I find 'win quick' gambits disgusting

I feel like you're a bit late

am i ? sorry about that, guys

I mean see the page number and the post number lol

Giuco Piano, sir. If you please.

when did I say that

Not if you want a fun win. If you can play slow-attacking, Italian is a gud bet

dude, he created this forum cuz he gettin' trashed by 11 y/o's with insane gambits. He tryin' to get ppl to stop by making a stoopid forum about it

XD but why 11y/o's?

its the youngest age I could think of in which most ppl can win using a gambit

This is only somewhat related, but I've been thinking lately that a big roadblock to improvement is having an attachment to preconceived ideas of either how chess should be played, or how improvement should happen.

For example a "real" chess player doesn't win with an attack, a real player would win in the endgame (or vice versa) ... or a real player wouldn't use memory tricks to remember opening moves, a real player would remember by actually understanding why the moves are played.

A real player wouldn't copy some strategy someone else came up with, a real player would come up with his own ideas.

But people who improve quickly will use whatever works... and often that's things like attacking, memory tricks, and copying ideas seen in GM games.

I suspect at least part of the reason adults don't improve as quickly is because copying someone else and not thinking on their own is boring... but kids are unimaginative and dumb  and have no problems doing this (plus improvement in the beginning involves mastering basic blunder checking with is extremely tedious... a perfect task for when you're young).

---

So here we see a topic where a person is complaining that winning in a certain way is not in the spirit of the game... and that's exactly the kind of thinking that holds people back.

By the way, it's not all bad news... because when you learn about that aspect of chess you have contempt for, you learn more about chess overall... and it improves your understanding of seemingly unrelated areas.

An example I often like to give is after studying the endgame, my feel for tactics and long term sacrifices improved. Why? Because the iron rule of the endgame is piece activity. If even 1 piece is bad, sometimes that's 100% of your pieces, so you immediately lose... and so you start really focusing on piece activity... and after that it's easy to understand how an increased sensitivity to piece activity would help someone make a long term sacrifice in the middlegame.

that's actually kind of correct. Openings are only part of the story. Endgames are usually more important for stronger players, who don't get a whole lot out of the endgames. However, for people our rating range, ie, 1000-1600 usually get huge advantages out of the opening

So we're talking about whether slow, boring openings that always draw are better, or gambits that are fun and give both sides good chances

There is no such thing as a drawish opening for players U1600

tru lmao

You can "give life to the game" when you're a 2800 rated Kramnik, but otherwise you should just focus on admitting you have no ideas (no ideas that are worthwhile) and follow others.

The people who do this are the people who get to GM level... the people who admit they are worthless at chess 

The people who have fun, and have ideas, get stuck below 2000... and of course in a way that's admirable. It means you have a brain... but if you don't have a brain, your reward is extra rating points haha.

Which is one of the benefits of starting as a kid. No matter how smart you'll be one day, as a kid you're dumb.