|
Chess (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Goebbel Goebbel |
| do you speak english ever? |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| Is that even necessary? You comment in this thread and bring absolutely nothing to the discussion. |
|
|
| Goebbel Goebbel |
| real e tho? i liek chess\t a lot. |
|
|
| Goebbel Goebbel |
when god was handing out brains you were out taking a piss weren't you
? |
|
|
| ralary |
I played it on DS,interesting.
But I prefer for playing in the computer |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by epicaricacy
My being a on here was somewhat of a reflection towards the way i really felt about myself. |
Riveting read, really. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
I keep trying to watch this, hoping to figure out exactly what happened, but I just can't figure it out, I mean it looks like she broke her neck....but how?  |
It's a joke - click the link for the news report ;) |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Ultimately your success in chess comes down how deeply you have studied opening lines and less about who is smarter. Fischer recognized this and suggested a truer test of skill would be to randomly place your first row pieces. |
No.
That is only true at an extremely high level, say only for the strongest grandmasters. At the typical amateur level the decisive factor is tactical skill (seeing combinations and hanging pieces). Stretegic knowledge (where do I place my pieces so they work together and are not retarded) come in once that is mastered to a decent degree. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
No.
That is only true at an extremely high level, say only for the strongest grandmasters. At the typical amateur level the decisive factor is tactical skill (seeing combinations and hanging pieces). Stretegic knowledge (where do I place my pieces so they work together and are not retarded) come in once that is mastered to a decent degree. |
More the inverse, the lower the level, the more important opening theory is.
If you play at really low level but you have studied all the openings and studied what is most common to respond with in most cases and your opponent hasn't but just goes on insight. Then you will most likely enter the midgame with a profound positional and quantitative advantage. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
More the inverse, the lower the level, the more important opening theory is.
If you play at really low level but you have studied all the openings and studied what is most common to respond with in most cases and your opponent hasn't but just goes on insight. Then you will most likely enter the midgame with a profound positional and quantitative advantage. |
read what i said on the first page as a response.
and also - if somebody is a 'beginner' and has studied 'all the openings and studied what is most common to respond with' then, being still a beginner, they have obviously neglected to study tactics. if a beginner neglects to learn some tactics he will forever be a beginner. someone who has studied so much, though, really isn't a beginner anymore are they? at which point they'd certainly already be considered a more skilled player than their beginner opponent. making the comparison between the two futile and invalid.
i think my response, as i noted earlier, may have hit the nail on the head. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
read what i said on the first page as a response.
and also - if somebody is a 'beginner' and has studied 'all the openings and studied what is most common to respond with' then, being still a beginner, they have obviously neglected to study tactics. if a beginner neglects to learn some tactics he will forever be a beginner. someone who has studied so much, though, really isn't a beginner anymore are they? at which point they'd certainly already be considered a more skilled player than their beginner opponent. making the comparison between the two futile and invalid.
i think my response, as i noted earlier, may have hit the nail on the head. |
Well, someone who has only studied all the openings is still not 'very high level' as in, an Elo rating of 2600+
I'm just saying that the advantage of knowing more of opening theory diminishes the higher the level becomes. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
More the inverse, the lower the level, the more important opening theory is.
If you play at really low level but you have studied all the openings and studied what is most common to respond with in most cases and your opponent hasn't but just goes on insight. Then you will most likely enter the midgame with a profound positional and quantitative advantage. |
Dude, you're completely off.
Beginner's games are not decided by positional advantages obtained in the opening. They're decided by one guy blundering a piece. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE BLUNDERS HIS ING QUEEN!!! I could allow any amateur to use all the opening books and databases he wants, he wouldn't stand a chance. BECAUSE HE'LL BLUNDER HIS PIECES! Until a player has reached a tactical level of about 1600 Elo only mistakes and oversights decide the game. Nothing else. |
|
|
|
|
