And since we have reached this milestone , I honour @wornaki with the Mr troll trophy on behalf of all fellow members.
When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal
Sort:
Dec 17, 2020
0
#863
JeffGreen333 wrote:
wornaki wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
I agree. Blitz is mostly about memorization and speed. If you haven't memorized your openings yet, then you should be playing rapid, classical or daily games, not blitz. Blitz won't help you improve. You're just going to make the same mistakes over and over again. Buy books, watch free online lessons on YouTube, do the free Tactics Trainers and Puzzle Rushes on here and play longer time controls. Then all of your etiquette ideas won't come into play as much, because you'll be able to crush all gambits and cheapo tactics.
I could, but I don't want to play any of that (except for daily, that I do play). Interestingly enough (lol), there are far less annoying cheapo loving wannabes in daily games. In any case, what I do is besides the point of my original post and besides the main point of my original message.
Yeah, but in a daily game, you'll have plenty of time to study the cheapo and find a good reputation for it. Being able to do that is what chess is all about. It's not about memorizing opening lines. It's about being able to figure out a position and come up with the best move on your own.
If you play daily with any degree of care, YES. The way I play daily, not really. But that's my own "issue"
wornaki wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Many top players played like that religiously. Morphy, Tal and Kasparov ... just to name a few.
Good for them. They were/are great players. So what?
Would you block Kasparov?
Dec 17, 2020
0
#865
wornaki does make one valid point: there are a lot of ad hominem attacks, irrelevant bs, egoistic posing and general all-around snarkiness going on on this site. Yes, he contributes some of it himself but his point about lack of politeness seems obvious from reading these comments.
However, he doesn't consider that at his level many of his opponents do NOT KNOW that they are in a lost position. The polite thing to do would be to show them that they are lost. This will educate them and hopefully contribute to better-quality play.
Consider that some people may see a gambit in a lesson or have it used against them and try it out in a lot of blitz games in order to see what kind of defenses other players try, how successful the gambit might be and whether they might wish to add it to their repetoire.
Sad to say, (because I make too many tactical mistakes) tactics is 90% of the game. No matter how vast your opening knowledge and grasp of positional principles, you must be able to play the best moves in the optimum order to succeed.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#866
JeffGreen333 wrote:
wornaki wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Many top players played like that religiously. Morphy, Tal and Kasparov ... just to name a few.
Good for them. They were/are great players. So what?
Would you block Kasparov?
No, and I wouldn't block Tal or Morphy or Anderssen or Eric Rosen or anyone of that caliber.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#867
mpaetz wrote:
wornaki does make one valid point: there are a lot of ad hominem attacks, irrelevant bs, egoistic posing and general all-around snarkiness going on on this site. Yes, he contributes some of it himself but his point about lack of politeness seems obvious from reading these comments.
However, he doesn't consider that at his level many of his opponents do NOT KNOW that they are in a lost position. The polite thing to do would be to show them that they are lost. This will educate them and hopefully contribute to better-quality play.
Consider that some people may see a gambit in a lesson or have it used against them and try it out in a lot of blitz games in order to see what kind of defenses other players try, how successful the gambit might be and whether they might wish to add it to their repetoire.
Sad to say, (because I make too many tactical mistakes) tactics is 90% of the game. No matter how vast your opening knowledge and grasp of positional principles, you must be able to play the best moves in the optimum order to succeed.
Thank you for that message. I have tried (despite my flaws and snarky comments too) to tone down the inflammatory stuff. I think I've stated my opinions eloquently.
With regards to gambit, I admit many want to try stuff in blitz. Strong players do the same. It's part of the deal. However, in as much as players are not doing anything wrong by playing gambits (or anything worse than playing some of them, anyway), I don't really have to go for that myself (as in acquiesce to that several times).
