No, sometimes you cant attack.
Are 1.d4? or 1.c4? questionable
Sort:
Well you see, you need to suffocate your enemy. Start from the queenside of the lungs and squeeze until you turn the king blue. :)
yes d4 and c4 are questionable howver they tend to not be able to talk so they might not answer you
its not that they are being ignorant but unfortunatly they just cannot talk
ps 1 C4 is an excellent opening choice
Jan 31, 2015
0
#6
talfan.. thier is a difference between questioning and questionable. one means always asking the other means possibly unsound or not strong..you can paypal me 1 dollars for this brief nonquestionable English tutorial :)
As someone who used to think as you do...I recommend pounding your head against a wall by playing a 2200+ rated player about 50 times with kingside assault being your primary and sole goal. This will teach you to appreciate being completely stymied and beaten over and over again with seemingly small advantages. Then you will start to wonder how it is done...and so you will learn and improve.
I did this in my early Air Force days...and I got repeatedly clobbered dozens of times on several occasions. Only in one single game did my opponent pause and say "hmmm...novelty..." and in that game I actually felt "even" and that I actually had legitimate threats positionally...until the endgame, where I of course lost badly to superior technique.
Jan 31, 2015
0
#10
btickler wrote:
if I had access to such player to use that much time on me I'm sure I'd be a lot better then I am now
As someone who used to think as you do...I recommend pounding your head against a wall by playing a 2200+ rated player about 50 times with kingside assault being your primary and sole goal. This will teach you to appreciate being completely stymied and beaten over and over again with small advantages.
aj415 wrote:
if I had access to such player to use that much time on me I'm sure I'd be a lot better then I am now
Don't bet on it if they are just playing you and not instructing you as they go along ;)...
Chess is not, in fact, about checkmating as soon as possible. It is about building small advantages throughout the game and preparing for a superior middlegame and endgame. Often, trying to checkmate very quickly only leaves your peices undoveloped and accomplishes nothing. Quick checkmates only work against weak players.
Jan 31, 2015
0
#13
guys.. ur missing the part where I said.mobilize ur forces and develop. I'm not a complete newb. Yess my rating sucks but check my record I've already played thousands of games (just in this site) it's because I blunder inaccurately and refuse to study not for lack of undersranding off all chess concepts indepth at this point. It's easier after developing ALL PIECES to get an attack against enemy king e4 who would dare prove me wrong.. :)
aravind_war1 hat geschrieben:
queens gambit is for faggots
thats why you will never be a good chess player...
Jan 31, 2015
0
#15
chessmicky wrote:
applause.. well put answer my friend I think we can close the thread :)
Your question recapitulates a couple of centuries of chess history, during which many of the top players, in game after game, wasted no time in going after their opponent's king in a regicidal frenzy. And those old-timers played some wonderful games. But over time, the defenses got better and better, the attacks petered out, leaving the attacker down a few pieces or pawns, and some scientifically-minded players wondered if there might be a better way, Gradually, good players came to the conclusion that it was neccessary to attain some advantages before they could expect to destroy their opponents.
But if you're a relatively new player, just starting out, there's a lot to be said for just going after the enemy king with all your might and getting some experience in seeing which attacks succeed, which ones fail, and why.
Jan 31, 2015
0
#16
chessmicky wrote:
Also vocabulary word of the day regicidal.. never seen it before in my life. before checking the definition I'm guessing homicidal or bloodthirsty? aha
Your question recapitulates a couple of centuries of chess history, during which many of the top players, in game after game, wasted no time in going after their opponent's king in a regicidal frenzy. And those old-timers played some wonderful games. But over time, the defenses got better and better, the attacks petered out, leaving the attacker down a few pieces or pawns, and some scientifically-minded players wondered if there might be a better way, Gradually, good players came to the conclusion that it was neccessary to attain some advantages before they could expect to destroy their opponents.
But if you're a relatively new player, just starting out, there's a lot to be said for just going after the enemy king with all your might and getting some experience in seeing which attacks succeed, which ones fail, and why.
Jan 31, 2015
0
#17
chessmicky wrote:
Also vocabulary word of the day regicidal.. never seen it before in my life. before checking the definition I'm guessing homicidal or bloodthirsty? aha
Your question recapitulates a couple of centuries of chess history, during which many of the top players, in game after game, wasted no time in going after their opponent's king in a regicidal frenzy. And those old-timers played some wonderful games. But over time, the defenses got better and better, the attacks petered out, leaving the attacker down a few pieces or pawns, and some scientifically-minded players wondered if there might be a better way, Gradually, good players came to the conclusion that it was neccessary to attain some advantages before they could expect to destroy their opponents.
But if you're a relatively new player, just starting out, there's a lot to be said for just going after the enemy king with all your might and getting some experience in seeing which attacks succeed, which ones fail, and why.
Jan 31, 2015
0
#18
chessmicky wrote:
Woooow a king killer.... Truly an amazing word :)
Your question recapitulates a couple of centuries of chess history, during which many of the top players, in game after game, wasted no time in going after their opponent's king in a regicidal frenzy. And those old-timers played some wonderful games. But over time, the defenses got better and better, the attacks petered out, leaving the attacker down a few pieces or pawns, and some scientifically-minded players wondered if there might be a better way, Gradually, good players came to the conclusion that it was neccessary to attain some advantages before they could expect to destroy their opponents.
But if you're a relatively new player, just starting out, there's a lot to be said for just going after the enemy king with all your might and getting some experience in seeing which attacks succeed, which ones fail, and why.
u have problems aj?
My rating sucks yes so feel free to degrade and defile me for being such a inferior speck of lint on the bottom of ur shoe to dare to ask a question ..
Who cares about controlling d5 or attacking the queenside? The king is over there on the e file before he castles. I understand you can plan and prepare ffor a longer game/attack transitioning from indirectly getting to the king side after starting from the queenside. But why? Why wait. The point is checkmate as soon as possible so if you can properly develop your forces and attack quicker with one opening formation.. why ever bother