Forum

I just took away the 1900+ sentence in the marketing tekst of this group.

Some things I never could say in the Over The Board club since that would be not be politically correct. If Benedicte (the boss there) says there was more then 1 person who wanted me booted? Who are they? And couldn't they talk to me? Also isn't there a more intrinsic problem. I rarely learn from under 1900 players. I don't mean that rude. I guess a GM would not learn much from me either. When Smyslovfan (2100 Fide) got booted that was a huge disappointed to me. The guy was very knowledgable, I picked up some nice tips from him. There are 2 members who are 2200 Fide but they hardly say a thing. So in practice I got Smyslovfan, Kag Moon and Laurant. For the rest is was a bit of entertainment for me. Maybe the core contributers all under 1900 didn't like me because we also couldn't connect. Yesterday at the club (see my Smit game on the forum) I beat a 1861 guy. The guy did NOT want to analyse, but just commented on his great play and his 1 (??) mistake. Haha. Suppose I would say 'boy, your opening, midgame, tactics and endgame were bad, you can learn from me since I outrank you 300 points, or you can live in your personal dreamworld', do you think he will like me? No, he won't. He will be complaining against other people that I would be rude. When he was talking to me, giving his vision on our game in words (so not concrete moves on an analysis board!) , I had to think about the OTB group; maybe players connect less when the rating difference becomes to large, then they just see the game different. But since after the Chesstempo debacle, I got invited to Over The Board, that became my new base. But maybe Benedictine is right on his argument that I am bad for group dynamics in that group; connecting on chess was hard. If Kag Moon didn't comment on my games, most of the time, nobody did. Anyway Salty Turtle is my new base now.

I like my play. A true turtle game.

I wrote this in my OTB diary, before a 1700 players decided to kick me out. https://www.chess.com/article/view/better-than-ratings-chess-com-s-new-caps-system Did you read this? The new Caps measurement system does have a big flaw. So when you play the turtle system, you might get punished (lose Caps percentage) for delibaretely following a no-risk strategy. The computer might say "you should have gone for that piece sac! therefore you errored!" while within human terms the piece sac means risk (you might blunder in that tactical skirmish) while there was an easy strategical long term plus with good winning chances which has no risk and you will win or draw while the piece sac might also be losing due to a unexpected path you cannot comprehend at the moment you are saccing. Next to that, humans are not computers. Sure computers outrank humans in chess results, but that does not mean the computer's path is the best human path. Computers just calculate. Humans have different styles, preferences, emotions etc. I used to (last year) always let the computer's evaluation weigh highly in openings and positions. But I have changed. It's more important how I feel in the position then what the computer says. I'd rather play a 0.0 opening where I have played many games in and have experience then get 0.4 where I have never played that position before. Next to that, last year I was into statistics a lot. But now I'd gladly play a statistical inferior position ONLY when I know the position well. So getting 0.2 disadvantage by the computer and getting like 20% more lost games in the database, as long as I am comfortable with the position and I have played many games in it, and I know some great plans, and I have scored well, then I just go for it