Instructive Miniature

It's a thread not a forum.

And I'm bent out of shape 'about' precisely what I said.

Well perhaps you should be more precise (unlike your chess teee heee)

I generally play live chess, and am terrible at correspondence (for various reasons). Since you brought JKB's argument into question by bringing up his live chess ratings (though his correspondence chess rating is 300 points above your own) you obviously put some store into live chess ratings.

With that in mind I would like to point out that my ratings in live chess are extremely comparable to your own (with the notable exception of quick).

Perhaps the ratings only matter when they paint you in a favourable light. I would also like to point out that even if I were a 600 rated chess player, or a 300 rated chess player, this fact would have absolutely no meaning in regards to what I've said to you about your, so far, terrible argument.

I would also like to publicly issue to you a challenge to a game of chess which would take place in live chess at the time controls of between 20 and 45 minutes per side (you can choose within this field) and an incremental time gain of your choice (this can be 0 if you want).

I will not play under twenty minutes (even twenty minutes is a rather short time control for my tastes, but I'm willing to compromise).

That was never my argument....read way way way before.  That came so much later after many of us were banging our heads against his refusal to listen to reason...

Why would you need to publically challenge me?  I play everyone all the time in live chess...anyone from 900 to 2500.

I'll play you 10 games at 1 min time control, because it is all I trust any more in live chess at chess.com to be free of cheaters. 

:)  Choice is yours

okay...Never said you cheated.  Obviously you can have an analysis board and play out endless variations.  Never said you cheated.  Was just seeing how different your play was in real life (live chess) vs. turn-based.  And your live chess showed a real lack of understanding. 

Which is why I wondered if you got the point since like you said you just blew "history" off.

Delete your tasteless insulting crap and I'll delete mine. No one should have to read this garbage. You've read what I had to say.

*Edit* screw it, I'll delete mine now regardless... you know what I think.*

I never saw you or anyone else employ very much 'reason'.

I won't play you one minute games, but if you don't want to play a game against someone who's chess is less than precise, I request that you retract your statement.

So where do you stand on principles Kupov?

Seriously get a sense of humor....You are way to stuffy for me. 

Yes nuclearturkey I think you hit the nail on the head.  Obviously opening theory can have nuance moves which seem to defy opening principles, but of course do not.  By move 17 in this game the development is relatively equal.

So I'm confused here, the fact that development is equal on the 17th move means that opening principles were not violated?

Well if you don't believe history then you dn't believe it.  I got my information from Emanuel Lasker chess world champion for over 30 years.  But what did he know? (sarcasm)

I'm sure that Lasker knew quite a bit, however using this sort of argument "so and so agrees with me, so and so is better than you, making me correct" is really a logical fallacy. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of chess players, much stronger than yourself, and some possibly stronger even than Lasker, who would agree with JKB.

I say this in reguard to this discussion.  As you are 2300 or so turn-based and 1300 or 1400 in blitz it begs the question, do you really even understand the basic principles of chess to even have this conversation.

There are many possible reasons why his blitz rating is low, this is a real ad hominem argument, his rating shouldn't factor in at all.

I would also like to point out that your blitz rating of under 1700 is still a very low rating. I doubt very much that you genuinely understand the opening principles yourself, and I think that a majority of titled players would agree with that.

You give examples like Alekhines defense, but it doesn't break opening laws in the slightest.  Black stays close in development and castles just as well as many other defenses for black.

Are you implying that the only generally taught opening principles are "develop and castle"? Because that's simply untrue. Moving the same piece multiple times before other pieces are developed (black) ,and making three or four pawn moves before a single piece is developed (white), are both in direct violation of several VERY WELL KNOWN AND WELL DOCUMENTED opening principles.

The fact is that you can not possibly find a book opening which does not violate at least one (and usually most) of these "sacred" opening principles.

So much is lost in translation and I don't think you will be taught your place by this discussion. My original post was quite logical and well thought through, and you threw it by the wayside.

