My goal in "competitive" online chess

I guess one of the reasons I'm still on this site is daily chess and having "way too much free time". Other than that, there's a goal of mine for competitive online chess... Actually, two of them:

- Play at such a level that most idiotic traps, lines and general ways of playing are not used anymore and I can have truly interesting games.

- Play at such a level that I can make a lot of subpar moves and still win most of the time, without any real effort.

So, I guess, in a way, I want to be so good at chess that I don't need to think about chess to play online against non titled players. I'm pretty sure I'll never get to that point, but it's interesting that those are the only goals that keep me from abandoning "competitive" online chess altogether.

One of the characteristics of my personality is that, I value learning and I don't mind putting in the work, but only under very specific conditions that online chess obviously does not afford... but OTB does. I'll put it in the "work", but I will not enjoy the journey. There is very little that's enjoyable about being a beginner at anything, and much less so in chess.

Anyways, enough about me... what are your goals in online chess?

Just keep believing and you can do it!

Your 2 goals seem contradictory to me. You want "interesting" games but want to play "without any real effort"? How can chess be interesting if you're barely paying attention?

If you're a good player, you can play good chess without much effort. That's the good thing about being good at something. At some point, you can do it almost automatically.

I can identify with what you are saying about wanting to reach a level where there is more "respect"... But the way to get there is paved with tricky openings, all the way from 500 up to 3000... If you get hit by something that you know is bad, you must analyze it and understand what confuses you about it... Only then you will improve...  I, for example, sometimes have great success punishing early Queen out by my opponent, and there are some players who are just amazing at avoiding getting punished... I think it's a big part of the beauty of chess... If someone plays 1.d4, you can play Englund Gambit, saying "I am going to play something bad, let's see you prove it's bad, mr. d4 solid boring game man...". If it's considered bad, but you can't prove it's bad, then... well... you can't call it bad, let's put it mildly.

My goal is to have all my ratings (rapid, blitz, bullet) at the same level... I'd be happy with 1600... I'm now 1500 bullet (dirty flagger, fast and very stupid)... approx 1400 rapid, and very bad at blitz... So I'd like to become more composed and solid at blitz...

Sure, people have played the Englund gambit against me quite a bit. I've blocked several players who have done that. I don't tolerate that nonsense. That's the type of thing that makes me think of quitting online chess. I can't care enough for a gambit that wouldn't be played OTB.

Perhaps ask yourself what it is about Englund Gambit that makes you refuse to learn from it, choosing to "block" lol... Maybe it forces you to admit that you can not prove it's bad, like the OTB, sound player you want to be?  You won't be able to reach the level where people don't play it if you don't confront it... 

GM Aman Hambleton has played his tricky Queen Sacrifice line OTB and drew... GM Dubov has played Englund OTB and drew... Also there are several recorded Black victories in OTB Englund Gambit games... Of course it is rare... Top GMs won't risk their ratings on it, but some 2400s do... Check the master database... 

I dislike what the Englund gambit implies in online chess, which is what you brilliantly summarized... "I am going to play something bad, let's see you prove it's bad, mr. d4 solid boring game man..." Perfectly valid, fairly understandable, also I take it as an insult As you can imagine, some days I take insults better than some other days...

You don't think I deserve your best if you play the Englund against me. Fine. If I'm not in the mood for it, you'll get blocked. OTB, I've yet to face more even a hundredth of the number of Englund gambits I've faced online. Waste of time (which I still have a lot of, hence why I play online).

Surely there are a lot of tricky nonsensical lines that get played OTB, including the Englund gambit. Now... the point is, if someone is willing to play OTB and lose official rating on it, I can respect it, but online chess... well... let's say it encourages this nonsense.

Its perfectly "sensical", as you are proving with each comment more and more.

Move 2, you are already "Insulted"... This insult is worth the pawn, because it's already 1-0, psychologically... It puts you in the position you must prove that you DID deserve "his best", and that your opponent will regret not playing QGD... That's pressure...

Anyways, I meant not to insult you but to explain that facing it is anything but a waste of time... If you want to reach your goal, to reach a level where most people play standard theory.

Yes, if your idea in playing chess is to make your opponent feel insulted... of course you're going to go for the Englund or the Scholar's mate, or the Anderssen opening (1.a3) (like 2 of my opponents in the past 2 days, whom I promptly blocked after the game was over and told them I was going to do it as soon as they played that move). You, like many others, make perfect use of a weapon in many competitive sports/games, which is to make the opponent uncomfortable. Is it legal? Sure. Is it ethical? Sure. Do I have to play to "prove their opening choice is crap"? In an OTB official game... sure. Online? Well, probably not, unless I want to (and I don't want to). I respect people who play chess daringly OTB as they do online. But those are rare the lower you are in the rating ladder.

Meh at my level I rarely see englund or anything, and I can win blitz games without thinking. There are others who can beat me without thinking... so have I achieved your goals?

Question is... why don't you want to? Why does this actually insult you? You can also see it in another way, if someone plays Englund against you, maybe they themselves are afraid of real 1.d4 theory? (me)... So maybe that's a way of approaching it from a position of strength...

I am pretty good against the London, and I can grind a Nimzo Victory sometimes... I do play 1.Nf6 as my main response to 1. d4... The reason I play the Englund from time to time is I like to challenge myself... It's not easy to play, and most people do not fall in to the traps at all... 

Maybe... I don't intend to win every game. If you have fun and feel OK with your level of play without concentrating deeply, you have achieved what I want.

btw.... Scholars mate is just really just stupid... Queen out so early is very easy to punish if you study how to...  Englund Gambit is much deeper and layered... Also 1.a3/h3 has been played by Magnus, you know...  For exactly the same aim of psychological advantage...  His way of approaching it was "I want to show that it dosen't REALLY matter what you play in the opening... more the middle game"... 

Concentrating deeply is the essence of chess... atleast to get to a level where you know alot of theory and / or have better overall instinct that allows you to think less - you will have to think deeply for many many classical / rapid games to get there... My bottom line is - your goal is a bit paradoxical. 

Why does it feel insulting? Well... you do know it's a bad opening that most likely you wouldn't play in a serious game... (maybe you would, though, considering that you might be afraid (?) of theory). So, knowing it's a bad opening you want to win by "tricking" me. I dislike that type of playing style, unless it's universal (and sometimes not even then). I have had many experiences with players online only playing idiotic against me and not against similarly rated players. I consider that a slight. Maybe if I hadn't been bullied in chess by so many egotistical (look at me tricking this *noob*!) players, I would not take as an insult, but that ship has sailed.

As I said in a previous message. Many of those lines have been played OTB in serious chess, but very rarely. In online chess you find them with "astonishing frequency". You rarely gain anything from a study on how to "refute" that kind of stuff as an amateur. It serves no purpose in most chess journeys.

I guess I have then...

Haha yeah OTB it took me a lot of effort to not hang pieces before covid hit...

The only reason such things are not played OTB is because it is assumed everyone knows how to refute it or can refute it OTB. This is not true for beginners, so it is still an effective weapon and necessary part of their journey.