Yeah, I think flagging is a sh**ty practice. Particularly those players who obviously set out from the start to play that way.
I'm curious, how does one "set out" to flag their opponent? Unless you mean in bullet, in which case everyone does it.
Yeah, I think flagging is a sh**ty practice. Particularly those players who obviously set out from the start to play that way.
I'm curious, how does one "set out" to flag their opponent? Unless you mean in bullet, in which case everyone does it.
Also the idea of 'pumping up your rating with draws' is laughable given that you only get a point or two at most for a draw.
I didn't word it properly. I meant you get into a drawn game, and you win in the end by using stockfish
A point people might consider... Gambits are about psychology, not just position? Stuff like Wing or Ross gambit, opponent kind of saying... Here, take a free pawn, because I'm so good I gonna beat you whatever? When I played D4 the reply I hated was E5... Englund gambit. Because people say it's rubbish you feel like you Must win, you Should win... And if you don't win... you are dummy. People say... Oh, Lion lose to Englund?! Lion be dumb, ha ha... Lion be patzer, ha ha, etc. So gambit put pressure on, yes? Albin Counter be similar, also.
There's absolutely no pressure. If they play a dumb response, the only thing you should be ashamed of is reacting too quickly. Take your time. As much as you need. Just know that they're playing a dumb opening to trick you, and keep reminding yourself you won't be tricked. Works great for me.
if you get flagged in rapid... I just don't know what to say.
i flagged in rapid once, 30 minute game, drawn endgame, opponent was mean and played quickly, i had less time and he flagged me before 50 move rule was up
A point people might consider... Gambits are about psychology, not just position? Stuff like Wing or Ross gambit, opponent kind of saying... Here, take a free pawn, because I'm so good I gonna beat you whatever? When I played D4 the reply I hated was E5... Englund gambit. Because people say it's rubbish you feel like you Must win, you Should win... And if you don't win... you are dummy. People say... Oh, Lion lose to Englund?! Lion be dumb, ha ha... Lion be patzer, ha ha, etc. So gambit put pressure on, yes? Albin Counter be similar, also.
There's absolutely no pressure. If they play a dumb response, the only thing you should be ashamed of is reacting too quickly. Take your time. As much as you need. Just know that they're playing a dumb opening to trick you, and keep reminding yourself you won't be tricked. Works great for me.
Very true. I had the opposite of that feeling @PILOTOXOMXD
I was challenged to a match by a 2100 to beat him when I played d4 and he played the Englund Gambit. Even though I got a good position I still lost. The reason is that he is much better than me.
I was challenged to a match by a 2100 to beat him when I played d4 and he played the Englund Gambit. Even though I got a good position I still lost. The reason is that he is much better than me.
englund 2op
Also the idea of 'pumping up your rating with draws' is laughable given that you only get a point or two at most for a draw.
I didn't word it properly. I meant you get into a drawn game, and you win in the end by using stockfish
Somehow I think my ranking would be a bit higher than 1600 if I'd been using Stockfish for the last 4 years. Intelligence obviously not your strong point.
Well, this was a very entertaining read.
@Richard_Hunter Titled players play on stream against weaker players is because of two reasons: 1) It's instructive for their viewers, as they can relate more to the moves of the weaker player, and therefore avoid making the same mistakes 2) They play their viewers in order to encourage support of their stream. I really don't think it's for stroking their egos as you suggested. They are professional players, and I'm pretty sure these wins are not satisfying. I experience the same disatisfaction myself if I win a game against someone lower rated than me.
As for "gambits are not real chess", I suggest you look up the Magnus Carlsen invitational finals with Carlsen vs Nakamura. Practicly every single game featured a pawn gambit of some kind, with one side struggling to refute it and the other side trying to justify it. I think you'd agree that if two top players choose this style of play, you and I are not really qualified to say it is unsound, are we?
As for the "quick tricks" youtube videos, you basically have to fall only once for a trap, then you can look at it with or without your engine after the game and never fall for it again. I really don't see how this is an issue. Every trap you learn makes you a stronger chess player. Sure, the marketing trends could probably be better, but again, if it's quality content you are looking for, there is plenty of it on Youtube and on Twitch if you look for it.
Here is a gambit I played in the US Open in 1973 to beat a grand master,