The Queen's Gambit is not a gambit. Change my mind.

Sort:
Avatar of Optimissed
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Probably better for black at our level than GM level.

But like I said, if you can put the LSB on the a square, you will be able to target the a pawn, and the pawns cannot advance.

But I don't think it loses by force for black and in the meantime, the lsb is a bit tied up. Anyhow, maybe I'll be a bit more confident as white after your comment. I get it so very rarely. Nobody seems to want to play the Slav against me for ages except in blitz, where they play daft moves like 4 ... Bg4 or 5. ....Bg4.

Yes, so the position is complicated. But if white can stop the pawns with the LSB they can turn their attention on the queen side. A favorable endgame would be a LSB, pawns, and a king vs a Knight, pawns, and a king, or at least this would be the most favorable endgame choice.

The exact opposite from your preferred defence, which I think you said is the KID. I play the Classical against the KID, where white tries to get a double minor piece ending where one of black's minor pieces is the "bad" bishop on g7, which takes four moves to get into the game on the Q-side. Or maybe just N against black's bad bishop but I like it best when each side has two to three minor pieces because black's pieces always get in each other's way, when black is trying to break out of the bottleneck around c7, whereas white has lots of space to manoeuvre.

Avatar of mrfreezyiceboy
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

... 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

Avatar of pfren
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

First of all, my blitz rating is "casual" and I am really 1400. 

 

Your arrogance isn't casual at all, though.

Avatar of mrfreezyiceboy
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
mrfreezyiceboy wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

... 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

Avatar of ninjaswat

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.

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

The knight and the kid are a few.

Not me lol. I'm slightly underrated...

Avatar of Optimissed
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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. 

When my blitz rating crashed just as I was making 1950 my next target, and possibly due to ill-health I found myself below 1430, I had to play my way up and because I enjoyed it so much, I did it again. No proper internet atm so can't play blitz. But I thought that the standard at 1450 is better than that at 1650, except they blunder more and also resort more to gamesmanship, like flagging in some cases, rather then playing properly. But in general, I did identify 1500 as a genuine barrier, because people below it may be somewhat better than those above it. That could be explicable if there's a "1450 mindset" which is different and maybe a bit special.

Avatar of Optimissed

Could be. I have no idea. At my best I could play 5 minute chess at about 2100 FIDE  but that was over the board and I could never have done the same online because of having to use the mouse and interpreting the 2-D diagram was never easy for me. I thought that 1950 was my online ceiling. It's probably less now. Maybe about 1800 or 1850 at 5 minute, max.

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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.

Avatar of Optimissed
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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.

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
Optimissed wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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.

Avatar of Optimissed
AunTheKnight wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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.

Had a bad cold and couldn't think properly. By the time I realised, I'd lost 150 points and so I kept on going because it wouldn't be hard to get back up, I thought. And I was wrong. Normally I can lose 70 and then put on 80 in two hours.

Avatar of Optimissed

Time was, 1700 at blitz was shamefully low for me. Have you been unwell? I mean, Covid?

Avatar of ninjaswat
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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.

Yep. I bet that you could draw me. But again my highest rapid is 1800+.

Aun is shamefully underrated but lacks a bit on the mental side of the game. I should know, I've nearly lost to them... also I was crushing 1800s but struggled to reach 1800 myself, if you've dropped below a peak that means either your play has gotten worse or your opponents have gotten better.

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
Optimissed wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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.

Had a bad cold and couldn't think properly. By the time I realised, I'd lost 150 points and so I kept on going because it wouldn't be hard to get back up, I thought. And I was wrong. Normally I can lose 70 and then put on 80 in two hours.

Man. The only chess when I play is bullet when I'm not feeling well. I couldn't care less about my bullet rating lol.

Avatar of Stil1
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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.

On the one hand, you declare that you're "far more experienced" than others because your "rating is higher than theirs".

Yet earlier, in this very thread, when I (someone with a much higher rating than yours) pointed out the merits of a specific position, you scoffed and acted like you know better.

You even warned me, "Think before you talk again," as if you're some all-powerful grandmaster, here to correct my ignorance.

So clearly rating doesn't matter. You simply act as if you know better than others, regardless of rating or ability.

I'm pointing this out because you apparently don't seem to realize you're doing this. Or, rather, you feel entitled to do so.

Perhaps, with some self-reflection, you'll be able to change this, and you'll approach the game with a bit more of the humility that it deserves.

Just some food for thought.

Avatar of DrewGainer

that needed to be said. hopefully it will be listened to.

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123

@Stil1 is that Starscream in your profile picture? Or Megatron?

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
SlumChessHustler wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:

@Stil1 is that Starscream in your profile picture? Or Megatron?

🤔 I think...it's a Gundam Robot...

Could be...

Avatar of ninjaswat
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
ninjaswat wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

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.

Yep. I bet that you could draw me. But again my highest rapid is 1800+.

Aun is shamefully underrated but lacks a bit on the mental side of the game. I should know, I've nearly lost to them... also I was crushing 1800s but struggled to reach 1800 myself, if you've dropped below a peak that means either your play has gotten worse or your opponents have gotten better.

Well another option (mine) is that you reached 1800 after 2 or 3 games and then went down as you played more rapid games.

Nope I grinded from 1200 rapid to where I am now. My rapid immediately fell, glicko is still pretty low. I just hit a new peak (1802 I believe) and then tilted 50 points. I wasn't ready to maintain that rating. It wasn't provisional.