As for the importance of tactics... I am the first to admit their importance. However, I simply disagree with the underlying dogmatic statement that goes "90% of chess is tactics" or similar ones. While I do believe tactics are essential, I dislike tactical play (which I find mostly irritating-a matter of preference) and I think beginners are usually told way too much to do tactical training without any degree of relationship to their own play. Just purely tactical training (like solving puzzles, which we could quiver and discuss about being training, if we so wished).
wornaki wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
wornaki does make one valid point: there are a lot of ad hominem attacks, irrelevant bs, egoistic posing and general all-around snarkiness going on on this site. Yes, he contributes some of it himself but his point about lack of politeness seems obvious from reading these comments.
However, he doesn't consider that at his level many of his opponents do NOT KNOW that they are in a lost position. The polite thing to do would be to show them that they are lost. This will educate them and hopefully contribute to better-quality play.
Consider that some people may see a gambit in a lesson or have it used against them and try it out in a lot of blitz games in order to see what kind of defenses other players try, how successful the gambit might be and whether they might wish to add it to their repetoire.
Sad to say, (because I make too many tactical mistakes) tactics is 90% of the game. No matter how vast your opening knowledge and grasp of positional principles, you must be able to play the best moves in the optimum order to succeed.
Thank you for that message. I have tried (despite my flaws and snarky comments too) to tone down the inflammatory stuff. I think I've stated my opinions eloquently.
With regards to gambit, I admit many want to try stuff in blitz. Strong players do the same. It's part of the deal. However, in as much as players are not doing anything wrong by playing gambits (or anything worse than playing some of them, anyway), I don't really have to go for that myself (as in acquiesce to that several times).
As for the importance of tactics... I am the first to admit their importance. However, I simply disagree with the underlying dogmatic statement that goes "90% of chess is tactics" or similar ones. While I do believe tactics are essential, I dislike tactical play (which I find mostly irritating-a matter of preference) and I think beginners are usually told way too much to do tactical training without any degree of relationship to their own play. Just purely tactical training (like solving puzzles, which we could quiver and discuss about being training, if we so wished).
What about combinations? How do you feel about people who, rather sneakily, use combinations?
wornaki wrote:
The point is, in many gambit lines, you are forced to memorize variations as many sound opening principles are thrown out the window precisely because of the gambit. If you make an otherwise sound move and it's not the "corrrect" one, you end up in a trap and lose. And I don't mind losing, but I like my online chess experience to be more "mainstream" if you will. I don't care to play people who are "wired" to go for that nonsense.
I strongly disagree. I never memorize gambit variations more than one or two moves deep (after the gambit). For example, I play the Sicilian Defense and occasionally someone will whip out the Smith-Morra Gambit. All I need to memorize is: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3. Then I can play my usual opening moves after that and there are no traps. The key is to develop your pieces quickly and get castled quickly. Then you will be up a pawn and white has no compensation for it. Easy peasy. Something like: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 d6 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6 7. 0-0 Be7 8. Qe2 a6 9. Rd1 Qc7 10. Bf4 Nf6 11. Rac1 0-0. I used solid opening principles, played cautiously and defensively and got castled before he could get any compensation for the pawn.
How bout evan's gambit? There are a lot of legit and non-dubious gambits out there
Dec 17, 2020
0
#871
Optimissed wrote:
Perhaps this conversation will prompt a change of attitude where you resolve to try to make some progress towards understanding bits of chess play that at the moment don't seem attractive to you, by attempting it in very small doses.
Maybe it will aid understanding, but I doubt it will change preferences.
Optimissed wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Ok, I've never seen that one before. However, I no longer play 1. Nf3 and have never played 1. f5 for black, so I will probably never see that gambit in a game. 2. e4 is unsound, according to Stockfish. It suggests 3. Ng5 as the most solid response after 2. fxe4 though.
I believe that Stockfish isn't all that good at sharp positions. I spent a couple of seasons playing 1. Nf3 in the mid 90s, just before I took up with 1. d4. Back then, that gambit was considered better for white but since then, defences have been found. It's probably about equal with best play. Yes, white plays 3. Ng5 and it's quite brutal unless black is aware of how to defend.
