SNUDOO wrote:
Against higher rated players I have nothing to lose! Go all ham on their king!
+1
Aggressive or Solid
Sort:
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
EnergeticHay a écrit :
EricFloNicole wrote:
EnergeticHay a écrit :
Mako_Cat wrote:
But okay. I’ll play the games aggressively since that is what most people seem to say.
solidly is just hopeless. A lower rated's "solid" is not solid against a higher rated opponent lol
Agressive lot of tactics in the openings is just hopeless. A lower rated's "agressive" is not agressive against a higher rated opponent lol
that's not true. By aggressive you don't sacrifice pieces randomly and lose the game. You want to play more complicated openings, and try to attack your opponent. The best defense is attack. Therefore, playing solidly is inferior to playing aggressively. As a higher rated player myself, I'll let you know that playing a rook endgame up a pawn is a piece of cake compared to playing a crazy middlegame position, even if I'm up a piece.
You are out of context!
The question was asked by a 1500 player at best(he has 820 at daily) against a title player.
Just to say this. The only reason I’m rated 820 daily is because I’ve only played 10 or so games and flagged almost all them. I’m rated around 1500 actually
Aug 21, 2020
0
#44
You can't just look at their daily ratings... Maybe they played daily when they were bad and never played again, maybe they don't take their time to move (cough, me, cough)...
SNUDOO wrote:
You can't just look at their daily ratings... Maybe they played daily when they were bad and never played again, maybe they don't take their time to move (cough, me, cough)...
exactly
Aug 21, 2020
0
#46
SNUDOO a écrit :
You can't just look at their daily ratings... Maybe they played daily when they were bad and never played again, maybe they don't take their time to move (cough, me, cough)...
I said 4 times that he was a 1500 and 800 at daily.you cannot read?
Aug 21, 2020
0
#47
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
SNUDOO a écrit :
You can't just look at their daily ratings... Maybe they played daily when they were bad and never played again, maybe they don't take their time to move (cough, me, cough)...
I said 4 times that he was a 1500 and 800 at daily.you cannot read?
is read tasty?
SNUDOO wrote:
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
SNUDOO a écrit :
You can't just look at their daily ratings... Maybe they played daily when they were bad and never played again, maybe they don't take their time to move (cough, me, cough)...
I said 4 times that he was a 1500 and 800 at daily.you cannot read?
is read tasty?
What??
SNUDOO wrote:
What is read, is it tasty?
yes ive ate it before
AMAZING
EricFloNicole wrote:
He cannot win,that is a silly goal! the goal is not to get destroyed in 40 moves!
a 1500 against a 2200 = 0% chance of winning!
I lost in 10 moves playing white...so its not zero chance. The game description said "One player managed to earn the win"....which is an interesting way of putting it, since chess.com claimed I lost internet connection for 1 min.
Aug 21, 2020
0
#53
nighteyes1234 a écrit :
EricFloNicole wrote:
He cannot win,that is a silly goal! the goal is not to get destroyed in 40 moves!
a 1500 against a 2200 = 0% chance of winning!
I lost in 10 moves playing white...so its not zero chance. The game description said "One player managed to earn the win"....which is an interesting way of putting it, since chess.com claimed I lost internet connection for 1 min.
You are right it's not 0 it's just under 1%;you are happy now?
my club federation chart say 735 elo points under it's 0%.... so statically it's under .5%
That is a statistic not God word!
Aug 21, 2020
0
#55
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
nighteyes1234 a écrit :
EricFloNicole wrote:
He cannot win,that is a silly goal! the goal is not to get destroyed in 40 moves!
a 1500 against a 2200 = 0% chance of winning!
I lost in 10 moves playing white...so its not zero chance. The game description said "One player managed to earn the win"....which is an interesting way of putting it, since chess.com claimed I lost internet connection for 1 min.
You are right it's not 0 it's just under 1%;you are happy now?
my club federation chart say 735 elo points under it's 0%.... so statically it's under .5%
That is a statistic not God word!
Why not just admit that it's not 0 and you were wrong?
Aug 21, 2020
0
#56
Sred a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
nighteyes1234 a écrit :
EricFloNicole wrote:
He cannot win,that is a silly goal! the goal is not to get destroyed in 40 moves!
a 1500 against a 2200 = 0% chance of winning!
