1 game between 2 amateurs hardly "proves" anything.
A Challenge to the GambitKing
Sort:
westy1 wrote:
1 game between 2 amateurs hardly "proves" anything.
Hmm, it would prove something. I have no idea how good the Gambitking is at chess, based on his rating, probably better than me in general, however, looking at the Latvian gambit I am instantly seeing various ways in which I think I could kill it. He knows the lines of the Latvian gambit, I don't. If I can beat it, it would prove that it is very dubious as I would be beating someone who seems to be better than me in general. This would hopefully prevent newer players from reading the forums, looking at some cool wins in the latvian gambit and then playing a horrible opening.
Yeah. We've all been waiting for someone like you to come along.
Oct 28, 2010
0
#5
Gareth_Smith wrote:
westy1 wrote:
1 game between 2 amateurs hardly "proves" anything.
Hmm, it would prove something. I have no idea how good the Gambitking is at chess, based on his rating, probably better than me in general,
The thing is though that one can never be sure about internet ratings due to how easy it is to cheat online. For example in a OTB tournament I went to last weekend one of the people playing had never played OTB before and had put down their estimated grade at 2100 elo based on some internet rating, and so was placed as the top seed. However it was obvious by playing with him and analyzing one of his games that he was a complete beginner (e.g. he'd think he had a fine position when several pieces down with no compensation, stuff like that). He lost all his games.
however, looking at the Latvian gambit I am instantly seeing various ways in which I think I could kill it. He knows the lines of the Latvian gambit, I don't. If I can beat it, it would prove that it is very dubious as I would be beating someone who seems to be better than me in general. This would hopefully prevent newer players from reading the forums, looking at some cool wins in the latvian gambit and then playing a horrible opening.
AndTheLittleOneSaid wrote:
Yeah. We've all been waiting for someone like you to come along.
Watch this space, the Latvian is going to be refuted for once and for all by 15 year old Gareth Smith from the United Kingdom. En garde!
But playing the Fred is actually quite bad (and naughty)
Notice I'm not saying either has been refuted. Really, which openings that were played 50 years ago by GMs are now completely incorrect and as a consequence aren't played anymore by the newbie crowd?
[COMMENT DELETED]
RealityMate wrote:
@ heinzie lol.. but the self proclaimed "Gambit King" could use a fall down to earth to stop him from running around the forums giving terrible advice and laughing at anyone who says that playing 1. e4 f5 (the Fred gambit) is bad.
This is the aim.
heinzie wrote:
AndTheLittleOneSaid wrote:
Yeah. We've all been waiting for someone like you to come along.
Watch this space, the Latvian is going to be refuted for once and for all by 15 year old Gareth Smith from the United Kingdom. En garde!
I'm not trying to refute it, I said it leads to a draw, I'm just trying to prove that it leads to an unnecessarily difficult game for black which will often lead to a loss.
Oct 28, 2010
0
#11
Or a quick win if white blunders into the opening traps, which I suppose is it's allure anyway.
well the problem is that chess is a practical game so the only way to prove if the latvian gambit is effective or not is to have a game without a database available during the game. if CCgames is the only ruleset to stop the latvian gambit then it only proves that gambitking is right in using it
Oct 29, 2010
0
#14
Gambitking wrote:
Nothing can be proven to anyone unless the individual allows themselves to be convinced by the evidence. Therefore, for you, I don't doubt that any encounters that I have will be enough proof to convince you of anything--and that's a good thing! In fact, some people refuse to change their opinion even after personal experience, and paradoxically, sometimes those types of people are the wisest! I don't need to tell you that the only thing you have to do is find the best path for yourself in life--and by all means, don't let someone else tell you what that path is! For ME, however, and for any who observe these types of challenges with scrutiny, they CAN prove quite a bit! After all, in each game of chess, the only thing that matters is whose king is checkmated. If you have some 'line' that you want to prove, do it in a game, putting everything on the line for what you hold to be the truth! I always say that "MOVES SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS"!
Rubbish. If you believe that 1 game between 2 amateurs can "prove" anything about an opening, you really are quite deluded. The only way it can be close to proven that an opening is sound or not is through top level games and concrete analysis of that opening. If you really believe that the OP was right in saying that he can prove that the Latvian is not worth playing after this game then you'll stop playing it if you lose badly, and somehow I doubt that.
A forced draw means that a player can force a draw, not that the position is a draw with all legal moves, or at least that is what I meant.
Oct 29, 2010
0
#16
how is it that GMs can prove whether an opening is sound by making perfect moves when the amatures do not make perfect moves? it just seems to me that someone at my level plays so completely different (probably spelled wrong) that if a bunch of GMs show that e4 is bad i can probably still make a good game out of it. conversely, if some magic line opens up at GM level with f4, i probably can't make that work.
you guys have fun with your game, whether or not it proves anything. i do find it funny that Gareth has played and won a single game on here and thinks that the rating is indicitive of his level.
planeden wrote:
i do find it funny that Gareth has played and won a single game on here and thinks that the rating is indicitive of his level.
I was assuming that chess.com ratings are quite similar to FIDE ratings, I'm not of 1800 quality.
Oct 29, 2010
0
#18
Gareth_Smith wrote:
planeden wrote:
i do find it funny that Gareth has played and won a single game on here and thinks that the rating is indicitive of his level.
I was assuming that chess.com ratings are quite similar to FIDE ratings, I'm not of 1800 quality.
they are not remotely close. rule of thumb is chess.com 200-300 points higher, but i bet it is considerably more or less depending on the person (and i am not talking about cheating). playing online correspondence games give you a lot of advantages (and some disadvantages) to playing live.
Oct 29, 2010
0
#19
planeden wrote:
how is it that GMs can prove whether an opening is sound by making perfect moves when the amatures do not make perfect moves? it just seems to me that someone at my level plays so completely different (probably spelled wrong) that if a bunch of GMs show that e4 is bad i can probably still make a good game out of it. conversely, if some magic line opens up at GM level with f4, i probably can't make that work.
I didn't say that whether an opening is sound or not matters that much at the amateur level. It probably doesn't. That doesn't mean that 1 amateur game can prove anything however.
Oct 29, 2010
0
#20
westy1 wrote:
I didn't say that whether an opening is sound or not matters that much at the amateur level. It probably doesn't. That doesn't mean that 1 amateur game can prove anything however.
sorry, been a question that has been wanting to be asked for a while. today i couldn't stop it. anyway, it was not so much directly aimed but at the common argument in general.
i have the same sort of question regarding the value of checkers now that a computer has solved it. i haven't solved it, so it is still just as fun for me.
I have read your support for the Latvian gambit in some of these threads and cannot understand why you would support such an opening, theoretically with best play it is a draw, but it is a draw that is very difficult for black to pull off, and I would think that openings where one does not have to play perfectly to avoid being destroyed would make far more sense.
So, to prove my point I openly challenge you to a CC game where the Latvian gambit is played with the intent of squashing you, and proving that the Latvian gambit is not worth playing.
This challenge is also open to anyone else who plays the Latvian gambit.