+1
Signs you're a bad chess player
Sort:
you think "strategy" doesn't exist and/or, at best, is a nebulous superfluous unnecessary meaningless concept.
Sign you're a bad chess player:
You waste an hour debating over what your first move will be.
ponnupazoozu wrote:
zman1234 wrote:
Sign you're a bad chess player:
You waste an hour debating over what your first move will be.
bronstein comes close ...
Besides Bronstein, Rubinstein was noted for taking a long time on his first move.
Oct 13, 2011
0
#426
zman1234 wrote:
Signs you're a bad chess player:
1.You just checkmated your opponent, but don't know it.
2.You're the World Champion "Takeaway" player.
3.You pick a rook pawn as the best piece on the board.
I'm not sure I'd agree with #1, although, admittedly, it sure wouldn't make a player look good. However, a better sign of a bad chess player might be: "You routinely don't know when you've checkmated your opponent."
Of course, would such a bad player even be able to achieve checkmate at all? Ever? 
Oct 13, 2011
0
#427
BorgQueen wrote:
Yes.
I have checkmated an opponent when I thought it was only check. Twice actually.
That's a different situation, and much more understandable, I think. Sometimes if I'm in time pressure, or if I'm doing puzzles or drills, I'll be thinking really fast and see only that a move gives check, when in fact it's checkmate. Worse is not understanding that a move gives checkmate or check.
About 15 years ago, when I was playing against a new tabletop chess computer on a relatively low level (though it was high for me at the time, for I had only just begun my "serious" study of chess), I made a move with a Knight that I thought looked good, in order to give check. The computer immediately declared that I had won. I was pleasantly surprised! I was also intrigued, because I noticed that neither side had made a single capture! In my memory, that is the only "scoreless" game I've ever played.
Oct 13, 2011
0
#429
whirlwind2011 wrote:
BorgQueen wrote:
Yes.
I have checkmated an opponent when I thought it was only check. Twice actually.
That's a different situation, and much more understandable, I think. Sometimes if I'm in time pressure, or if I'm doing puzzles or drills, I'll be thinking really fast and see only that a move gives check, when in fact it's checkmate. Worse is not understanding that a move gives checkmate or check.
About 15 years ago, when I was playing against a new tabletop chess computer on a relatively low level (though it was high for me at the time, for I had only just begun my "serious" study of chess), I made a move with a Knight that I thought looked good, in order to give check. The computer immediately declared that I had won. I was pleasantly surprised! I was also intrigued, because I noticed that neither side had made a single capture! In my memory, that is the only "scoreless" game I've ever played.
Here's the set of moves for a recent game I had on the computer. It shocked me how quickly I achieved checkmate. Note that the computer was set to easy diffictlty.
1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qxa2 5. Rxa2 Nf6 6. Be3 Nxd4 7. Bxd4 Kd7 8. Bb5+ c6 9. Ba4 Kd6 10. Qf3 Bd7 11. Qf4+ Ke6 12. Nf3 a5 13. Ng5#
I would put into the chess position thing, but I don't know how it works so you're going to have to do this on your own.
F chuck norris
click here
BorgQueen wrote:
Yes.
I have checkmated an opponent when I thought it was only check. Twice actually.
Used to happen to me all the time vs. 900 opponents. I'd say "check," then upon seeing it was checkmate, excitedly add, "Wait! That's checkmate!"
BorgQueen wrote:
1. You could have acheived checkmate quicker. 12.Qe5 for example.
2. You should NOT be shocked at that.
Even the worst chess players wouldn't take on a2 with the queen on move 4, or march the king, deliberately, towards the centre and at the same time block his retreat. That computer wasn't set on easy. It was set on "gimme".
Even the worst chess players wouldn't take on a2 with the queen on move 4, or march the king, deliberately, towards the centre and at the same time block his retreat. That computer wasn't set on easy. It was set on "gimme".
I thought that too and was wondering if the chess computer involved had a 'Mentally Unsound' setting. I presume the glaring 12.Qe5 is the earlier checkmate or is there a different opportunity there that I just can't see?
nate23 wrote:
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
You enjoy debating whether bishops or knights are better.
do you think rooks or outposted knights are more valueable?
Depends on the rook and the outpost. If the rook is passive and already on the same file as the knight, and you can get a pawn with the knight, IMHO in most cases it is worth giving up your rook
Oh gawd! This thread just went serious! (Like going from light speed to ludicrous speed to PLAID!!!)
Javan64 wrote:
Oh gawd! This thread just went serious! (Like going from light speed to ludicrous speed to PLAID!!!)
OOH WHAT KIND OF PLAID?? :D LOL JK! XD
Infinity is unlimited..
zman1234 wrote:
Javan64 wrote:
Oh gawd! This thread just went serious! (Like going from light speed to ludicrous speed to PLAID!!!)
OOH WHAT KIND OF PLAID?? :D LOL JK! XD
It's a reference to 1 of the greatest movies ever made, "Spaceballs."
Oct 15, 2011
0
#439
frrixz wrote:
I am dismayed that no one here seems to know anything about infinity!
If I were forced to define "almost infinite," I would define it to mean an "arbitrarily large" finite number, to be used in the "real world," not in mathematics. Such a number is meant to be a true exaggeration. For example, Graham's number would be "almost infinite" if we are talking about money, since if we are, we might as well say it is infinite (for "practical" purposes only).
This makes no sense. There is no such thing as "almost infinite", in both the "real world" and mathematics. I understand that you are talking about numbers so large that we can scarcely fathom it, but any number can always be increased, and infinite can never be reached, and hence neither can "almost infinite".
After a series of complex opening moves you manage to execute a spectacular mate. On yourself.