I just called him something, and you seem to think that's raging? A right pair of kids. Now you may be trolls or whatever but that doesn't give you the right to dictate how I have to respond to you. You both showed that you can't play chess too well and then you both became angry. And that's what happened. Now goodnight. Past my bedtime.
How do you find a good move in calm positions where there are no "obvious" moves to play?
Sort:
Feb 26, 2020
0
#43
Optimissed wrote:
He even told me I was arguing with Carlsen, so now he's claiming to be Carlsen? He has the logical ability of a demented octopus.
Hmm, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because I've seen you on the forums for a long time, but now I can't tell if you're being stupid purposefully or accidentally... which mean it's time to say goodbye.
It's just that I always thought the idea of "mysterious rook moves" is really pompous. Just slightly deep, that's all.
A bit like Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" when all the time he thought that the entirety of quantum physics is pre-determined by hidden "variables". He held back the progress of physics by ten years or more. That meant the Germans hadn't invented the A-bomb before WWII so it worked out OK I suppose.
Yes, he flew off the handle. It's amazing what two well-placed words can do online. Suppose you lot aren't exactly as experienced. I've been spotting pompous people and winding them up for over 15 years. Used to get me blocked a lot.
Goodbye. You're the same as each other. Basically I said I don't like the idea of mysterious rook moves so he got all annoyed and started calling me stuff, and he posted a game of Bronstein's. So I took a look at it and found the winning sequence pretty quickly, because it was obvious. There was only one potential sequence which was to bust it open and get a very active rook which produces a central pawn majority. So what am I supposed to do? Say oh yes he was right? The truth is that you're all pretty odd to judge others by your own low standards. And that's all there is to it because I don't really care if you like me or not. I don't know who you are .... I don't want to either .... I just know you're all trolls and you're not interesting or intelligent or even funny. So ..... might be a good idea if you all didn't hold yourselves in such high esteem and try to beat down other people. That's why I called you what I called you.
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I just called him a moron, and you seem to think that's raging? I think you're crazy as well. A right pair of kids. Now you may be trolls or whatever but that doesn't give you the right to dictate how I have to respond to you. You both showed that you can't play chess too well and then you both became angry. And that's what happened. Now goodnight. Past my bedtime.
You're welcome to lose to me if you climb over 2200 rating, I don't play anyone beneath that.
I've been 2225 on this site and 2250 on another. I wouldn't want to play you because I don't like you. 
Anyway I'm not as strong as that now.
Reading what you three have written, I'm wondering how old you are and how come you get to be so completely conceited, as if you really think you are the only bright stars in the sky. Honestly, I don't care what you think of me but you made fools of yourselves, then got annoyed because I easily solved your little chess puzzle in a short time and now you're all swamping the place with posts in the hope that someone is going to read them and think you won your silly little trolling games. All you have done, really, is to cause me to have contempt for you .... not for the initial bit of foolishness but how you're responding now .... just like trolls.
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
If you can decide on a best square for your rooks then your opponent will likely play something else and your "better square" became worse.
You decide on the best square for the first rook and this takes into account that your opponent will try to "play something else" and that's the whole idea. Sometimes it takes three rook moves to place your rooks on the best squares. Always have something lined up, if possible. That's the beauty of slow otb chess. Use the time well and outplay the opponent. It's only mysterious to people who think that everybody but them is a fool. And it's clear that you three cowboys think that.
Well it's now 3:50 am here so goodnight.
Please stop this childishness...
Feb 27, 2020
0
#53
What i have learned since starting this thread is that i need to increase my knowledge in strategy & positional play to know what to do next time i end up in a similar situation. I've downloaded the Play Winning Chess & Weapons Of Chess books. On my future to-do list is going through Amateurs Mind book. I'll take another look at possible plans for both sides that some of you provided earlier in the thread.
WSama wrote:
Analysis aside, game well played. You lasted 50 moves against a much higher rated opponent, and you kept your pieces.
llamonade2 wrote:
I'm surprised there's a 400 point gap. I thought you play just as well as him. Good job
Thanks, but playing well is not enough, i want to win also!
