while I'm not going to dive too deep into this the first mistake i saw in your game was your opening.
you played 3.f5 which there is no point in that move I recommend 3.bf5
while I'm not going to dive too deep into this the first mistake i saw in your game was your opening.
you played 3.f5 which there is no point in that move I recommend 3.bf5
Yeah and Noodles was kind enough to point that out during gameplay. He's a good ol guy. Maybe "consistently" overstates matters. Thanks!
p.s. if you're bored, please check out my likely loss to walterz. Might take a few days to finish as we're half a world away.
if you want to study it better here is a video that helped me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmbU97iftC8&t=11s
He says it's a "breakdown of the theory" but he never stops to explain the rationale of each line. Great in any case. Usually I play videos 1.25x. You have to play Gotham at .75 speed.
Is there a way to set up analysis such that robot conditionally plays a set of lines like this -- are you familiar with the gameplay Conditional Moves feature? Sometimes I'll practice with robot and just resign if he doesn't play a line I want to memorize, waiting for it to present moves I want to learn to defend. Thanks -- keep the advice a-comin if you have time. Walterz picked me apart ![]()
you can set it up in the analysis with custom position and play against computer
you will always make the first move btw.
I've risen from 750 - 1100 abruptly, consistently beating or holding my own against higher-rated players. Right now I'm getting my arse kicked by a much lower-rated player.
I assume variance among beginners is high while master play is more predictable: players generally finish based on ranking with little variation, like tennis players. Beginner chess is more like golf. Is there evidence to back this up?
In my defense, I backtracked moves and still don't know where I went wrong. Can't wait to see report, it won't be pretty.