The root of all misanthropy stems not from self-hatred, but rather from the posts on this stupid fokkin forum.
I find 'win quick' gambits disgusting
Sort:
winston_weng wrote:
winston_weng wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
I definitely could have played more accurately, but the point is that all my moves had purpose behind them. I was always moving forwards, trying to win. I wasn't ever just waiting around for my opponent to blunder, as you often get in games.
That's what I call proper chess.
Ah, I see.
So you're basically saying that regular chess is proper chess.
After all, every move has a purpose.
A lot of moves do not have a good purpose. A lot of players make 'safe' moves and just hope their opponent will blunder or time-out. That is the definition of improper Chess.
Yet they have a purpose, to flag their opponents. You still haven't answered why proper chess is what you say it is.
Still can't answer this lol. At this point OP is just repeating his own words over and over again lmao
Oct 24, 2020
0
#1264
Richard_Hunter wrote:
najdorf96 wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
indeed. Guess you never heard of feints, juke & jive, or "launching"? Improper Chess? What IS that exactly? On Whose Authority on what is proper or improper chess are you coming from? Do you believe You are the Sole Proprietor to speak on this? That, even though you're way way younger than me and that I've been playing chess before you were even conceived that You are Better than Me in Chess Ethics? More Educated? More Studious of the Game? Appointed by Those Above All? Heh. I am intrigued & can relate to your Main Points but I cannot and adamantly will NOT Condone THIS kind of Pseudo Intellectualism. Just write a book already. No need to clickbait such nonsensical jibberish. Have some pride for yourself n the Game. nuff said, I'm out.✌🏽
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
I definitely could have played more accurately, but the point is that all my moves had purpose behind them. I was always moving forwards, trying to win. I wasn't ever just waiting around for my opponent to blunder, as you often get in games.
That's what I call proper chess.
Ah, I see.
So you're basically saying that regular chess is proper chess.
After all, every move has a purpose.
A lot of moves do not have a good purpose. A lot of players make 'safe' moves and just hope their opponent will blunder or time-out. That is the definition of improper Chess.
We're talking about Chess, not dancing.
are you saying that you can't feint in chess?
Did you know that Mikhail Tal liked to "launch" his pieces toward the enemy king with no real purpose?
That's why they called him the magician
SNUDOO wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
najdorf96 wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
indeed. Guess you never heard of feints, juke & jive, or "launching"? Improper Chess? What IS that exactly? On Whose Authority on what is proper or improper chess are you coming from? Do you believe You are the Sole Proprietor to speak on this? That, even though you're way way younger than me and that I've been playing chess before you were even conceived that You are Better than Me in Chess Ethics? More Educated? More Studious of the Game? Appointed by Those Above All? Heh. I am intrigued & can relate to your Main Points but I cannot and adamantly will NOT Condone THIS kind of Pseudo Intellectualism. Just write a book already. No need to clickbait such nonsensical jibberish. Have some pride for yourself n the Game. nuff said, I'm out.✌🏽
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
I definitely could have played more accurately, but the point is that all my moves had purpose behind them. I was always moving forwards, trying to win. I wasn't ever just waiting around for my opponent to blunder, as you often get in games.
That's what I call proper chess.
Ah, I see.
So you're basically saying that regular chess is proper chess.
After all, every move has a purpose.
A lot of moves do not have a good purpose. A lot of players make 'safe' moves and just hope their opponent will blunder or time-out. That is the definition of improper Chess.
We're talking about Chess, not dancing.
are you saying that you can't feint in chess?
Did you know that Mikhail Tal liked to "launch" his pieces toward the enemy king with no real purpose?
Not sure how you 'launch' a piece, but ok.
Oct 24, 2020
0
#1267
It's in his book "Attack with mikhail Tal" but I'm too lazy to find the part about launching...
Oct 24, 2020
0
#1268
He made an analogy about how in Canadian Hockey they shoot the puck close to the enemy goal and hope that it goes in somehow, by either a team mate picking it up and shooting or some other way.
I somehow doubt Tal would be so imprecise.
Oct 24, 2020
0
#1270
Taken from "Attack with Mikhail Tal", Page 46, Chapter 3 (The Assault Ratio):
"I.D.: There is also another procedure for preparing a decisive assault, which has never previously been considered in chess literature. Mu co-author has suggested calling it "launching"...
M.T. : ... and in doing so I have no claims to authorship. This is pure plagiarism, since in ice-hockey this concept has existed since the game was born. The point of it is that the puck ends up close to the goal, but no one knows what will happen with it next. Who will gain possession of the puck, who they will pass it to, in which direction it will fly. At any event, when I "launch" a piece close to the enemy king, I never aim it at only one point."
Oct 24, 2020
0
#1271
winston_weng wrote:
winston_weng wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
I definitely could have played more accurately, but the point is that all my moves had purpose behind them. I was always moving forwards, trying to win. I wasn't ever just waiting around for my opponent to blunder, as you often get in games.
That's what I call proper chess.
Ah, I see.
So you're basically saying that regular chess is proper chess.
After all, every move has a purpose.
A lot of moves do not have a good purpose. A lot of players make 'safe' moves and just hope their opponent will blunder or time-out. That is the definition of improper Chess.
Yet they have a purpose, to flag their opponents. You still haven't answered why proper chess is what you say it is.
Still can't answer this lol. At this point OP is just repeating his own words over and over again lmao
If anyone wants a discussion on Chess, I've started a new thread here https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-it-bad-to-have-bishops-besides-to-one-another-on-d3-and-e3
Oct 24, 2020
0
#1273
Please. I won games with gambits like the Herrstrom, the Blackmar-Diemer, King’s Gambit, Smith-Morra, just to name a few.
You want a medal for that?
krazeechess wrote:
how does this have 1412 posts
I keep asking myself that same question.
Oct 24, 2020
0
#1276
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
winston_weng wrote:
winston_weng wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
I definitely could have played more accurately, but the point is that all my moves had purpose behind them. I was always moving forwards, trying to win. I wasn't ever just waiting around for my opponent to blunder, as you often get in games.
That's what I call proper chess.
Ah, I see.
So you're basically saying that regular chess is proper chess.
After all, every move has a purpose.
A lot of moves do not have a good purpose. A lot of players make 'safe' moves and just hope their opponent will blunder or time-out. That is the definition of improper Chess.
Yet they have a purpose, to flag their opponents. You still haven't answered why proper chess is what you say it is.
Still can't answer this lol. At this point OP is just repeating his own words over and over again lmao
Oct 25, 2020
0
#1277
Richard_Hunter wrote:
You want a medal for that?
you want to type a logical response to that?
SNUDOO wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
You want a medal for that?
you want to type a logical response to that?
he doesn't have the mental capacity to
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-find-gambits-disgusting?page=5#comment-53033454
Hello LuXun, if i am not wrong you must be familiar with ZhouYu.
Richard_Hunter wrote:
th3re4lalpH4z3r0 wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
Richard_Hunter wrote:
A beautiful little miniature here for your enjoyment. According to the computer I had 98.5% accuracy, which over 23 moves is quite pleasing.
Lol thats not how you play the two knights defence
this is how
By having your Queen side ripped open? LOL, I'll pass on your advice.
The opening explorer
you have premium do you ?
Actually, he didn't hang a piece on every single move. You're not exactly an IM yourself. Have some respect for people rated lower than yourself.