cool game
For 850-1050 Players
Sort:
Why do you always play the Sicilian Defense?
Unbeliever wrote: Why do you always play the Sicilian Defense?
that's not the sicilian defense.. that's the English Opening. The Sicilian is only a black opening.
Unbeliever> Why do you always play the Sicilian Defense?
1.e4 c5 is the Sicilian Defense. 1.c4 is the English. But you're correct, after 1.c4 e5 we are more or less playing a reversed Sicilian Defense.
I like e4 when I'm playing someone tactically weak or practicing tactics. But many players really prepare their e4 defense... I don't want to play into their pet lines, or spend much time studying opening theory! With c4 usually we're both equally unprepared so we can just enjoy playing real chess. But mostly, I simply like the positions that arise from c4 more than those that arise from e4, and I play them better.
nice annotations
Very usefull post! Not only for the intended audience. Slightly more advanced players might be inspired to do some good deeds (i.e. helping others).
If you offered this advice to your opponent in the message box in the middle of the game, I agree that it was quite rude.
grainpsilo wrote:
Whenever I try to offer advice I get my head bitten off..... people seem to think offering advice is equal to questioning their intelligence.
Here is an example:
grainpsilo: You shouldnt give a check just because you can especially this early in the game, now your bishop is trapped and while you were moving it all around the board I was able to develop more pieces.
%$$$$: I do not know how old you are BUT I play for the enjoyment Not by simeone telling hoe I should or shouldnot play IF you donot like the way I am playing QUIT I started playing chess in around 1953
grainpsilo: I was just offering some advice to try to help.... not trying to be condescending.
I never offer advice unless my opponent asks me to. Advice unasked for is often unwanted. A few players have asked me to "help" them during the game by telling them where their mistakes are. Some have asked after the game where they went wrong, etc.
grainpsilo> Whenever I try to offer advice I get my head bitten off..... people seem to think offering advice is equal to questioning their intelligence.
I think it's intelligent to ask for advice! But like Reb says, only offer advice when someone asks for it. There's no shortage of people who want advice.
Once or twice a year I go out with friends and spend an evening shooting pool... billiards if you prefer. I shoot well for someone who rarely plays, because I know one key is to always consider the next shot. Inevitably a regular will tell me how to become really good, and I simply don't care to. I'm just out to have fun with friends.
chessdadx2: I hope you will give me a detailed breakdown of this game when it is over.
likesforests: if you win, you have to give the detailed breakdown tho. :)
chessdadx2: Deal xD
hmm
I am rated 814 right now (slightly underrated) and I played against a 950 the other day, and I swear, nothing in this game happened at all.
I find that its only with opponents 700 and lower that hang their pieces and miss out on obvious threats/mates. Opponents over 800 I find they don't make such silly mistakes, and often are perceptive enough to parry any sort of attacks one makes against them. Often, when I play someone over 900, it becomes a complicated positional battle, with both sides being equal.
Ill show you an example of one game I played against a 950
He was only 944, but he played a very good game with few mistakes. What would you have advised for me in this situation, as a player that falls within the 850-1050 bracket.
Hey, I wish he didn't play as well as he did either, that was a rated game, but thats how it was. I'm finding quite a few opponents that are above 900+ to play more or less similarly to this fellow.
Sucks for me, you make these guys sound like their far more easier than they actually are.
ciljettu wrote:
This is an especially good game for that rating, something seems fishy.
Seconded. I used to be rated ~1900 in live bullet and my games were never played as well as that.
Bebopbox wrote:
Hey, I wish he didn't play as well as he did either, that was a rated game, but thats how it was. I'm finding quite a few opponents that are above 900+ to play more or less similarly to this fellow.
Sucks for me, you make these guys sound like their far more easier than they actually are.
This game is played significantly better then most 900 rated players. I just had a look through his game history. He seems to beat players in the 1600 range quite a bit. It looks like a lot of his games are unrated though, so his rating stays low.
Oh wow, then my real chess rating must be a good degree above 819 then, if I could play reasonably well against a person who went up against 1600 players...
I play alot of unrated matches as well, so I guess my rating is a little bit on the low side anyway
I would say you played a lot better then most 800 players. 800 and 900 players hang material and suffer counting errors frequently in my experience. I am at 1300 standard rating and I still from these things myself. My opponents of similar rating do as well.
I do want to clarify that I don't think this guy was cheating. There were a couple of moves that I saw that were better then some of the ones he chose. I think he probably just likes to keep his rating low so he can maintain a high winning percentage.
This was a casual game against a 950. A month ago, I provided advice on how to move beyond the 850-1050 level. I've annotated this game with those players in mind. If anyone has questions, I would be happy to answer. Be sure to click the "MOVE LIST" button.