I also played 1. Nf3 for a few years, back in the 90's, but I never followed it up with 2. e4. I used to play a 1. Nf3 system and transposed into the King's Indian Attack, the Colle System, the Queen's Gambit Declined, the Dutch or the Nimzovitch-Larsen Attack, depending on what black played. I gave it up after a few players tore my KIA a new one. lol
Dec 17, 2020
0
#873
acceptablecheddar wrote:
How bout evan's gambit? There are a lot of legit and non-dubious gambits out there
There's a lot of legit gambits. Many of the ones that I was referring to aren't the legit non dubious type.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#874
lfPatriotGames wrote:
wornaki wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
wornaki does make one valid point: there are a lot of ad hominem attacks, irrelevant bs, egoistic posing and general all-around snarkiness going on on this site. Yes, he contributes some of it himself but his point about lack of politeness seems obvious from reading these comments.
However, he doesn't consider that at his level many of his opponents do NOT KNOW that they are in a lost position. The polite thing to do would be to show them that they are lost. This will educate them and hopefully contribute to better-quality play.
Consider that some people may see a gambit in a lesson or have it used against them and try it out in a lot of blitz games in order to see what kind of defenses other players try, how successful the gambit might be and whether they might wish to add it to their repetoire.
Sad to say, (because I make too many tactical mistakes) tactics is 90% of the game. No matter how vast your opening knowledge and grasp of positional principles, you must be able to play the best moves in the optimum order to succeed.
Thank you for that message. I have tried (despite my flaws and snarky comments too) to tone down the inflammatory stuff. I think I've stated my opinions eloquently.
With regards to gambit, I admit many want to try stuff in blitz. Strong players do the same. It's part of the deal. However, in as much as players are not doing anything wrong by playing gambits (or anything worse than playing some of them, anyway), I don't really have to go for that myself (as in acquiesce to that several times).
As for the importance of tactics... I am the first to admit their importance. However, I simply disagree with the underlying dogmatic statement that goes "90% of chess is tactics" or similar ones. While I do believe tactics are essential, I dislike tactical play (which I find mostly irritating-a matter of preference) and I think beginners are usually told way too much to do tactical training without any degree of relationship to their own play. Just purely tactical training (like solving puzzles, which we could quiver and discuss about being training, if we so wished).
What about combinations? How do you feel about people who, rather sneakily, use combinations?
I'm not a fan of combinations. I have a deep fondness for cramped slow play.
wornaki wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
You don't have to memorize the entire variation, 7-10 moves deep though. If you understand chess opening principles (center control, piece development, king safety, etc), then all you'll have to remember is 1. d4 e5 2. d3 and then you can wing it from there.
2.d3? What? My point is that to memorize a non forced variation for about 7-10 moves at this level just because I may find an opponent who is a cheapo loving wannabe is a waste of effort.
Sorry, I meant 2. e3. Since you hate gambits, why not decline the gambit with 2. e3 and get them out of their book prep? It's not the most aggressive move, but sometimes psychology is better than strongest play. Also, you can follow it up with normal developing moves, so it eliminates the need to memorize variations. That's why I play it. My memory sucks now, but my opening principles are strong and my strategy is still pretty good.
wornaki wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
wornaki wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
wornaki does make one valid point: there are a lot of ad hominem attacks, irrelevant bs, egoistic posing and general all-around snarkiness going on on this site. Yes, he contributes some of it himself but his point about lack of politeness seems obvious from reading these comments.
However, he doesn't consider that at his level many of his opponents do NOT KNOW that they are in a lost position. The polite thing to do would be to show them that they are lost. This will educate them and hopefully contribute to better-quality play.
Consider that some people may see a gambit in a lesson or have it used against them and try it out in a lot of blitz games in order to see what kind of defenses other players try, how successful the gambit might be and whether they might wish to add it to their repetoire.
Sad to say, (because I make too many tactical mistakes) tactics is 90% of the game. No matter how vast your opening knowledge and grasp of positional principles, you must be able to play the best moves in the optimum order to succeed.
Thank you for that message. I have tried (despite my flaws and snarky comments too) to tone down the inflammatory stuff. I think I've stated my opinions eloquently.
