Hey! That’s a great idea! Instead of complaining, Fischer learned how to play against it. Wow. Imagine.
I find 'win quick' gambits disgusting
Sort:
Sep 23, 2020
0
#22
I’ve heard that Spassky never lost with the KGA. I know that he beat Fischer with it in 1960. Fischer was so salty about it that he studied it forever and wrote a short paper on refuting it.
Hey! That’s a great idea! Instead of complaining, Fischer learned how to play against it. Wow. Imagine.
Hey! That’s a great idea! Instead of complaining, Fischer learned how to play against it. Wow. Imagine.
When I started playing chess about 4 years ago, Chess experts on YouTube tended to stress the importance of following correct chess principles and having solid end game theory. Now they all just seem to tell you how to learn a trap to crush lower ranked players. I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds this development unsavoury.
Sep 23, 2020
0
#24
Jeez. Just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. Go learn how to defend and stop blaming YouTube for your losses. Gambits are a part of the game. They are played at every level. YouTube may be your bane, but it’s also your salvation. Now go and learn how to defend.
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
KG has been played at the highest levels with success. Kasparov was known to play it, and Judith Polgar played it often.
Playing against someone who is prepared for the kga is the most fun of all. There are threats and pieces hanging everywhere, and if I lose, all righty.
But honestly, I don’t care about playing a 90 moves snoozer!
Real chess... such snobbery. You sound salty because you lost to a gambit, and instead of learning how to properly defend, you start blaming the world for your troubles.
Instead of moaning in a forum about gambits, why don’t you hike up your pants and head over to YouTube. You can look up things like “how to punish the _______ gambit”. Real players know how to defend against fake chess.
Playing against someone who is prepared for the kga is the most fun of all. There are threats and pieces hanging everywhere, and if I lose, all righty.
But honestly, I don’t care about playing a 90 moves snoozer!
Real chess... such snobbery. You sound salty because you lost to a gambit, and instead of learning how to properly defend, you start blaming the world for your troubles.
Instead of moaning in a forum about gambits, why don’t you hike up your pants and head over to YouTube. You can look up things like “how to punish the _______ gambit”. Real players know how to defend against fake chess.
Here's the Carlsen-Ding game. Magnus himself, probably the greatest defender of lost positions ever (think Kovalev-Carlsen Isle of Man), couldn't salvage the position arising from the Schallop and has to resign after a mere 23 moves
Sep 23, 2020
0
#26
In the 1972 WC match against Spassky in game 4 Fischer surprisingly opened with 1.c4 instead of his usual 1.e4. After move 7 they reached by transposition a main line position of the Queens Gambit Declined, Tartakower Defence. Prior to this game Spassky had used this opening numerous times with black and had never lost from this position vs opponents including Smyslov, Larsen and Petrosian whereas Fischer had never played a Queens Gambit of any sort in a serious tournament game. Fischer won the game in great style.
Well I play the Queen's Gambit. Can't argue with that.
I personally think there's too much stress on winning at Chess. Wiser people have observed that the 'loser' in a game of Chess still contributes to the form of it. Obviously, if the motivation to win is what drives the dynamic in a game, but really Chess is about the battle of ideas, not about crushing people.
Sep 23, 2020
0
#29
If you don’t care about winning, what’s left? Fun, maybe?
BTW, does anyone really consider the Queen’s Gambit a true gambit? It almost always declined to maintain tension along the c and d files. Even if it is accepted, the pawn is usually won back quickly.
I for one, don’t really consider it a true gambit.
BTW, does anyone really consider the Queen’s Gambit a true gambit? It almost always declined to maintain tension along the c and d files. Even if it is accepted, the pawn is usually won back quickly.
I for one, don’t really consider it a true gambit.
The fact is that over 4 years of playing I have gotten better so clearly that's not true. Maybe if I'd taken your advice I'd be a GM by now. Silly me. Somehow I doubt it though.
FYI, I am willing to accept I'm wrong, but that works both ways. Are you willing to accept you're wrong?
Imagine doing something for fun.
Sep 23, 2020
0
#32
Good lord man, you really think you’re winning this argument? Seriously? I’m mopping the floor with you here. You have no serious responses to all of the points I’ve raised about history, their usage, how good players have responded. You talk about development as if the use of a gambit precludes it. That’s just wrongheaded. The PURPOSE of a gambit is to trade material for development. Stop this saltiness and learn to defend.
Most gambits are unsound. Sound ones, don't accept. easy.
Even here, some people are just obsessed with 'winning the argument' with cheap debating tricks such as 'You must have lost a game!'. tbh I'm far more interested in an honest discussion about the right attitude to have for playing Chess.
Sep 23, 2020
0
#35
I think the way a player can choose how they play is a part of what makes chess enjoyable, at least for me. Depending on gambits for every game isn't a good strategy but it is good to know since it is exciting chess and fun to play. Chess is just a game for most people on this site.
Why play Chess? Seems like a very fair question that we should be asking. The answer some people seem to have arrived is to be able to get a very quick dopamine rush from winning a blitz game, or the (forlorn) hope of getting some sort of title to put in front of their name. These don't seem like good reasons to me, and what will happen with such people is that they will not experience the full pleasure that Chess has to offer.
Sep 23, 2020
0
#37
You said that people should admit they are wrong when clearly they are not. I’m not obsessed with winning anything, what I’m doing is defending the use of gambits as a legitimate strategy and not a cheap trick that’s not real chess. I consider my attempts successful.
Perhaps you didn’t lose a game to a gambit. Perhaps you just woke up this morning with a burning desire to tell the world how much gambits infuriate you. I mean it’s possible. 🤷♀️
Perhaps you didn’t lose a game to a gambit. Perhaps you just woke up this morning with a burning desire to tell the world how much gambits infuriate you. I mean it’s possible. 🤷♀️
Sep 23, 2020
0
#38
Richard_Hunter wrote:
Why play Chess? Seems like a very fair question that we should be asking. The answer some people seem to have arrived is to be able to get a very quick dopamine rush from winning a blitz game, or the (forlorn) hope of getting some sort of title to put in front of their name. These don't seem like good reasons to me, and what will happen with such people is that they will not experience the full pleasure that Chess has to offer.
You don't have to play serious games all the time. Chess has variety, it's not supposed to contain you to just playing hour long classical games to win.
Most, if not all gambits, are known to be unsound. Why would you therefore play them? Well because you think you can fool your opponent who is unaware. But then where is the glory in beating an opponent who you know is weaker? I think that's where the revulsion lies.
If you don't understand the concept of initiative and compensation then I would recommend one of IM Tibor Karolyi books about Mikhail Tal. I didn't understand those concepts until I read his book "the magic of youth" about Tals early games up to his qualification for the candidates tournament. It will do wonders for your tactics to.