Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
c4 has several advantages.
1. it is named after an explosive
2. English is better than italian or french
3. Its fun.
The English also have some disadvantages, including bad dental care and an annoying accent.
My E4 pawn is stronger than your D4 pawn.
Sort:
Fear_ItseIf wrote:
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
c4 has several advantages.
1. it is named after an explosive
2. English is better than italian or french
3. Its fun.
The English also have some disadvantages, including bad dental care and an annoying accent.
And they live on an island with the scottish. lol Oh, now I kid. I love that drink the Scottish make.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
raowl wrote:
Bobby Fischer always played 1.e4. He called it “Best by test."
Bobby Fischer never said 1. e4 is best by test.
I think he wrote it.
Yep. Of course, that was a nice catchline, but the real meaning is "from what I played I think I prefer the positions that occur after 1.e4".
BTW, during his WC games he used 1.c4 many times and ended up playing positions from transpositions of 1.d4...
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
raowl wrote:
Bobby Fischer always played 1.e4. He called it “Best by test."
Bobby Fischer never said 1. e4 is best by test.
I think he wrote it.
He never wrote 1. e4 is best by test.
He did, however, have some nice things to say about 1. P-K4.
b4 is good because it can be used in my sentences. c4 is very dangerous too. I think g4 is when someone is mad or irritated, they always say, g 4 wat?!
e4, d4, and nf3 are useless.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Comparing us to Carlsen is a bit pointless. He'd probably win against most of us if he started without a queen. Openings do matter more with equal players than chess.com members vs super GM's. Have Carlsen play the world's second best and 1. Na3 might not be such a wise decision for him.
really? starting without a queen i highly doubt that he would still win if he did not start with a queen probably a better statement is if he started without a pawn he would still win easily
geracarp75 wrote:
There are styles of play, in my opinion e4 deserves much more theoretical preparation that d4, but d4 deserves a more strategic and structural that e4.So, against a player of black e4 weaker but more prepared theoretically can match the black, but against a player of black d4 weaker but more prepared theoretically not accomplish this equality in the opening so easy.
That's a great answer..
blasterdragon wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Comparing us to Carlsen is a bit pointless. He'd probably win against most of us if he started without a queen. Openings do matter more with equal players than chess.com members vs super GM's. Have Carlsen play the world's second best and 1. Na3 might not be such a wise decision for him.
really? starting without a queen i highly doubt that he would still win if he did not start with a queen probably a better statement is if he started without a pawn he would still win easily
Notice he said MOST, as 90% of chess players are below class c from what i remember.
Randomemory wrote:
blasterdragon wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Comparing us to Carlsen is a bit pointless. He'd probably win against most of us if he started without a queen. Openings do matter more with equal players than chess.com members vs super GM's. Have Carlsen play the world's second best and 1. Na3 might not be such a wise decision for him.
really? starting without a queen i highly doubt that he would still win if he did not start with a queen probably a better statement is if he started without a pawn he would still win easily
Notice he said MOST, as 90% of chess players are below class c from what i remember.
true but i still think an extra queen is a huge material advantage one that most players would not blow i know there are many class c players that could blunder and lose but its still very unlikely
blasterdragon wrote:
Randomemory wrote:
blasterdragon wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Comparing us to Carlsen is a bit pointless. He'd probably win against most of us if he started without a queen. Openings do matter more with equal players than chess.com members vs super GM's. Have Carlsen play the world's second best and 1. Na3 might not be such a wise decision for him.
really? starting without a queen i highly doubt that he would still win if he did not start with a queen probably a better statement is if he started without a pawn he would still win easily
Notice he said MOST, as 90% of chess players are below class c from what i remember.
true but i still think an extra queen is a huge material advantage one that most players would not blow i know there are many class c players that could blunder and lose but its still very unlikely
If I manage to blow a whole queen in a position otherwise equal (for example the starting position), I would kill the witnesses and leave the country to avoid the shame that would follow. Yes, even against Carlsen or Rybka.
Playing Carlsen with a queen down would be advantage Carlsen, because the only reliable attack I know would be useless (Fool's mate).
Horrible isn't it? (E4 replacing e4)
Irontiger wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
raowl wrote:
Bobby Fischer always played 1.e4. He called it “Best by test."
