NM, by move thirty white was totally lost. I doubt Rybka could defend the position after move 29 agianst a weak club player.
GREED IS BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sort:
Greed is good if you can defend, just ask Korchnoi.
Hahaha but greed is bad alot because humans aren't naturally tallented defenders. Attack is easy, but defense is very tough.
I can't agree with that, someone are natural defenders.
If you don't learn to defend, you'll never become a good player.
Profylaxe works wery well in chess (Kramnik-Kasparov)
"Cut the tigers teath and claws, and you can kill it with a smile"
I speak generally. Look at your chess games, you'll most likely find during computer analysis that in your lost games you defended worse than you attacked. Defense is generally harder to master than attack because the human mind doesn't like a passive, defensive position.
Oh, my mistake sir 
i think the computer analysis offered a winning line for black in there though.
lol general. tonydal stated that Bxc4 wins - does that count as computer analysis =P
although to those arguing that greed isn't bad, I think general's point is that he should have gone for equality with Rxe8 instead of grabbing the queen.
nice game =)
shuttlechess92 wrote:
lol general. tonydal stated that Bxc4 wins - does that count as computer analysis =P
although to those arguing that greed isn't bad, I think general's point is that he should have gone for equality with Rxe8 instead of grabbing the queen.
nice game =)
u call it gambling, i call it my sucky, two-move-deep, live-chess-esque analysis. nice game though =)
Ok, so in the last post that I showed a game i had the rare occurence of beating shuttlechess92. Now let's examine a loss of mine against him after i accepted a brilliant Q-sac.