I lost in 10 moves playing white...so its not zero chance. The game description said "One player managed to earn the win"....which is an interesting way of putting it, since chess.com claimed I lost internet connection for 1 min.
You are right it's not 0 it's just under 1%;you are happy now?
my club federation chart say 735 elo points under it's 0%.... so statically it's under .5%
That is a statistic not God word!
Why not just admit that it's not 0 and you were wrong?
Why not shut up if you have nothing nice to say!
Oh i understand you live in a world or everything is black and white,you never heard of the word statistic! for you it's just a game of putting peoples down because you are so superior!
Aug 21, 2020
0
#57
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
Sred a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
nighteyes1234 a écrit :
EricFloNicole wrote:
He cannot win,that is a silly goal! the goal is not to get destroyed in 40 moves!
a 1500 against a 2200 = 0% chance of winning!
I lost in 10 moves playing white...so its not zero chance. The game description said "One player managed to earn the win"....which is an interesting way of putting it, since chess.com claimed I lost internet connection for 1 min.
You are right it's not 0 it's just under 1%;you are happy now?
my club federation chart say 735 elo points under it's 0%.... so statically it's under .5%
That is a statistic not God word!
Why not just admit that it's not 0 and you were wrong?
Why not shut up if you have nothing nice to say!
I didn't mean to be rude and I think I wasn't. Being wrong is something completely normal. Asking someone to "shut up" is, on the other hand, considered rude by most people.
Aug 21, 2020
0
#58
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
Sred a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
nighteyes1234 a écrit :
EricFloNicole wrote:
He cannot win,that is a silly goal! the goal is not to get destroyed in 40 moves!
a 1500 against a 2200 = 0% chance of winning!
I lost in 10 moves playing white...so its not zero chance. The game description said "One player managed to earn the win"....which is an interesting way of putting it, since chess.com claimed I lost internet connection for 1 min.
You are right it's not 0 it's just under 1%;you are happy now?
my club federation chart say 735 elo points under it's 0%.... so statically it's under .5%
That is a statistic not God word!
Why not just admit that it's not 0 and you were wrong?
Why not shut up if you have nothing nice to say!
Oh i understand you live in a world or everything is black and white,you never heard of the word statistic! for you it's just a game of putting peoples down because you are so superior!
Statistics does say that it's not 0. Case closed.
Aug 21, 2020
0
#59
Sred a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
nighteyes1234 a écrit :
EricFloNicole wrote:
He cannot win,that is a silly goal! the goal is not to get destroyed in 40 moves!
a 1500 against a 2200 = 0% chance of winning!
I lost in 10 moves playing white...so its not zero chance. The game description said "One player managed to earn the win"....which is an interesting way of putting it, since chess.com claimed I lost internet connection for 1 min.
You are right it's not 0 it's just under 1%;you are happy now?
my club federation chart say 735 elo points under it's 0%.... so statically it's under .5%
That is a statistic not God word!
Why not just admit that it's not 0 and you were wrong?
On this site two players around 960 beat me lately and i was above 1800....
So you think that prove your point?
I lost 32 points each time and i didn't whine or report them.
I learned my lesson though.
I mean 700 points under is so close to 0 statistically that i wrote 0,but it's .4% if you trust my chart!
Happy now!
Aug 21, 2020
0
#60
Sred a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
Sred a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
nighteyes1234 a écrit :
EricFloNicole wrote:
He cannot win,that is a silly goal! the goal is not to get destroyed in 40 moves!
a 1500 against a 2200 = 0% chance of winning!
I lost in 10 moves playing white...so its not zero chance. The game description said "One player managed to earn the win"....which is an interesting way of putting it, since chess.com claimed I lost internet connection for 1 min.
You are right it's not 0 it's just under 1%;you are happy now?
my club federation chart say 735 elo points under it's 0%.... so statically it's under .5%
That is a statistic not God word!
Why not just admit that it's not 0 and you were wrong?
Why not shut up if you have nothing nice to say!
Oh i understand you live in a world or everything is black and white,you never heard of the word statistic! for you it's just a game of putting peoples down because you are so superior!
Statistics does say that it's not 0. Case closed.
And in reality OTB it's 0. Case closed!
Here is another advice.
Keep implementing cheapos and hope for the best.
Allahu Akber.