Really? No one knows the OP is joking?
If (s)he were, then (s)he would not be defending the line; (s)he obviously doesn't see what's wrong with it.
Really? No one knows the OP is joking?
If (s)he were, then (s)he would not be defending the line; (s)he obviously doesn't see what's wrong with it.
He's not claiming it only works in bullet, he's claiming it "always wins". When I beat him in correspondence, I'll prove him wrong.
P.S. I suck at bullet.
That's not true, Hikaru Nakamura is a top standard chess player and the best bullet player in the world. All the best bullet players are titled players because if you are good at bullet you are good at chess. So too if an opining works in bullet it works in standard.
Why couldnt i have ever run into you at a tournament???
I've been thinking that ever since he said "... if you are good at bullet you are good at chess. So too if an opining [by the way that's opening] works in bullet it works in standard."
That's not true, Hikaru Nakamura is a top standard chess player and the best bullet player in the world. All the best bullet players are titled players because if you are good at bullet you are good at chess. So too if an opining works in bullet it works in standard.
Why couldnt i have ever run into you at a tournament???
I've been thinking that ever since he said "... if you are good at bullet you are good at chess. So too if an opining [by the way that's opening] works in bullet it works in standard."
If he enjoys playing bullet, and finding out horrible moves/tactics work, God bless him. But making the statement "So too if an opining works in bullet it works in standard" is just a bit rediculous.
Actual chess skill is a big contributor to bullet chess skill. But there are other contributors to the latter besides the former. Caruana is many hundred points less than Nakamura at bullet, which is a large amount. Yet they play at a similar level in classical chess. So there are clearly other contributors to bullet chess skill too.
Really? No one knows the OP is joking?
If (s)he were, then (s)he would not be defending the line; (s)he obviously doesn't see what's wrong with it.
You got it WindowsEnthusiast.
Well then, if he really think it's that great of an opening, why not just leave it at that? If he thinks it's good, then he will use it in more games, and he might change his mind about it. But is an opening like this really worth discussing? No, imo.
What is all this hype on unsound openings on chess.com? People play 1. e4 c6 2. Bc4? or some "psychological effect only" moves like 1. h4?! and even pure jokes like this or sequences leading to White taking the pawn on f7 with a piece to prevent Black castling...
Used it for the second time ever, and won yet again, this time even quicker:
Just to continue, White's 6. Kg3 was an obvious mistake. Any other move was fine...
elo123: the second game is a loss for you, because it was obviously a Bongcloud game, and you checkmated the other player, which is always an immediate loss according to Bongcloud rules.
It looks like you realized a little too late that his king was almost getting to the other side, so you chickened out and played for the checkmate. You would do better to develop your king early than your queen.
elo123: the second game is a loss for you, because it was obviously a Bongcloud game, and you checkmated the other player, which is always an immediate loss according to Bongcloud rules.
It looks like you realized a little too late that his king was almost getting to the other side, so you chickened out and played for the checkmate. You would do better to develop your king early than your queen.
Bongcloud!? Develop your king!?
[COMMENT DELETED]