishop, he would have been worse off than he was in the actual game!
I wish I could say for certain that I saw 13 Bxh6, but I don't think so. My plan was to use my two bishops for the attack along with the queen. Personally I like trading out my rooks for my opponents knights (I play a lot of "closed" games and find my opponents knights to more of a problem than their rooks (usually)). Thanks again!
egsmith: "denuded black king" that's a new term to me. Had to look it up in the dictionary. I like it....
16 Dec 04
Anyways, I'm a bit puzzled by No1's motives in this post/thread. His antics got me kicked out of Metallica, a clan, no pun intended to No1 as he is a good player, that probably would of helped me more experience wise then No1. In one post he claimed I was another JamesWoodley, yet I do not cheat, in another he threatened to screw up my games by informing all my opponents about my play, and another post he went way over the edge and compared me to Adolf Hitler. Sorry, if I do not feel like saying "thank you" to all of this just yet, and if you were in my shoes, you would probably feel the same way.
16 Dec 04
Originally posted by GambitzoidUnfortunenately, I know your type, you will treasure this game and continue to play your crap openings because you win off them when you shouldn't, so I will see yet more crap openings and it's a never ending cycle of crap openings, which is why studying openings is a waste of time, because there are so many of your breathen. . .
thats simply not true. Sometimes two three or even four moves are all about equally strong, they simply lead to different games. And just because you make a little mistake does not mean you can be punished immediately and destroyed , like mateulose tried to do to me. (i.e. if you play 1. e3 or 1. h6 black does not have a forseeable forced win, only throug ...[text shortened]... responses, but strange does not mean ignore all positional and tactical factors, which Qxb2 did.
16 Dec 04
Originally posted by mateuloseYou better re-read my posts; I didn't do any of the things you said except to jokingly say I might tell opponents of your weaknesses (which since you constantly post about em anyway would be redundant). Claimed you were JW? I got ya kicked out of Metallica? Compared you to Hitler? Get real.
Anyways, I'm a bit puzzled by No1's motives in this post/thread. His antics got me kicked out of Metallica, a clan, no pun intended to No1 as he is a good player, that probably would of helped me more experience wise then No1. In one post he claimed I was another JamesWoodley, yet I do not cheat, in another he threatened to screw up my games by informing ...[text shortened]... ou" to all of this just yet, and if you were in my shoes, you would probably feel the same way.
I don't expect or really want ya to say thank you and this thread isn't just aimed at you. There's a lot of players here who have potential like you do, but are lacking in chess principles. They can see some of the good tactics but they struggle to get into positions where they can effectively use them. I'm trying to give some general and specific pointers and advice that could help them and you improve yer games. If nobody wants to take that advice, it's yer and their loss, but good players were willing to share their knowledge with me many years ago when I was struggling and I'm just trying to return the favor to others.