With regards to gambit, I admit many want to try stuff in blitz. Strong players do the same. It's part of the deal. However, in as much as players are not doing anything wrong by playing gambits (or anything worse than playing some of them, anyway), I don't really have to go for that myself (as in acquiesce to that several times).
As for the importance of tactics... I am the first to admit their importance. However, I simply disagree with the underlying dogmatic statement that goes "90% of chess is tactics" or similar ones. While I do believe tactics are essential, I dislike tactical play (which I find mostly irritating-a matter of preference) and I think beginners are usually told way too much to do tactical training without any degree of relationship to their own play. Just purely tactical training (like solving puzzles, which we could quiver and discuss about being training, if we so wished).
What about combinations? How do you feel about people who, rather sneakily, use combinations?
I'm not a fan of combinations. I have a deep fondness for cramped slow play.
Most mate in 3,4,5 involve a combination that could start with something like the greak gift.
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
I got the 1000th post
It looks like you fought for it, with your 3 posts in a row. Congrats? lol
wornaki wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
wornaki wrote:
The thing that I dislike about 1.d4 e5 and other similar stuff at my level in online blitz is that it's all about seeing how you can make someone fall for your trap. One thing is opening prep, which can go a long way and be quite forcing and be played at your own risk OTB. Quite another thing is the cheapo loving tactician "I've watched a couple of videos on gambits and I want to make people fall for a trap" wannabes. Those are usually quite annoying. Not because of the result. I couldn't care less about the result. What I dislike is their attitude. It's not that they want to play a line that's unsound because they assume the risk of it being refuted on a longer time control, what they want is to get the "high" of annoying an opponent in a faster time control. Their idea is not to play chess, but to play exclusively for traps, tricks and cheapos that are "memorized". Those players are the type that go "Oh, I get wins because nobody can refute my gambits/unsound lines" instead of being the players I would like to face, the ones that go "I play better chess than you and I win".
Then play 1. d4 e5 2. d3 exd4 3. exd4 d5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Qe2ch Qe7 7. QxQch (the Englund Gambit Declined). It's a bit drawish, but it will get them out of their prep. You can also play this variation of the Englund Gambit Accepted, if you want to go for the kill .... 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nxe5 5. e4 c6 6. NxNe5 QxNe5 7. Bd3 Bc5 8. Qe2 d6 9. Be3
You do realize that many players won't play those lines and that they are not "forced", right? Why waste time memorizing opening refutations at my level? It's useless. A win or a draw or a loss will not do anything for my online chess experience. Not facing players who play that nonsense, on the contrary, will do a lot for me.
DUDE. This entire forum is about you pleading ppl to resign, and you don't even care if you win or not. WHAT IS THIS LOGIC
I bet @wornaki isn't even going to answer it and ignore it.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#880
Perhaps we have different definitions of tactics. Tactics are inherent in every move. You can't play a "positional" move, no matter how much it may improve your long-term prospects if it results in a decisive loss of material or sets up a strong attack on your king. You are calculating tactics all the time whether or not you realize it, and if you miscalculate you will wind up in trouble.
I agree. Blitz is mostly about memorization and speed. If you haven't memorized your openings yet, then you should be playing rapid, classical or daily games, not blitz. Blitz won't help you improve. You're just going to make the same mistakes over and over again. Buy books, watch free online lessons on YouTube, do the free Tactics Trainers and Puzzle Rushes on here and play longer time controls. Then all of your etiquette ideas won't come into play as much, because you'll be able to crush all gambits and cheapo tactics.
I could, but I don't want to play any of that (except for daily, that I do play). Interestingly enough (lol), there are far less annoying cheapo loving wannabes in daily games. In any case, what I do is besides the point of my original post and besides the main point of my original message.
Yeah, but in a daily game, you'll have plenty of time to study the cheapo and find a good refutation for it. Being able to do that is what chess is all about. It's not about memorizing opening lines. It's about being able to figure out a position and come up with the best move on your own.