Conzipe, in your first example try 6.g4. Because your intent should be to have the bishop attack your queen so you can move her to b3 and simultaneously attack 2 targets. The immediate threat is to attack the knight which is blocking the check mate on black's weak square.
MATRIX CHESS
Sort:
6...d6? Please follow up. Because now I would push the g pawn and you lose. Attack my queen and I move her to b3.
Conzipe wrote:
I took a look in my database and it seems parham is playing the following which I had a fun time refuting:
Mr. Parham never played that.
Windingshu: After reading through this thread, I've decided to challenge you to an online chess game so you can demonstrate what you know of the system for me. Since most of the exemplar games I've seen feature Matrix Chess players as white, I've set the challenge so that I'll play black so you can be where you're most comfortable. If you're interested in demonstrating the merits of the system against someone of comparable strength, feel free to accept the challenge. I'll hold off on commenting - positively or negatively - about the idea until after the game is over. Thank you.
Conzipe wrote:
Also black isn't even lost after 6...d6?! 7. g5 since black has 7...Bg4! and black is actually ending up with the better position. Now you can maybe realize how bad 6. g4 really is.
Maybe you should reread my previous post? More closely this time. 7...Bg4 8.Qb3
Conzipe wrote:
Windingshu wrote:
Mr. Parham never played that.
Oh, then how do you explain this (3. e5? was played):
I stand corrected. I'm playing Mr. Parham right now and he did not remember that game until I showed him your link.
I resigned from this game because I couldn't handle you taking 7 days to make every move. I don't have the patience or the time to play a game that, after 2 weeks, is 10 moves deep.
I may have had time on the clock but not in my life, not for that slow of a game. I think what's more interesting is why you are rated 400 points more in online games. Also, how many tournaments have you played in?
Telling me I have time in my life is proving your ignorance. You are basing that comment on very shallow information. I would stop while your grave isn't too deep.
Windingshu wrote:
I resigned from this game because I couldn't handle you taking 7 days to make every move. I don't have the patience or the time to play a game that, after 2 weeks, is 10 moves deep.
If he was really taking a week for every move the game wouldn't be 10 moves deep after 2 weeks.......
ok so it was even longer... that's even worse.
lol, thanks for proving my point.
Have you considered accepting my challenge?
I have considered it and am going to decline for 2 reasons.
1. As you can see so perfectly demonstrated by "rich", if I play 1 game and for whatever reason I lose or resign you may choose to act like him. In which case, I have no desire to have any more people like him out there.
2. After that horrible experience waiting weeks for 1 move, I'm off online chess for good. I would consider a live game, maybe 60 min per side, but I will not be playing any more online games.
Windingshu wrote:
I have considered it and am going to decline for 2 reasons.
1. As you can see so perfectly demonstrated by "rich", if I play 1 game and for whatever reason I lose or resign you may choose to act like him. In which case, I have no desire to have any more people like him out there.
2. After that horrible experience waiting weeks for 1 move, I'm off online chess for good. I would consider a live game, maybe 60 min per side, but I will not be playing any more online games.
1. It's pretty unfair to judge everyone based on the immaturity of one person. Just a thought.
2. As you can see on my profile, I have an average move time of about two and a half hours. We'd go through an online game in less than a week, guaranteed.
Of course, if you'd rather leave me with no choice but to assume that the detractors of Matrix Chess are correct, that's up to you.
you can assume what ever you'd like. You have my answer, do with it what you will. But remember what happens when you assume...
You make an ASS out of U and ME
Windingshu wrote:
you can assume what ever you'd like. You have my answer, do with it what you will. But remember what happens when you assume...
You make an ASS out of U and ME
Just you, actually.
Jun 23, 2010
0
#259
njpadinha wrote:
Windingshu wrote:
you can assume what ever you'd like. You have my answer, do with it what you will. But remember what happens when you assume...
You make an ASS out of U and ME
Just you, actually.
NJ, it sure took you along time to figure out what all of the rest of us figured out a long time ago. This guy is just a chickensh.t "wind" bag. I check in with this thread now and then when I'm killing time just to see what's going on. I admit taking a bit of immature pleasure in watching winbag (my nick name for winding-shu) make an utter fool of himself over and over again.
Sorry for feeding the troll but:
His arguments can be summed up as follows:
1. matrix chess rules the earth (but I can't prove it because I'm too weak but my invisible friend (pavlov or parnov or some such nonsense) says so, so it must be true.
2. If you don't agree with me (and my invisible friend) then you are ignorant and closed minded.
3. If you challenge me to a game I will refuse because I'm not good enough to demonstrate the vast superiority of the matrix system. But if only my invisible friend would play you then you'd surely be convinced.
4. I will never, ever learn how to use the incredibly difficult to use diagram/analysis interface here in the forums because then I might be exposed as a complete idiot.
5. Here is the best proof of the superiority of matrix chess over silly regular chess:
Well, for as ugly as it is it works surprisingly well.