I don´t need to show off... I obviously do not belong to the lazy generation, I lift weights, I am on my way to becoming rich and I am master at chess.
In post #159, Move 6)...BxQg4 would be a good tactical move.
You missed that move, unfortunately.
Some people who work hard go to 2300.
Some people don't start working hard until after they're 2300 and they go to 2700.
You get what you give, for sure, but the exchange rate isn't the same for everyone.
zborg, i play c7 after Bxg4... after Qd7 I have c8queen. the endgame is much better up to winning for me. maybe you should train some more tactics bro?
Haha, exchange rate, I like it.
EXACTLY. Blunderlots gets it. It's about proper training.
To the person who responded: you didn't read my post properly. I said "with proper training" most people can become 2000+, and I would extend that to 2200+, given the assumptions I outlined.
If you make a half-hearted effort in training, you get back a similar result. Before I attained 2000+, I worked with a professional chess coach once a month for several months, who outlined study plans and my weaknesses. I'm convinced my improvement wouldn't have been nearly as fast without this coach. Since I was just a high schooler then, I had plenty of time to dedicate to chess, but I only spent 2 hrs a day (or less).
Again, everyone I've met who says 2000+ is impossible is just training wrong. Spending time on chess isn't training chess.
zborg, i play c7 after Bxg4... after Qd7 I have c8queen. the endgame is much better up to winning for me. maybe you should train some more tactics bro?
7)...Bd7 stops the check. 8) cxQd8, Kxd8 leaves black down a pawn, instead of entire piece.
And black doesn't lose his Bishop on b4. Yes, he's down two pawns, but has at least retained his bishop. Simple tactics, yet again.
Well, Zborg, I know that myself but what you said in your previous post is that I missed that move? what the hell dude, admit that you were wrong instead of trying to seem clever...
also in the game black wasnt a entire piece down either.
People who believe their personal success is evidence that anyone can do it must count themselves among the most disadvantaged. "If an idiot like me can do it, then anyone can!"
If you've had such success, I honestly think that's great, and I urge you to become a coach. If most of your pupils can do it you'll be one of the world's best.
Well, Zborg, I know that myself but what you said in your previous post is that I missed that move? what the hell dude, admit that you were wrong instead of trying to seem clever...
Your opponent was 300 rating points below you, and thoroughly clueless.
That makes it a great tactical victory for you?? Yikes.
My analysis of Animalon's game:
6...Bxg4 is a move that is better than what happened in the game
7.c7+ Nd7 8.cxd8+ Kxd8 with rough equality. Black is down a pawn, but this position is considerably more active for black.
Animalon played better than is opponent, but he missed several tactical opportunities as well. For one, Nxb5 was just grabbing a pawn, and threatening Nd6+. Bxb5 Qxb5+ is totally winning for white. Of course, black blundered every other move, so this was irrelevant.
zborg what is wrong with you bro? you said I missed Bxg4 which is just nonsense and you also thought Bxg4 was winning, you didnt even see c7 check. And now you are still making up some random things which got nothing to do with what you said earlier. And no heine-borel the position is not unclear, its just better for white. not even mentioning blacks king on d8.
and also heine how is Nxb5 better than what I played in the game(Nf3) wow I take another pawn but thats completely irrelevant in the position, black would just take b5.
Bxg4 c7 Nd7 (the most logical blocking move) cxQ Rxd8 and black has a little compensation (development and the center pawn) and can still castle, but yeah, white is better.
Animalon: Black has compensation for the pawn. Kd8 doesn't matter because queens are off (no attacks).
Taking another pawn is irrelevant because your opponent was weak.
Although people may say black's position is just worse, I stand by my evaluation that black has compensation in the form of bishop pair and better development.
if you want to call that compensation, okay then. And objectively Nxb5 simply wasnt better than Nf3.
Over the 40+ years I've played I've known many very intelligent people that played constantly and studied on and off for years and couldn't get much over 1600.
Studying on and off for years is not the same as training regularly with a master-level (or Grandmaster-level) coach, though.
A lot of "semi-serious" players read some books here and there, and check their games with engines and stuff. They maybe spend an hour a day or so, here and there.
The serious students, though, tend to have master-level coaches that review and discuss their games, and binders with lessons and worksheets tailored specifically for them that they carry around. They might spend four to five hours a studying chess, rather than just one or two.
Like a lot of things in life, I believe that in chess: you get what you give.