interesting.
Chess is so freagin hard.
Sort:
so how do I insert the game and add annotations instead of just linking it?
Mar 27, 2018
0
#4
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
so how do I insert the game and add annotations instead of just linking it?
suspicious_openings wrote:
A strange move order and piece placement for what starts as a Scandinavian game. Is this your preferred setup against the defense or do you just make seemingly reasonable moves? The main line goes as follows:
yeah I don't know much mainline theory and I typically excel outside of the mainlines. I don't enjoy chess for the memory competition, and I personally don't even WANT to learn much theory, to me it is wasted brain space as I think regular chess is going extinct, and chess 960 will be more popular in 5-10 years. I enjoy getting into original positions with dynamic possibilities for both sides and I try to coordinate all of my moves towards a plan, that plan usually is derived from other common plans in similar pawn structures, with some logic and creativity.
Was there anything wrong with my "reasonable" developing moves? Maybe you can explain to me the benefits of the mainline? bc4 seems like a weird place to have the bishop against f7/e6.
Again I love chess 960 a lot more than regular chess because the CHESS actually starts right away in the game, and not on move 10 or 15.
MGleason wrote:
AntonioEsfandiari wrote:
so how do I insert the game and add annotations instead of just linking it?
This is frustrating, on my mac touch pad laptop it seems impossible to "right click to add annotations/comments" this function is not working
it says "right click to add annotations/comments, but then when I right-click, it gives me the standard windows right click options "back, reload, save as..." etc
Mar 27, 2018
0
#9
Right-click in the move list where it says 1. e4. That should give you a different dropdown menu.
Mar 27, 2018
0
#10
Chess is hard! That's why you need to work hard on it like Fabiano Caruana! 
And I typically avoid using the analysis board in correspondence/daily chess because I see it as cheating myself out of the strain of calculation/visualization, and therefore reducing maximum progress.
I've seen some 1600's play some perfect games against me according to the computer analysis.
At this point I would just appreciate some stronger players correcting my defective analysis!
"Bc4 is crucial in the Scandinavian because you really want to play d5 so you need all your pieces working together to make that happen. If you don't play for d5 then Black is just better." Thanks but this was not the critical mistake in THIS game, the opening wasn't so important obviously because I played it "wrong" and I was still much better in the middlegame. Besides I don't see how white can EVER play d5 if black plays correctly and has 2 pawns controlling that square. PLEASE!! STILL LOOKING FOR A STRONGER PLAYER TO ASSESS MY ANNOTATIONS AND ANALYSIS!
The scandinavian is too disrespectful to general opening principles and will probably only fade out of popularity as the advancement of neural networks will show the scandy is trash, too far behind in development/space/activity. And you already contradicted yourself, maybe the opening is too complex for you to be trying to explain it to me... You claimed I should be trying to control and push d5, but black will have two pawns controlling d5 so how will I ever be able to push d5 without a sacrifice? You still have not explained this.
Ok I have already seen this video, and dozens of others on the scandinavian. I don't believe in the Scandinavian, and black being able to dictate white's plans. White should have many viable options against the scandy as black is severely neglecting development and space.
TBH I hate opening theory and I don't want to waste my time memorizing old ideas and old plans that will be irrelevant in a couple of years as 1 of 2 things will happen: 1. Neural networks will show improved plans for white, and advanced ideas that make the Scandinavian unplayable for black, chess 960 will be more popular than regular chess anyway, making all opening-obsessed players feel like they have wasted hundreds if not thousands of hours focused on openings.
I thank you for trying to help but I am not interested in learning the ideas of openings that are allowed to piss on logic and general principles because they simply have not been proven as garbage yet in a concrete way.
11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Nd7 13.c4 you have the advantage: 1) Two bishops, 2)the Center and 3) Space.
Wow I thought I was having a damn near perfect game, but no, that would be my opponent with the perfect game!! I was so proud of how I played this, worked my butt off the entire game and naively thought I had the better chances in the endgame, but no, stockfish says he was better the whole time! Incredible. https://www.chess.com/daily/game/190266944 P.S. How do I link the game like other people do so it can be clicked through here?