19 Dec 08
This proves how important knowing tactics are. He says his openings are weak, middlegame is crap, and endgame is abysmal but his rating is much higher than a lot of people's here.
Everything is relative. The comment is in regard to the people he's playing or where he wants to be one day. Compared to me his openings may be strong, middlegame superb and endgame fantastic. But since he isn't playing 1300-1400's, he isn't comparing himself to me.
Therefore what he says proves nothing, other than his own view of where he is at.
19 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by MacpoI'm not angry or resentful, Macpo. 🙂
Stop pretending you're bad in order to suggest that we are all crap!
Stop claiming your comtempt!
We all feel so much resentment and anger in this!
Please don't speak for all of us.
Not sure why some people are taking this so hard. He didn't say he was a beginner in tactics but in other things like opening, middlegame, and endgame. Being really good at tactics but bad at these other things, i think it's still very possible to win a lot of games and he does. He is being humble and not proud and bragging like some people. Some people think they are so wonderful and let everyone know it but when someone is humble he gets lectured. Macpo i'm sure wormwood didn't post what he posted to suggest we were all crap, or has contempt and hatred for all of us. Try not to take life so seriously, Macpo. Chess is just a game, okay? Have fun with it.
20 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Pavlo87spot on. - I pretty much neglected everything but tactics for the first two years. at about 1800 I started studying basic endings, but it's always been sporadic at best, with months of inactivity every now and then. at 1900 or so I started on openings. and of course I had dabbled at various openings, but nothing serious. I've never studied middlegame.
This proves how important knowing tactics are. He says his openings are weak, middlegame is crap, and endgame is abysmal but his rating is much higher than a lot of people's here. Tactics are one of the most important things to learn if you are going to become a tough/strong player. I'm not near wormwoods level but I also don't know much about openings, end g more on tactics, learning ways to checkmate, solving chess puzzles and stuff like that.
where does this put me? well I generally don't have problems against most 1800s, but it's not like it's easy or anything. against the big boys I just get my head handed to me. most of them have played dozens of years, and my 'experience' just doesn't compete even in the same league. I can put up some challenge, but even when I reach an advantage I can't hold it. they just bulldoze me over with their solid basics. I succeed only if they screw up, I can't really force them off the board on my own yet. -and that's why I need to work past the beginner phase on endings & openings for example. I'm not even thinking about doing special work on the middlegame until I get the basics down on those areas. first things first, which are the basics.
there are many 1500s who know their openings & endings far better than I do. but they've never done the required tactical work, so they drop material. I'm not sure if they even realize how much tactics you need to do, or if they just don't feel like doing it. maybe both. many of them probably also think they're 'too old' to get better, but I think I've pretty much proved you can learn a lot as an adult.
I can say for sure that even though tactics is my least bad area, I'm still not even close to where the really good guys are. there's a lot of work to be done to reach mediocrity, but I need to fix my basics first. ratings are not the issue, the skill set is.
for the guys who seem to get offended by all this, there's one thing I can guarantee: defending your ego won't gain you a single of your precious rating points. only taking a hard look at your skills, and getting back to work will. there are no shortcuts.
20 Dec 08
there's one thing I can guarantee: defending your ego won't gain you a single of your precious rating points. only taking a hard look at your skills, and getting back to work will. there are no shortcuts.
Which just goes to show that "good" or "bad" is in the eye of the beholder. If you can't hold your ratings points against some of the best players in the world, then you suck. That's the point of view of someone who wants to become a master one day.
For the rest of us, we can have a lower definition of "good" and be satisfied with it, even if it isn't up to snuff for some people.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by Eladarread it again, and repeat until you get it. what I wrote doesn't even remotely resemble what you read.
[b]there's one thing I can guarantee: defending your ego won't gain you a single of your precious rating points. only taking a hard look at your skills, and getting back to work will. there are no shortcuts.
Which just goes to show that "good" or "bad" is in the eye of the beholder. If you can't hold your ratings points against some of the best play ...[text shortened]... ion of "good" and be satisfied with it, even if it isn't up to snuff for some people.[/b]
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by wormwoodI did read it again. This is what you said:
read it again, and repeat until you get it. what I wrote doesn't even remotely resemble what you read.
there's one thing I can guarantee: defending your ego won't gain you a single of your precious rating points. only taking a hard look at your skills, and getting back to work will. there are no shortcuts.
