cheese.com

Playing good chess gets boring, drawish and stagnates learning.

Some people like to try to win quickly. Learning opening traps is not a solid approach to developing your chess skills.

bubu

Jeremy has been ignored most of the time, as he should be. But now that reactions keep coming it is time to address his topics. Jeremy complains 

“Why is everyone on this site obsessed with cheesy tricks and traps instead of just playing good chess?”. 

First, he is wrong. Not everyone is obsessed with that. 

Secondly, every time Jeremy complains about cheap tricks and traps, it’s hard to find more than one single game where he fell victim to a trap. I’m suspecting he is exaggerating, but I’m open to being proven wrong when he shows more examples. The games I did find with unsound opening tactics, he was also not playing good chess.

Recently he wrote this:

“Tricks and traps are a waste of time. Just play good chess”. 

It seems he is misunderstanding how playing tricks and traps can be a waste of time. It’s because it’s better to invest in understanding fundamentals, like opening principles, practice tactics and develop a positional understanding. Playing traps and tricks takes the focus away from that. But that’s the trickster’s problem.

Jeremy can still continue developing his skills. I would even argue that the best weapon against aggressive and unsound opening shenanigans is to do exactly what he advocates: Good Chess. But that’s not what he does.

Two years ago he wrote this: 

“Imagine if you learned actual useful chess instead of cheap tricks”. 

He believes that opponents that play an opening trap aren’t playing useful chess. Like he is the one that is playing useful chess. It’s precisely this wording that inspired me to write this. Because Jeremy doesn’t play useful chess, in fact what he does barely qualifies as playing chess. Let me explain what I mean.

Some examples:

As a first example his game vs mohammedeid. As early as move 7 ((Qd5) does the opponent threaten a checkmate. Jeremy is too busy for traps and tricks, all he needs is 17 seconds for his next two moves. The position is already lost after 8 moves, with an evaluation of around + 5. He resigns on move 11. 

Game vs LaKotz. In this specific example which was probably the game that inspired the topic he created on October 28th complaining about good chess. In this game the opponent indeed played an extremely aggressive Bishop sacrifice as early as move 6. It’s a common trap. It’s common enough that it’s even in the Masters database, several dozen times. At lower levels it’s played many millions of times, literally. Jeremy has spent roughly 2 seconds per move on the first 5 moves and thus more than enough time on the clock left. This allows him to carefully analyze the position before selecting his next move.

Instead, he decides to skip all that and simply blitz out a wrong move. Jeremy plays the wrong move two more times shortly after in the next couple of moves. Once you were out of book you played the best move only once in 4 moves. But miraculously ended up in a stronger position. 

The decision after 9. O-O is the one that blows my mind. Ignoring the fact that the move you played (9. cxb2) was not in Stockfish top 5 recommendations. It’s that you played the move after only 3 seconds! There’s so much pressure on your King, I can’t fathom just playing some pawn move on the other side of the board.

Then the final position of the game after 12. Nd2 is even worse:

r1b2kBr/pppp2pp/1bn2q2/3Q2N1/4P3/8/P2N1PPP/R4RK1 b - - 2 12

Your King is surrounded by enemy pieces. How are you going to develop your Rooks, or your second Bishop?y You have 9 minutes remaining. Nevermind , you made a blunder after 2 seconds.

You shouldn’t complain about playing good chess. The way I see it you aren’t playing chess at all, let alone good chess. Obviously.

Playing chess

Game Reviews and chess engines have put so much emphasis on accuracy that some players forget that it’s not about playing clean, precise, sterile chess. It’s a battle between you and your opponent.

The object of the game is to "checkmate" the enemy King (i. e. threaten with inescapable capture). From Wikipedia.

You are complaining about traps because they disrupt your playing style. You prefer to play your moves quickly according to your own plan, without any regard for your opponent ‘s moves.

For example in your game versus Lelouch-etc, your opponent fianchetto’s on both sides. I’m not sure if you consider this a trap too, or if this seems cheesy to you. Whatever your opinion on their opening style, if you’re going for good chess, you should take their strategy into account when you’re planning your moves. 
In my opinion, the definition of useful chess is to play moves that are effective practically against your opponent. You are doing the opposite.

When I saw this position the first thing I thought was “How long would it take for Jeremy to forget his defense against the two Bishops?”. The answer was 31 seconds. Lol. 
Why are you even playing chess if you’re just going to ignore your opponents moves.

Devyourpieces. Another interesting example. Your position is lost on move 6. About 45 seconds into the game. That can only mean that you aren’t making any effort when you're determining what to play. You are just shuffling pieces.

Your entire opening phase looks like an unstructured mess. Your pieces are barely developed, probably because of moving your light squared Bishop 4 times (Ba6, Bxb5, Ba6 and Bxc4) and also 4 pawn moves. White has two pawns in the center, you aren’t castled yet, your Bishop is hanging and you have multiple pieces still passive on the back rank.

Why would you worry about stuff like that? That’s not how you play chess. Your brand of chess, good chess and useful chess, is to play after spending only 3 seconds. And you lost the game on the spot.

Arlekem vs jeremeydoody1. This is what I assume inspired Jeremy to write this topic cheese. And it’s also what triggered me to write this comment. I would never write such criticism unprovoked, I’m usually quite hesitant to offer criticism. But Jeremy keeps whining.

In this game his opponent played a rare 4. Ng5 (2%), 5. Nxf7. Then 6. Bc4+. In terms of opening traps, this is as aggressive as they come. It’s also quite risky because black has the stronger position and the higher winrate. As long as black is able to find Kg6. Or d5. Or Ke7. The only losing move is the natural looking move Ke8.

You played the wrong move, so you had already lost the game on move 7. You clearly aren’t playing good chess or useful chess. But that’s not what drives me insane. It’s that you refuse to spend more than 2 seconds on the position after Bc4+. Either you cannot understand the risk or maybe you feel it’s beneath you. If you don’t want to play chess, that’s your call but don’t complain about the way others play the game.

I am just being honest, if you find offbeat, chaotic rule breaking play irritating, that's likely the exact uncomfort zone you need to train in to break a plateau, its like doing individuation-shadow work on yourself.

Look at the Philidor Defense Queen Trade lines, it breaks all the rules and yet it is what black is hoping for because all the broken logic just works, its a Mirage for white. It may not be at the top of Hikaru's tier list but there is so much to learn in those positions. KG is supposedly unsound and "refutable", yet Judit Polgar played it up to becoming a GM. There is a clear psychological advantage when people feel irritated that you got away with playing "wrong", humans tilt in their uncomfort zones and there is nothing wrong with taking risks, creating chaos and playing inaccuracies to gain fresh positions.

Obviously the opposite is then true that overly-aggressive beginners, find sound positions irritating and they should practice it for improvement as stated by the first person.