Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.
You're not an expert at anything lol. All that means is that you primarily play the QG as white and your opponents lose. Barely anyone at out level actually knows theory. @Stil1 is right.
Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.
You're not an expert at anything lol. All that means is that you primarily play the QG as white and your opponents lose. Barely anyone at out level actually knows theory. @Stil1 is right.
yeah, none of us are truly "experts"
Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.
You're not an "expert" on the Queen's Gambit. Nor are you an "expert" at chess. You're still, clearly, a novice.
The sooner you realize this, the better your path to improvement will be.
Novice? I am advanced. I studied everything on that opening and know all the lines. Novices aren't people under 2000, novices are newbies who are 500 or 1000.
i wouldn't consider you advanced, you're more of an intermediate player imo, no offense. but if you know SO much about the qg, try playing against a gm and get out of the opening into a balanced position
it isn't a gambit. If Black tries to keep the pawn, then it backfires
By your logic, the scotch gambit isn't a gambit and niether is the kings gambit, the problem with your theory is that you are saying that any gambit where you can easily win back the materiel isn't a gambit. And that icludes many gambits.
Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.
You're not an "expert" on the Queen's Gambit. Nor are you an "expert" at chess. You're still, clearly, a novice.
The sooner you realize this, the better your path to improvement will be.
Novice? I am advanced. I studied everything on that opening and know all the lines. Novices aren't people under 2000, novices are newbies who are 500 or 1000.
I consider myself a novice :\
So do I, so I will improve further. But I can tell you that if your 2k your an expert. People say I am "Advanced"...
You just said that you are advanced lol!
it isn't a gambit. If Black tries to keep the pawn, then it backfires
lol +1
Earlier you were saying that it WAS a gambit…
it isn't a gambit. If Black tries to keep the pawn, then it backfires
lol +1
Earlier you were saying that it WAS a gambit…
The arguments were so good, they changed my mind.
Nice
I've considered myself to be a noob for a while... also overall 60% winrate in blitz and over that in rapid, but it doesn't mean I'm an "expert" in my openings... so please don't use that as evidence to show your proficiency. As @IMBacon would say, our games are not decided in the opening.
... No wonder I am a master at the queen's gambit.
... Think before you talk again.
... Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.
... I studied everything on that opening and know all the lines.
... People say I am "Advanced"
You're a 1200 blitz player. Yet I've seen you, in various threads, talking down to players far more experienced than you.
I don't know what gave you the idea that you're a "master" / "expert" / "advanced" player. Wherever that belief came from, you should work to correct it.
... No wonder I am a master at the queen's gambit.
... Think before you talk again.
... Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.
... I studied everything on that opening and know all the lines.
... People say I am "Advanced"
You're a 1200 blitz player. Yet I've seen you, in various threads, talking down to players far more experienced than you.
I don't know what gave you the idea that you're a "master" / "expert" / "advanced" player. Wherever that belief came from, you should work to correct it.
First of all, my blitz rating is "casual" and I am really 1400. My past 10 games (although horrible) have gained me points. That is some proof. Second of all, I am 1650 in chess. Blitz is a different matter. It requires different aspects than chess, especially 3+0 Blitz. You as a blitz player should know that. I talk that I am far more experienced that some of the others because my rapid, or chess rating is higher than theirs. This position is a matter of personal preference, and maybe you prefer black because you played only one game and do not know or understand how blitz is different from other time controls. In blitz, I would prefer the position of black.
rapid isn't "real chess" either then with that logic, only classical is
First of all, my blitz rating is "casual" and I am really 1400.
Your arrogance isn't casual at all, though.
... No wonder I am a master at the queen's gambit.
... Think before you talk again.
... Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.
... I studied everything on that opening and know all the lines.
... People say I am "Advanced"
You're a 1200 blitz player. Yet I've seen you, in various threads, talking down to players far more experienced than you.
I don't know what gave you the idea that you're a "master" / "expert" / "advanced" player. Wherever that belief came from, you should work to correct it.
First of all, my blitz rating is "casual" and I am really 1400. My past 10 games (although horrible) have gained me points. That is some proof. Second of all, I am 1650 in chess. Blitz is a different matter. It requires different aspects than chess, especially 3+0 Blitz. You as a blitz player should know that. I talk that I am far more experienced that some of the others because my rapid, or chess rating is higher than theirs. This position is a matter of personal preference, and maybe you prefer black because you played only one game and do not know or understand how blitz is different from other time controls. In blitz, I would prefer the position of black.
rapid isn't "real chess" either then with that logic, only classical is
Yes, but rapid is the closest rating to chess. So is chess.com made a classical rating, rapid will not matter anymore and the classical rating would be the considered "a real chess rating" because it is the longest category.
but still: "I talk that I am far more experienced that some of the others because my rapid, or chess rating is higher than theirs." you're far more experienced than barely anyone in this thread
If you are really 1400 blitz why not reach it? Should only take a couple hours as 1200s are EASY to beat, right? Hit 1400 today without a single loss and prove me wrong.
The knight and the kid are a few.
Not me lol. I'm slightly underrated...
The knight and the kid are a few.
Not me lol. I'm slightly underrated...
I agree, the gap between 1400 and 1600 is not much, but after 600 games your 1500, and 110 points lower than me. But yes, your slightly underrated.
I literally reached 1600 then tilted... now I have to play longer TCs so I don't get dirty flagged.
It'll take longer for my rating to go back up.
The knight and the kid are a few.
Not me lol. I'm slightly underrated...
I agree, the gap between 1400 and 1600 is not much, but after 600 games your 1500, and 110 points lower than me. But yes, your slightly underrated.
I literally reached 1600 then tilted... now I have to play longer TCs so I don't get dirty flagged.
It'll take longer for my rating to go back up.
Bet you didn't lose 250 points in two days at blitz like I think I did.
Oh man... that must be painful.
Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.
You're not an "expert" on the Queen's Gambit. Nor are you an "expert" at chess. You're still, clearly, a novice.
The sooner you realize this, the better your path to improvement will be.