10729 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
But... this is a pretty bitchin' forum too. Here in America it's another way of saying cool.
Tarrasch was years ahead of his time because it was Bobby Fischer that showed the definitive refutation of the king's gambit.
but fischer i believe played e xf with the intention of keeping the pawn
Hmmm Americans seem so tolerant, perhaps its the constituional right to free speech and the acceptance that haters gonna hate!
Oops, I somehow read it as 2.f4 is a blunder, my bad. 2...exf4! is the objectively best move with 2...d5 as a close second.
I'm similarily sceptical that there's some magical ingredient that separates super GM's from mere mortals. They are just bit stronger here and there that adds to a big difference.
ofc thats what they are saying so that nationalmasters can charge 100 hours per lesson and some mediocre IMs can sell a million books.
But its really like that? dont GMs give up sometimes advantages like a book advantage because they saw something deeper in return and outplay their opponent by playing indivualistically and dont just play by standard thinking???
Well maybe im wrong...
I doubt that anyone sells a million chess books.
On a more serious note, of course they give up some book advantages but quite often it's done in order to gain other well-known advantages (for example one may give up the bishop pair in order to double the opponents pawns). Usually, in any give position, there are several conflicting rules operating and it's the players task to choose which one should be given preference under the concrete circumstances. However, this is by no means unique to top players but applies to all of us in some degree. Stronger players just do it better.
There's a great old little book discussing these questions "Questions of Modern Chess Theory", Isaac Lipnitsky, 1956. Interestingly this book has a very modern feel compared to something like Nimzowitsch's "My System" that only appeared some 30 years before. Makes me think that the huge popularity of chess in the Soviet Union and big number of strong players really lead to big advances in chess thinking during that era.
Should chess be considered a sport?
by BigKingBud 2 minutes ago
WHY DO YOU PLAY CHESS ?
by ilikecapablanca 5 minutes ago
Who's gonna put up the $$$ if Anand wins candidates again?
by tkbunny 6 minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by electricpawn 7 minutes ago
7/2/2015 - Mate in 5
by damune 14 minutes ago
Female vs. Male Chess Players
by mkkuhner 15 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal World Chess Champions
by HoeYifan 16 minutes ago
Yugoslav Attack Main Line Analysis
by lolurspammed 20 minutes ago
how do improve my positional play
by Nckchrls 21 minutes ago
by NATHANKRISHNA 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!