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.
How do you find a good move in calm positions where there are no "obvious" moves to play?
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.
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...
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.
Analysis aside, game well played. You lasted 50 moves against a much higher rated opponent, and you kept your pieces.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
Well, it isn't quite accurate either. At my strongest otb I was playing at 2100 FIDE equivalent for quite long streaks but I was playing too much chess and I used to crack up at some point in a chess season. The highest otb grade I ever held was I think 171 ecf which was about 1970 FIDE equivalent back then. But I was a much stronger blitz player (5 minutes per player) and held my own against people with an ecf equivalent to 2200. Years ago, I had another account here and also in another well-known site, both of which became dormant and were closed at the time my mother died and it was quite a few years later I came back and opened this account. I'd intended only to play for a month or two but started to enjoy it here. In Daily chess here I peaked at 2125 but in the account I had years ago, about 2225 and 2250 or so at the other site, but that's really correspondence chess.
My late younger brother was a talented musician. Much more talented at music than I am at chess. Please listen to one of his songs from SoundCloud. He does everything himself. I love the musical jokes where he pretends to miss the timing slightly.
https://soundcloud.com/red-heylin/urban-primitive
You're sorry? I'd be reasonably pleased, although it's best not to be a troll, all things considered. Nobody is all that bothered about what trolls think, the judgements they form, etc.
Judging by everything you have said over the past 24 hours including all your projections of your inadequacies onto others, despite possibly being good at chess, you have a personality disorder. Now do try to go away, there's a good fellow.
I think the both of you are good enough for each other to be honest.
Anyone that is "a lot stronger than 2200" is at least an FM and probably an IM or (struggling not to laugh) GM. You'd be at the book-writing level. Yet 69AlphaMale109 makes bizarrely ignorant statements like strong players not needing to study theory or claiming he came up with 11. Ng5 in the Open independently of Karpov, some joke.
You gave yourself away with those comments pal, there is no going back from them, no takebacks, no becoming a believable high rated fictional character. Meanwhile you didn't offer the slightest real contribution or analysis like an actually good player would (hate to give you tips for future trolling attempts but I'm just establishing it for any onlookers here).
Maybe in Malawi Chess Federation perhaps they have yahoo-style chess ratings you may have over 2200, nowhere in the real world.
This is all you need to know....
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.