Bobby Fischer Lacked Creativity ?....How Dare I !

(anhominid attack)

agree

The_Ghostess_Lola wrote: 

Well, I just won a legitimate 2279 player five minutes ago....so I'm really happy. I mean, doesn't that count for something ?

 Lola, really? So, your opponent blunder a piece and you win on a blunder. Players I played I have to earn my win and I don't have a big ego to post my wins. I have only posted two games, one a Evans gambit and the other Queen's gambit declined. Your opponent has a good solid understanding of chess,he outplay you in the opening and early middlegame and  unfortunately he blunder a piece. You play so bad you give back the piece 26.Bh2 ?? is a blunder,  your oppponent had   a simple and little pawn move 26...g3! wins back the piece. At the end you miss mate 36.Qxg7 mate instead of 36.Rxg7. Sorry your opponent is not 2279 otb strength, I am not sure maybe a strong 1900 elo or a low 2000 elo. He is not a bad player, much better player than "greedypawneater"; he at least has chess understanding. Your opening is "coffeehouse", since you are a woman that is a lot softer than what I would normally use. Your opponent in all your games had a commmanding positions and in the last game it must been a yawn and he let his guard down and blunder; that is the danger in playing against weak players, it is too easy and thinking you can do anything to win. 

Looks like Yuree told me off again....

Okay. So I'm not that great in chess. I mean, your rating isn't very good either....so there.  

power_2_the_people wrote: 

Test. Do you play gay chess?

Do you:

1. Improve all of your pieces

2. Create favorable pawns structure

3. Restrict you opponent's pieces

4. Neutralize you opponent's plan

5. Accumulate small advantages

6. Convert temporary advantages into permenant ones

7. Not rush

8. Identify the threats

9. Keep the back rank protected

10. Keep all of your pieces protected

11. When you are short in space - simplify

12. Exchange off your opponent’s best attacking piece

13. Avoid pins and skewers

14. If you’re in trouble – counter attack   

You describing every grandmaster who use these methods to win games, some the players could be Morphy, Anderssen, Chigorin, Marshall, Janowski, Tal, Spielmann, Alekhine, Morozevich, Shirov and Kasparov.

power_2_the_people wrote:  i know yuree. its an undercover test :)

lol Okay, its hilarious!

Okay Stavros....that just did it. Looks delicious and I know where I'm going later....Thank you sweetie........

Lola, have you been drinking too many daiquiri? Now you are comparing rating to mine. 

Live Chess-Blitz 1486

My otb Expert rating is 2011 uscf and highest was 2110 uscf, it is true I am playing below my potential but I knew a lot Fide and uscf experts in the same position low blitz and bullet rating, at chess.com I don't care about online rating but their true otb rating and quality of their moves. 

Blitz 1780; Avg.opp 1650; 500 games and bullet is 1560;avg. opp. 1450 and 1113 games.  

You are over 6000 games and you are still at 1486 and to mine 500 games, I make 1800 and over to 2000 level in two months with less than hundred games. Like I say I have no respect for  online rating, so what if I am 2400 online blitz rating and have no FIDE master and IM title, I am still an expert strength.

Are you belittling me?

crabs can be your worst nighmare.

turtles too

Yuree, you're way-way too intense for me....I can't take it anymore.

dont be offended lola, he is too full of himself.

The_Ghostess_Lola wrote: Yuree, you're way-way too intense for me....I can't take it anymore. 

   Say uncle and Fischer is the greatest player and we call it even. :)

Lala, chess is all a matter of self-confidence. I admire how you have so much of it. Everything else is easy. Illegitimi non carborundum! 

And...for gawd's sake...do say "UNCLE!"...so that we can all go home.

no Gary Kasparov is the best

Thanx Crab....

Now, I wanna an answer Harvey or Yuree or someone else on the above question....I'm waiting.

oh sorry, I was distracted by Yuree's mean comments.

I think that a chess computer plays very objectively, relying on pure calculation to win games.  They do not think for themselves, and thereby cannot be creative/artistic.

This is only my opinion

Can a computer not be programmed to troll the Internet ?

Garry Kasparov lost to Kramnik in a match without winning one game. I can't call a player great when he can't win one in a match. Fischer was great because he did not have a team of grandmasters analizing his opening for him like Kasparov.