You are the one who brought up rating points not me. You are the one who has set the bar of good at or above your present rating, not me. You are the one implying that I need to get back to work to get better if I want to be good, not me.
I suggest that you take a look at what you wrote. I already think that I'm good. I could give a rat's ass about what you believe is good.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by Eladarthat's the polar opposite of what I've been saying!
I did read it again. This is what you said:
[b]there's one thing I can guarantee: defending your ego won't gain you a single of your precious rating points. only taking a hard look at your skills, and getting back to work will. there are no shortcuts.
You are the one who brought up rating points not me. You are the one who has set the bar of goo ...[text shortened]... e. I already think that I'm good. I could give a rat's ass about what you believe is good.[/b]
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by Eladarwell, you're at 1405 now. lets see where you're in a year. my money is on that you haven't progressed one bit.
Perhaps that's the polar opposite of what you are intending to say, but it isn't the polar opposite of what you actually said. You crossed the line when you gave your guarantee. Either that, or your guarantee was totally meaningless.
my way you'd be at solid 1600 come spring. easily. but people like you never get better because they can't take advice without seeing it as a personal insult.
20 Dec 08
1 edit
well, you're at 1405 now. lets see where you're in a year. my money is on that you haven't progressed one bit.
How long have I been playing chess?
Edit:
Follow up question: Even if my rating stays the same, does that mean I'm bad? If not, then why does it matter?
The implication is that if I'm not getting better, then there's something wrong with me. You have stepped over the bounds of judging yourself and are now judging me.
There is no getting around this one.
20 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodApparently some people think all your posts are full of subliminal and hidden messages or something like that? The Meaning behind the meaning. 🙂
read it again, and repeat until you get it. what I wrote doesn't even remotely resemble what you read.
I couldn't pick up on any hidden meanings but I guess I'm just not as "perceptive" as some people.
20 Dec 08
4 edits
Originally posted by EladarI think only wormwood can determine what was meant by what he said. It is arrogant to say that you know his mind and intentions better than he knows himself. Meaning if wormwood says he meant it this way than that is what he meant. You are basically calling him a liar or stupid. And that he is saying things without even understanding what he is saying.
Perhaps that's the polar opposite of what you are intending to say, but it isn't the polar opposite of what you actually said. You crossed the line when you gave your guarantee. Either that, or your guarantee was totally meaningless.
-- Paul
p.s. By the way i think you are taking this a little to personally/seriously Eladar. Chess is just a game okay? Let's not argue. We all have a right to our opinions. Truce?
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by Pavlo87There's nothing subliminal about it. The accusation is that somehow someone isn't good enough if one isn't improving.
Apparently some people think all your posts are full of subliminal and hidden messages or something like that? The Meaning behind the meaning. 🙂
I couldn't pick up on any hidden meanings but I guess I'm just not as "perceptive" as some people.
The topic is supposed to be about whether or not a person is a beginner or not. Then the accusations fly about how I will have the same rating a year from now that I have today.
You can suck up to Wormwood if you like, but that's all you are doing, sucking up. Don't get your nose too brown.
20 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarSeems to me you are pretty quick to judge people and jump to conclusions. For example, calling me a suck up and brown noser.
There's nothing subliminal about it. The accusation is that somehow someone isn't good enough if one isn't improving.
The topic is supposed to be about whether or not a person is a beginner or not. Then the accusations fly about how I will have the same rating a year from now that I have today.
You can suck up to Wormwood if you like, but that's all you are doing, sucking up. Don't get your nose too brown.
Reason i am actually defending wormwood is because I also feel very amateurish in my opening and middle game at times, so i can relate to that, at times i may feel like a beginner in those areas, and also I don't like it when I see someone being bullied and picked on by a bunch of trouble-makers looking for a fight. He made an innocent comment and is being attacked. People that like to criticize others and fight, get on my nerves.
-- Paul
p.s. not sure why you are so enthusiastic about fighting with wormwood though. Do you have a grudge against him or something? Guess the truce is off huh? You just want someone to fight with.