Bobby Fischer never said 1. e4 is best by test.
I think he wrote it.
Yep. Of course, that was a nice catchline, but the real meaning is "from what I played I think I prefer the positions that occur after 1.e4".
BTW, during his WC games he used 1.c4 many times and ended up playing positions from transpositions of 1.d4...
Fischer only played 1.c4 7 times, and 6 of those tries were against Spassky. He was still primarily 1.e4 during his WC match with Spassky
abiogenesis23 wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
raowl wrote:
Bobby Fischer always played 1.e4. He called it “Best by test."
Bobby Fischer never said 1. e4 is best by test.
I think he wrote it.
Yep. Of course, that was a nice catchline, but the real meaning is "from what I played I think I prefer the positions that occur after 1.e4".
BTW, during his WC games he used 1.c4 many times and ended up playing positions from transpositions of 1.d4...
Fischer only played 1.c4 7 times, and 6 of those tries were against Spassky. He was still primarily 1.e4 during his WC match with Spassky
Yes, but it is almost 50/50.
21 games in the Spassky-Fischer WC match, out of which Fischer was White 10 times, out of which he didn't show up in one (game 2).
Out of these nine games, he used 1.e4 five times (4, 10, 16, 18, 20) and 1.c4 four times (6, 8, 12, 14).
That's not overwhelmingly 1.e4 as he was in the rest of his career.
CFOfdensen wrote:
netzach wrote:
Horrible isn't it? (E4 replacing e4)
Sorry for the thread hijack.
Another thing I've noticed that's somewhat related (in that it's something you'll never see published in anything, anywhere) is when people create their own rules regarding punctuation marks.
Like the people that don't put a space after commas and full stops.Like this.Drives me nuts,but there's not much I can do about it.
Or when they do the opposite ,and put the space before the punctuation but not after it .Like this .How do people learn to do this stuff ?Have they never actually opened a book and read anything and wondered ,"hmm ,everyone else on the planet follows a different convention than me .Maybe I should follow suit ..."
Anyway, that's the sort of stuff I think of when I see 1.E4 NF6. I've spotted enough of it in these forums to last a lifetime, too. And I'd really like to know what's going on in America that seems to create the majority of this stuff.
/thread hijack
But, people who start their sentences with conjunctions are fine. :D
With technology nowadays there exists ''voice-activated'' text-producing programs for computers.
Not sure how well those function with regard to punctuation etc.?
For impatient posters, who are more concerned with filling up forum-pages with ''their-opinion'' as rapidly as possible, they could actually improve on the incoherent language that their brains + typing-skills currently output??
Irontiger wrote:
ninfan wrote:
why is she dumb? I don't think so, since she's 2000rating.
Without saying anything about the OP's mental qualities, that sentence shows you haven't gone to many chess clubs. There are plenty of good chess players that are maybe not 'dumb' but at least, well, I guess 'autist' is the term.
Hm, sorry for my late reply but I've just realized this blog wasn't going to anywhere and thus decided myself I wasn't going to write anything else anymore; since it was senseless. Either way I believe our mood is just fine enough now for at least discussing a little bit or clearing up our doubts and disagreements once and for all.
So, not intending to procrastinate any further and taking into consideration your exceptional reply, the point I want to deal with is, with all due respect: if a person has autism, this doesn't mean/affect necessarily (in) anything when we're refering to chess abilities, autism works in a different area of brain and not necessarily with cognitive processes, ie autism affects social issues and not cognitive ones, as such memorizing, focusing or concentrating - hence, actually it's quite the opposite most part of times, you'll find a large number of autist persons extremely intelligent and capable of solving problems; and not rarely they solve it way better than common people.
Ah, concerning chess clubs, I have already visited 3 and I haven't seen any indication of people having autism in those places. It's common seeing eccentric players instead and as far as I know about Vanessa, she would be considered an eccentric one, respectfully. Perhaps your measure is disproportional on how many chess players there are or then you simply interchanged the terms refered.
Hmmm well they are very Equal but I think e4. then d4 :)
Bobby Fischer always played 1.e4. He called it “Best by test."
Bobby Fischer never said 1. e4 is best by test.
I think he wrote it.