I would agree what you wrote is above the head of a true beginner, but then again a true beginner, if empowered with opening principles of develope your pieces to the best squares, control the center with pawns, get your knights out before your bishops, and castle your king early...would be fine in seeing their way through an opening like "alekhines defense".

How could a beginner possibly know which are the best squares to develop his pieces to? In order to understand the best squares for your pieces you have to have a real plan in mind. For what it's worth I think most modern chess instructors actually advise beginners to throw accepted opening principles out the window and focus on forming a plan and developing their pieces around that plan. Jeremy Silman advocates this strategy, as do a number of other chess instructors.

If you want to find a really really bad teacher for a regular person, get a genius.

Wow.  I cannot belive you just wrote this.

Remember Fenyman, Eisnstein?  Pretty amazing teachers and geniuses.  I could go on, but this thread is really just silly now.

Two counter examples doesn't really point to anything conclusive, if I say that deaf and dumb people make poor teachers in general and you point out a single deaf and dumb teacher who is extremely good at his/her job does this make my original statement incorrect? I realise that JKB never prefaced his post with "in general" but I think to anyone able to reason well it was implied that he didn't mean "there has never been a good teacher who was a genius" literally.

On top of that, even if he were completely wrong on this point, how exactly does it discredit his other points on totally unrelated matters and make this thread "silly"?

You just like to argue.  You don't even know when you've completely lost the argument..so it is pointless to continue the discussion, because nothing others say penetrates you.

This is actually a joke. I don't find it funny however.

I want to say that throughout this entire thread JKB has never once insulted you or disrespected you in any way without complete justification. Your personal attacks and inability to actually formulate a real argument show you in a very negative light, and I personally would like to see an apology to JKB.

You've got a personal issue with me it is obvious.  I don't know perhaps you wish you could play like me and are jealous?  I'm not sure.  But get a life! 

First this is still just a game we all play.  Second none of us in this forum talking are all that good at the game (myself included). 

So go get outside.  Go talk to a real person.  Go play chess in the park.  Just stop being a complete ass and becoming yet another "social misfit" who plays chess.

Looking at our live ratings it looks like I, in fact, can play chess like you! Poorly at that!

Your latest post is really proving my point by the way, and I wouldn't have developed a personal issue with you were it not for posts like this.

Also for the second time, this is not a forum. This is a thread of a forum. When you are corrected please do not continue to make the same mistake.

what the heak is that suppost 2 mean???????????????

oh, thats real nice. NOT!! wtf. uh, hu. your SOOOOOOO cool. :P

As a final note in this THREAD...Go get a girlfriend and stop wasting your life playing chess. 

Yes I have a hot wife and a job and I'm still better than you at this GAME...You do realize this is a board game right?  Prioritize your life, go get a haircut, and get laid.  You'll be much more chill.

Take my advice in this Thread.

Well I think that about sums up my argument. Thank you very much. By the way JKB, I would like to apologize to you on immortalgamers behalf, it looks like he's been throwing a few tantrums throughout this thread, because "he's right and you're wrong but you can't understand that!".

Edit I'd also like to point out that I've only played chess for about eleven months while immortalgamer has been playing chess for seven years. If he is attempting to discredit me for taking this game too seriously, I think you can look at his thousands of games, years of play, and previous posts (notably his ten quick game threads a day, and his claim that he taught chess as his profession for a year) and see objectively that he, not only takes this game more seriously than I do, but is also only marginally better than me (at live) despite his six years seniority.

Though I suppose that you do need reasoning ability to really improve at chess quickly!

I don't expect you'll take my advice...either because you aren't able to or would just rather play chess instead "like your idol Bobby Fischer". 

But you really should.

oh......Thread.

Why is "like your idol Bobby Fischer" put into quotation marks?

In my post I put those words in quotation marks because I'm directly quoting your words. Why exactly did you choose to do that?