superking500 wrote:
anyone else?
Nope, just yourself.
the problem with chess is its incosistency
Sort:
Because those two positions involve different skillsets.
No different than at school. One student does better at Literature. One at Math. Another at French. Another at shop.
The Lord gives us all our own unique skills and strengths. It is up to you, to discover your poarticular strengths, and nurture them.
varelse1 wrote:
Because those two positions involve different skillsets.
No different than at school. One student does better at Literature. One at Math. Another at French. Another at shop.
The Lord gives us all our own unique skills and strengths. It is up to you, to discover your poarticular strengths, and nurture them.
if thats true, then why is magnus stronger then?
aerodarts wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]
but aronian has a worse record against magnus and lower elo
i think anand was having pressure to hold his title so anand tried for draw and seeked for chances to win, but Carlsen was nothing to hold so he went for a do or die, finnaly he won, may be in future Carlsen alsodo the same as anand did and look go for draws?????????????
Here is a game I lost to below 1000 player. Was the situation complicated or simple?
bean_Fischer wrote:
Here is a game I lost to below 1000 player. Was the situation complicated or simple?
Why did u resign? Your position doesn't look that bad.
Mersaphe wrote:
I don't think that guy played like 1000
No, he is not. He has been removed. I just couldn't believe I lost to this guy, I kept quiet. Then I saw he's removed.
macer75 wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
Here is a game I lost to below 1000 player. Was the situation complicated or simple?
Why did u resign? Your position doesn't look that bad.
Of course, I did. How do you continue?
superking500 wrote:
why doesn't Levon adopt Magnus style..wouldn't he get the same results
You've been rehashing your "Carlsen likes simple positions, Aronian complicated ones" over-simplifying mantra in a few threads now, under various covers.
As you may have noticed, this does not give you any productive feedback, and makes other people look at you strangely. It has not been hailed as a particularly original or striking idea, and will not be.
But of course, you can keep doing it and expect different results. The problem with you, OP, is your consistency.
Yes, this sounds like #11, because it's an exact copy. On the other hand, it does seem to answer well, doesn't it ?
aerodarts wrote:
A famous GM has been known to say, that to beat him, you have to beat him in the opening, middle game and end game.
From memory, it was Tarrasch - so technically, not a GM.
aerodarts wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
aerodarts wrote:
A famous GM has been known to say, that to beat him, you have to beat him in the opening, middle game and end game.
From memory, it was Tarrasch - so technically, not a GM.
Thanks for pointing out is was Tarrasch who said that. I looked him up and could not find the quote. I did find him saying, "Before the endgame the gods have placed the middlegame". Do you have the link to Tarrasch being given credit for the, beat him in the opening, middle game and end game"?
Memory was wrong, apparently. You're probably right that it was Alekhine.
It's just too complicated to understand simple ones.