Diakonia: Agreed.
Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!
Sort:
ipcress12 wrote:
Diakonia: Agreed.
+1!
When I first began trying to learn chess on my own I bough about a dozen random books. They were all old books mostly published by places like Dover Books and by old time players like Lasker. I still have all of them though I am not sure how much they were blue to help me back then. But they all seemed to stress openings. But opening eluded me and basically still do until I played a dozen or so games against a 2000+ player and he coached me along. At my level -1400 or so- one will not go too far into complicated book lines. When someone plays the Sicilian against me as white they are often out of the book in six moves or so. But one begins to get a sense that a solid opening may give one an advantage in the middle game ergo in the end game as well. An opening does not equate to a quick easy win. Just, maybe, a slight advantage. Openings owned up for me again recently with watching games and lessons on YouTube. Certainly makes more sense why this is down over that early on and what one is hoping to achieve but about ten or twelve moves into the game. If one is playing black and white -if white is 1200 or less let's say- opens with moves like D3 and then A4 the chances are they do not know anything about openings. If white is 2000 and does the same thing it is
(Continued from my previous prematurely submitted comment) it may be something to deal with. I seem to like gambits as white and do both the Kings Gambit and now dealing with the Scotch Gambit. The more you play them - or any line- over and over and see similar patterns the less lost you are later. Even late into the game certain arrangements seem to recur. Same for black if one chooses, for example, the French Defense or something as whacky as the Latvian Gambit. With a little study and videos you begin to see themes over and over. Does not mean you will win. Just means that what is going on in the beginning can affect the later appearance of the board. If you play someone who is out of the book in two or three moves no need to panic. Just go for the same goals. Better to have a plan and set of simple goals than to be erratic and unsure.,
Aug 28, 2015
0
#169
Fiveofswords wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
more to the point is the simple fact that the titled people in question are clearly somewhat mentally disabled
C'mon moderators. It is time to ban this guy who calls everyone who makes positive contributions "mentally disabled", "moron", "idiot", "retarded", or some other term favored by the early-twentieth century Eugenicists who shared his racial views.
i would fully support attracting mdoerator attention on this issue. if they are sane at all they will see which person makes productive posts and which people are simply trolls.
We'll add "insane" to the list of insults you fling freely if they ban the ONE WHO SHOULD BE BANNED.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Aug 28, 2015
0
#173
Reb wrote:
Who has been slinging personal insults besides 50S ?
See post 155 .
Ziryab wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
more to the point is the simple fact that the titled people in question are clearly somewhat mentally disabled
C'mon moderators. It is time to ban this guy who calls everyone who makes positive contributions "mentally disabled", "moron", "idiot", "retarded", or some other term favored by the early-twentieth century Eugenicists who shared his racial views.
i would fully support attracting mdoerator attention on this issue. if they are sane at all they will see which person makes productive posts and which people are simply trolls.
We'll add "insane" to the list of insults you fling freely if they ban the ONE WHO SHOULD BE BANNED.
swords does seem to like using insane...crazy...and generally insult people.
oh boy. this thread is going full Tilt.
a mob is forming. I'm sorry but I don't like all the negativity against titled players. in my mind they have proved they skill.
I realize that doesn't make their word law, or their opinions, neccesarily correct.
and it still gets me, that I thought all the negativity was resolved pages ago.
if fiveswords or ipcress have real issues with reb or pfren or what they have written. they ought to explain themselves.
thegreat_patzer wrote:
oh boy. this thread is going full Tilt.
a mob is forming. I'm sorry but I don't like all the negativity against titled players. in my mind they have proved they skill.
I realize that doesn't make their word law, or their opinions, neccesarily correct.
and it still gets me, that I thought all the negativity was resolved pages ago.
if fiveswords or ipcress have real issues with reb or pfren or what they have written. they ought to explain themselves.
Not sure how long you have been a member here, but this is par for the course.
OP posts question
OP gets some answers - good and bad
Trolls take over
Insults start
Train wreck acheived
Aug 28, 2015
0
#177
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with titled players. However, one should present something more that the evidence of one's own charming personality to support such disagreement.
Diakonia wrote:
swords does seem to like using insane...crazy...and generally insult people.
Its well known that five has his own opinion of stuff. I don't expect a postive reaction from him.... but reb, and pfrens contribution has been appreciated by this patzer.
what of the rest of you? whats wrong with what pfren and reb has said? Reb just got here, he's barely said a thing. feel free to fill me in even in pm if my bumbling posts seem clueless.
it wouldn't be the first time I've said clueless posts on chess.com. as the duck said a few days ago- my very username- indicates that I'm a moron sometimes. LOL.
I also am saying stuff cause I've learned things in this thread and wouldn't want to see it disappear.
Ziryab wrote:
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with titled players. However, one should present something more that the evidence of one's own charming personality to support such disagreement.
Did they SAY they were absolutely right? I missed that post. instead they have opinions just like the rest of us.
on the other hand, their opinions did WORK for them, no?
Aug 28, 2015
0
#180
Contention is the basis for chess. On the board, it can't be verbalized. Forums provide a steam valve. That's about it. Not an altogether bad system.
I must add that when patzers start criticizing titled players, show no respect for what they earned the hard way and bring up "logical fallacies" they don't have a clue as to how stupid they appear.
Where does it list the 2200+ players he beat?
It doesn't. That's what I heard from a Cambridge friend who knows the guy.
Here's a paper I've been mulling.
http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4563&context=etd
The finding that chess players have above average IQ scores could support the hypothesis that playing competitive chess requires innately high levels of general mental capacities. However, this would not explain various counterexamples, namely chess masters who have IQ scores below 100. Reshevsky aside, the study by Doll and Mayr (1987) found that, as a group, strong German chess masters (ratings between 2,220 and 2,425) had a mean IQ score of 106.5 (significantly higher than 100, the population norm), but had a standard deviation of 7.5. Hence, their sample of master players must have included some individuals with lower than 100 IQ scores. The existence of such individuals shows that having a high IQ score is not a prerequisite for achieving high levels of skill.
Thanks...just want to make sure i wasnt blind. Also, you shouldnt post he has beaten players of that strength if you dont even know for sure. You should have prefaced it with "I heard..." or something like that