@kaukasar -
As for mysterious rook moves, perhaps check out the endgame section in the following blog article containing resources specific to rook endgames...
Improving Your Chess - Resources for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/improving-your-chess-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond
also lots of chess book recommendations in the following article, including a couple of books on rook endings....
Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
If you can decide on a best square for your rooks then your opponent will likely play something else and your "better square" became worse.
You decide on the best square for the first rook and this takes into account that your opponent will try to "play something else" and that's the whole idea. Sometimes it takes three rook moves to place your rooks on the best squares. Always have something lined up, if possible. That's the beauty of slow otb chess. Use the time well and outplay the opponent. It's only mysterious to people who think that everybody but them is a fool. And it's clear that you three cowboys think that.
If you peaked at 2200 this is a topic that you still need to learn a lot about, my friend.
Well, my friend, I can assure you I would have done a fair bit better if it wasn't for the fact that I learned chess at the age of 36. Before that, I only knew the moves. I had never studied the game or played competitively. Given your response to my perfectly intelligible post, in which I politely gave my opinion, I'm left wondering if you will ever achieve the ability to behave well in polite society. Doesn't look like it.
Optimissed wrote:
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
If you can decide on a best square for your rooks then your opponent will likely play something else and your "better square" became worse.
You decide on the best square for the first rook and this takes into account that your opponent will try to "play something else" and that's the whole idea. Sometimes it takes three rook moves to place your rooks on the best squares. Always have something lined up, if possible. That's the beauty of slow otb chess. Use the time well and outplay the opponent. It's only mysterious to people who think that everybody but them is a fool. And it's clear that you three cowboys think that.
If you peaked at 2200 this is a topic that you still need to learn a lot about, my friend.
Well, my friend, I can assure you I would have done a fair bit better if it wasn't for the fact that I learned chess at the age of 36. Before that, I only knew the moves. I had never studied the game or played competitively. Given your response to my perfectly intelligible post, in which I politely gave my opinion, I'm left wondering if you will ever achieve the ability to behave well in polite society. Doesn't look like it. I also genuinely think that you come across as stupid, although I'm not proposing a vote on it. But what you certainly are is conceited. Now good day sir!
I'm sure you'll improve fast with how hard your willing to work. Books are great. My suggestion would be to find a club with humans to play with. Getting your butt whooped by a stronger human willing to go over the game afterwards is a key way to improve.
Feb 27, 2020
0
#58
ArtNJ wrote:
I'm sure you'll improve fast with how hard your willing to work. Books are great. My suggestion would be to find a club with humans to play with. Getting your butt whooped by a stronger human willing to go over the game afterwards is a key way to improve.
Advance pieces, set up strategy. Keep control of the center squares.
Feb 27, 2020
0
#60
Optimissed wrote:
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
If you can decide on a best square for your rooks then your opponent will likely play something else and your "better square" became worse.
You decide on the best square for the first rook and this takes into account that your opponent will try to "play something else" and that's the whole idea. Sometimes it takes three rook moves to place your rooks on the best squares. Always have something lined up, if possible. That's the beauty of slow otb chess. Use the time well and outplay the opponent. It's only mysterious to people who think that everybody but them is a fool. And it's clear that you three cowboys think that.
If you peaked at 2200 this is a topic that you still need to learn a lot about, my friend.
Well, my friend, I can assure you I would have done a fair bit better if it wasn't for the fact that I learned chess at the age of 36. Before that, I only knew the moves. I had never studied the game or played competitively. Given your response to my perfectly intelligible post, in which I politely gave my opinion, I'm left wondering if you will ever achieve the ability to behave well in polite society. Doesn't look like it.
You started playing chess at 36 and peaked at 2200 elo?? That is mightily impressive!! You must be a mega talent. I've started playing chess at an age of 36 too, and now, 2.5 years later i am still struggling to make it to 1400 despite putting lots of effort into improving...
He even told me I was arguing with Carlsen, so now he's claiming to be Carlsen? He has the logical ability of a demented octopus.