09 Aug 06
Originally posted by z00tWe shouldn't allow Grandmasters to memorize openings and use other player's novelties. Did you know they use seconds to research lines for them now? That's just not right is it? Chess should be about what's between your ears on the day not who can prepare the best.
Not an appeal to tradition its about [b]the stuff between your ears not who has the fattest database with millions of openings. If we wanted to see computer vs computer contests there are plenty of those around including some you can enter your own brand in.
After all anyone can leach the work of modern day grandmasters by simply consulting their ...[text shortened]... has taken the most steroids - its about sportmanship, gamesmanship and competitiveness.[/b]
09 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZIs that how you do it during your games at RHP? Do you consult opening books and databases? What products do you use? What is your OTB rating?
We shouldn't allow Grandmasters to memorize openings and use other player's novelties. Did you know they use seconds to research lines for them now? That's just not right is it? Chess should be about what's between your ears on the day not who can prepare the best.
10 Aug 06
Originally posted by z00tAs soon as I started using databases I realised that almost everyone else I played (above say 1500) was doing the same.
Is that how you do it during your games at RHP? Do you consult opening books and databases? What products do you use? What is your OTB rating?
11 Aug 06
I would not think it would be a concidence if the World Open alleged cheats play correspondence chess. Its a little harder to do what they do in CC chess, in tournament chess.
Tourney chess involves preparation and lots of adrenalin, particularly when you find the clock ticking like a time bomb, you are facing an massive attack and the spectators have crowded around your table. Psk this must be a foreign experience to most of you round here.
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugI'm not against anyone subscriber or non-subscriber playing more than 100 simultaneous games. If you have ever seen a grandmaster simul you will note they take on much lower opposition and then play many games bashing them easily. However GM vs. GM contests are different and you never see real GMs taking on more than one serious opponent. The amount of planning and energy required for each game is very high.
Are you against subscribers playing more than 100 simultaneous games? If so, why?
In correspondence chess one has to play and go to work/school etc so the amount of time spent on each game is very small. Thus simultaneous games can be taken on while waiting for one's opponents. However 100 simultaneous serious games is too high given that you need to get on with your life as well as play decent games of chess. If you are ranked 2000 at RHP you can easily take on 100 opponents ranked 1200-1500. However 100 simul games given your opposition are within 100 Elo points of you is an eye-raiser.