rubbish annotations

many people who post chess games here have the most retarded annotations. WHY. most of them ARE underwater at like 1500, but there were people who said that e4 e5 Nf3 d5 is a mistake and completely unsound. unsound, mabye.stake? its a freakin opening! if its a mistake, why do GMs play the elephant? retards.

p.s. i told him to read a book and learn what you dont know, because its better to be silent and thought a fool then to speak and confirm peoples thoughts.(im one to talk)

p.s.2

heres a game against some 2200 dude. i won, completely proving this punk wrong.

I played the Elephant gambit for a while but gave up. Is 3. ...Bg4 now considered better than 3. ...e5 or 3. ...Bd6 ?

What if white played 5.Qb5+, attacking  b7pawn, and capture it.   what  would your responce have been?  The White Queen can retreat to b3, with maybe c4, and Nc3 to follow for white?   

I know this was not your point, interesting game though.

So, "retards" have a difficult time with grammar and typing? I hear ya'!

OK name calling aside,...

The problem with most players under 2200 saying something is unsound or 'garbage' is they have no idea WHY something is unsound. There are openings that are unsound to play as black because the positions required to maintain the balance is out of sub 2600 players (FIDE) to play accurately. This is from a GM, the positions require refined technique and positional understanding to keep things under control or even to convert an advantage.

The sveshnikov used to be considered a positional blunder and bad but was reassessed Moro helped to revive an opening or two. Same with kasparov and the Evans Gambit and Scotch.

That said,... one good way to improve as a player is to study WHY an opening is not played at a high level,...  Why is 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d5? a mistake. 

Why is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Bf5 a mistake.  

A great book on this is Big book of busts By Watson (!!) and schiller (?!) 

As a note

The elephant is bad I would assume that the game was a fast time control either 1-3 min so tactical over sights over ride any serious play. 

It seems that if white just tries to hold on to the pawn and make black suffer to get it back combined with pressure on the e-pawn white is just a pawn  up.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 Nf6 6. Bc4 Nbd7 7. O-O Nb6 8.

Bb5+  Black is not clearly lost and has things to attack like the pawn on d5 but seriously why play something where your struggling to equalize?

I find it almost a built in excuse... well of course I lost its a bad opening but if you win its a joke because you hit them with a pie in the face and you get a laugh. End the end the time spent on play bad openings is lost 

GM vs Master

[White "Short, Nigel D"][Black "Tucker, Alex"]

[WhiteElo "2665"][BlackElo "2220"][SourceDate "1997.11.17"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Bd6 4. Nc3 f5 5. d4 e4 6. Ne5 Nf6 7. Bf4 O-O 8. Be2

Re8 9. Qd2 Bb4 10. a3 Bxc3 11. bxc3 Nxd5 12. O-O Nc6 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. Be5 Nb6

15. Qf4 Re7 16. Qg3 Qd7 17. f3 exf3 18. Rxf3 Bb7 19. Raf1 1-0

You give 12.f4 an exclaim, but it's clearly a terrible move.  White is simply winning before this move (and probably isn't losing afterward but it's not so simple anymore).  12.d3 to release the bishop is obvious and good while f4 weakens the king side, walks into an attack, and is generally just bad.

Even 12.d4 throwing away a pawn to open up the bishop is better than 12.f4 IMO.  I haven't looked at the rest of the game (I stopped there) I guess I'll do that now... but seriously I can stop here and say this opening had nothing to do with black winning, in fact if white had played calmly the opening likely would have cost black the game.  I'm guessing there are more non-opening related blunders by white later in the game.

As for retarded annotations, it's a lot like chess strength -- it's completely relative to the room your in.  Sure a 1800 in a room of 1300s is going to smirk at annotations just like a 2200 is going to smirk at things an 1800 thought were happening but weren't.

Update -- holy crap, even after 27.bxa5 white lost?  How?  After white's 27th black is just losing period.  Ok I'll keep playing through it...

Ok, now I see how white threw it away -- guess what this was a tactical win, not an opening crush -- to the OP, a nice can of irony (The exclaim in 20.Ng1! is also incorrect).

This.

game set, match. tucker alex is nooooo match for short.

Qxb7 might not help black too much, he will be up two pawns. what do i get? a open rook file, beast development, and his pawns look like my grandmothers teeth after..hold on a sec. in fact, Qxb7 is rather bad.

oops: 12.Ne4

12.d4 loses to 12...Qxg3+.... oh gotcha now the f pawn is protecting g3DUH. so i was clearly lost in this game and it was 5/0 quite some time ago.(tony) and trysts the difference theres not as many 2200s that even annotate or even post in forums as there are 1500subs

 They do?

the challenged ones, yes :P

The Scotch was never considered unsound.   Before Kasparov,  it was generally believed not to give Black enough problems to be a good choice for a win;  but, I never heard a master or above say that the opening was unsound.   I am not as sure about the Evans Gambit.  I don't think it was ever considered unsound, just not to modern tastes.

thats not the scotch thats called the elephantine gambit.

+1! I didn't even know people played the elephant!

Well, in the game your little kingside pawn wedge looked pretty, but I'm pretty sure that had something to do with white's play...

blake78613 wrote:

Your statement is more accurate. Yes the scotch and evans were considered to not give white any advantage. 

I have heard plenty of masters call some openings unsound and Bad.

Elephant gambit is bad in that it generally just gives up a pawn and black doesnt get much for it against reasonable play other than fighting for equality. My theory is that if you are going to invest the time and brain cells to learn the details of an opening at least make it one that you can play long term or can be built upon. 

Again look at the "Big book of busts" by watson and you will get an idea of bad, good and reasonable. 

In general lower rated players should be encouraged to annotate games.  It gives them a chance to explain their reasons.  Their misconceptions can be pointed out in a constructive manner.   Constructive criticism is very helpful and usually appreciated, But ridicule and trolling defeat the whole purpose.