learningthemoves wrote:
Likhit1 wrote:
learningthemoves wrote:
Eh, e4 loses.
Yes,I agree.Black loses after e4.
Not at all.
Pawn down for nothing.It's still not lost?Wow.
How to Defeat a Chess Expert...
Sort:
Jun 5, 2014
0
#43
No betickled, there is plenty of reason to respond to the game, just not in any critical nature. The only trolls on the thread are those who couldn't stand to see the result and felt it their forsworn duty to attack the winner.
btickler wrote:
This is a troll thread. No point in responding to the game.
Not sure if it can be called a 'troll' thread unless the term 'troll' has been expeanded to include the terms 'thickheaded' and 'arrogant'.
But, I can agree, there is no point in responding to it.
Jun 5, 2014
0
#45
Yeah every single one of the punks who were arrogant and thickheaded enough to defy me on my showcase thread could be considered trollish.
And if all they wanna do is troll like that, then there is no point in responding.
However, if they want to appreciate the game or learn subtle strategies for defeating much higher ranked opponents, then that's the point of the game on showcase.
Lol,this guy thinks we are being critical of his moves because he won the game,lol.Some people just can't accept that they made a mistake.You'll go very far my friend.
Jun 5, 2014
0
#47
Lol, this guy thinks I couldn't accept making a mistake when the grandmaster analysis proved I didn't make a mistake. What's really funny are the people who can't accept the fact that someone can play a game without making a mistake.
Yes, I will go far. I've gone far many times in many ways and will again. It's not really a big deal though. No big step for a stepper.
learningthemoves wrote:
Lol, this guy thinks I couldn't accept making a mistake when the grandmaster analysis proved I didn't make a mistake. What's really funny are the people who can't accept the fact that someone can play a game without making a mistake.
Yes, I will go far. I've gone far many times in many ways and will again. It's not really a big deal though.
Super GM analysis thinks you made a mistake,now you surely don't think a GM is superior to a Super GM,right?
Jun 5, 2014
0
#49
Its not bad to make mistakes, but it is bad not to understand the own mistakes. No chance to improve...
Jun 5, 2014
0
#50
The whole point wasn't if I made a mistake or not (I didn't, it was only considered an inaccuracy because engines didn't see the human strategy involved that ultimately proved to win), but the point was I defeated a chess expert and the strategy used to do it.
There's nothing to argue about really.
If you don't think there's any merit to the strategy or the result it created, that's fine. Don't be aware of it.
Insist it was "luck" and that there's nothing to it. The world will continue to spin on its axis and all will be well.
Or, if you believe there is value in the strategy, then that's great too. I hope you enjoyed it.
To be quite honest, it just really doesn't make a difference to me. You see, I'm more of a creator than a critic anyway.
I am used to letting the critics do their thing. Meanwhile, I just keep creating and enjoy the rewards of being a creator.
Criticize away! After all, it takes almost as much skill to criticize someone's achievement as it does to naysay someone who hasn't achieved it yet. 
Jun 5, 2014
0
#51
Till_98 wrote:
Its not bad to make mistakes, but it is bad not to understand the own mistakes. No chance to improve...
Exactly!
I hope those people who made the mistake of not realizing how the pawn sac cost white time will learn from that mistake so they can improve. Chances are though, they won't.
kleelof wrote:
btickler wrote:
This is a troll thread. No point in responding to the game.
Not sure if it can be called a 'troll' thread unless the term 'troll' has been expeanded to include the terms 'thickheaded' and 'arrogant'.
But, I can agree, there is no point in responding to it.
The OP is well known troll that has just lain low for a while. He's been here a while and knows full well that the analysis from chess.com's computer is garbage. There are plenty of clues that this is a trolling thread based no how he argues his points.
He wasn't a very good troll then, he's not a very good troll now ;).
learningthemoves wrote:
Till_98 wrote:
Its not bad to make mistakes, but it is bad not to understand the own mistakes. No chance to improve...
Exactly!
I hope those people who made the mistake of not realizing how the pawn sac cost white time will learn from that mistake so they can improve. Chances are though, they won't.
Yah, thanks for the lesson LTM. Next time I play a higher rated player I'll just sac a pawn and hope he drops a rook.
Btw,Isn't a chess expert someone with a 2000+Otb rating?This guy has a 2000+ chess.com rating.How does that make him an expert?
Jun 5, 2014
0
#55
But even FM rumo said that e5 was an horrible move and he is rated over 2300. He surely achieved to beat an 2000 rated player...
Jun 5, 2014
0
#56
roi_g11 wrote:
I can see your point that the engines didn't get the "human strategy" with your pawn "sac", but why do you think the strong humans who have posted here don't see the strategy in it? The only human that thinks it is a good move is you. This is not a debate about sound or unsound pawn sacs in the opening. You should just be happy that you got a temporary rating bump because a stronger player blundered. Trust me, your strategy of blundering material and then hoping your opponent blunders last won't get you very far. Had he played on you likely would have mated yourself.
You also need to learn the difference between "no blunders" and "no mistakes".
Actually I know the difference between no blunders and no mistakes. I also made neither. What others considered a mistake or blunder was merely an inaccuracy as there were better moves. Those better moves didn't factor into my plan. It doesn't matter if another human appreciated the plan or not. It worked. I really don't care much about ratings, but I do enjoy chess and it's fun to share my games here on the showcase thread.
learningthemoves hat geschrieben:
Yes Till. I had a lead in development. Look at the position immediately after the bishop exchange.
Black is fully developed while white still has its queen on the back rank.
So the fact is, black was fully developed a half move before white and it means black had the lead in development.
Man, you still don't get it. Before black's move 7, we have a position from Queen's Indian Defense Petrosian System with colors reversed. That means you turn the board and put the white bishop e2 to f1, and we have an opening tabyia on the board that's been discussed millions of times, hundreds of those on top level. Kasparov loved to play this system against the QI, being successful with different moves but as far as I remember mostly prefering Qc2 (which would be 7...Qc7 in your game). To protect e5. So that e7-e5 is possible on the next move, without blundering that pawn.
You may or may not have intentionally given away that pawn, but no matter what it's a blunder, and the position resulting it is objectively between much better and winning for white. It was nice by him to donate that rook to you, but that does not in any way redeem your 7th move blunder.
Welcome everyone to LTM's fantasy land of lolipop trees and gumdrom rainbows. Where reality is nothing more than a 4-letter dirty word and all our dreams of lucky blunders fill our little heads all night long.
Jun 5, 2014
0
#59
Btickler, you've been here awhile and you were wrong then and wrong now. I hadn't "lain" low. I'm right up front and center.
Jun 5, 2014
0
#60
kleelof wrote:
Welcome everyone to LTM's fantasy land of lolipop trees and gumdrom rainbows. Where reality is nothing more than a 4-letter dirty word and all our dreams of lucky blunders fill our little heads all night long.
Hey that world you describe sounds much more like your fantasy than anything I'd fantasize about. I could appreciate your desire to want to be silly and all, but I don't really appreciate it.
This is a troll thread. No point in responding to the game.