I'm sure that Ponz didn't just trust his own analysis, but also checked with a powerful +3000 strength chess engine. So, stop with the ad hominem attacks. Find a flaw in the chess analysis or move on.
Yup.. again I will consider the source and just let you pretend you are right. Your rating again is under 2300 right? So is mine. I will assume you know pretty much zero about 2300+ chess. But you can be delusional all you like. Cause I am done. Goodnight Fake Master.
Instead of responding to my challenge you use a ad hominem attack.
Actually, I met the requirements to be USCF master way back in 1973.
After that I improved my game considerably by playing correspondence chess. I won the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Championship with a score of 13 wins, 1 draw, and zero losses in the Finals.
I still have a not active rating of over 2500.
I have shown my skills after winning the US Championship with several exhibitions after winning that championship.
If you met the rating requirement they would have awarded you the NM title certificate . If you had the certificate you could get a free diamond account here as well .... Did you ever win your state championship in otb play ? Top/Open section .... ? Not state amateur champ or some such ....
You are making assumptions not true. I will tell you what happened to me in my last year of over the board chess. First I played an unrated 6 game match with my friend William Harris. William won the very big Chicago Open that year with a score of 5 wins out of 5 games. Our 6 game match ended in 1 win for each of us and 4 draws.
Then, I decided to play in the US Open in Chicago even though I was working full time in Kankakee Illinois. This was very difficult as each evening I had to drive to Chicago and back and then work the next day.
I won my first 3 games. Then I played Andrew Karklins the then Illinois Champion. The game lasted until about 2 30 in the morning and ended in a draw.
Then I was paired with a grandmaster and won that game.
The next day I was paired with the Chicago Champion, Sandrin, and won that game. after 6 rounds I was tied for the lead of the US Open with 5 1/2 out of 6. Then I lost to Canada master Lawrence Day. I was so tired from loss of sleep that I considered dropping out of the tournament.
But decided to play one more game. I was paired with former Illinois Champ [and my friend] Steve Tennant. In the /rook and pawn endgame I was up two pawns but my head was spinning and he got a draw. I remember him saying "You were up two pawns and did not win! You were up two pawns and did not win!" He was right and I withdrew from the tournament.
My USCF rating was then 2188. However there was a 4 game tornado in Kankakee. I played in it and won all 4 games.
Then another 4 game tornado in Kankakee and again I won all 4 games.
I waited for my Chess Life to see my master rating.. But after 3 months it was the same--2188. Later, I found out that the tournament director also played in the same two tournaments and did poorly and decided not to send in the results for USCF RATINGS! Over the board chess was not my cup of tea for various reasons so I started improving on my first love and that was correspondence chess. My correspondence chess improved to be way above my over the board chess.
By the way, there are some fast play games here on chess.com which are posted on my account but I did not play.
Thus, they do not reflect my current chess abilities.
Indeed. What I cannot believe is that...…
Well, that you (as the OP) 'believed' TheGrobe was trolling?! Hah!
If you thought he was trolling, I honestly can't say much about your overall sense of judgement. I would venture ta say Smylovfan is "trolling" (but on your behalf)
Leiph, cookiemonster & even TheGrobe DO believe Chess is a draw. While I do not.
You know there is more to chess than just USCF or FIDE over the board play.
Some players may have disabilities which prevent them from playing that type of chess.
One can write a book, or teach chess to hundreds or set chess records, whatever he/she may be talented in.
ad hominem attacks are not the way. [and I do not accuse Reb of such an attack at all as he had legitimate questions]
So does this mean you think White has a forced win from the starting position? [or maybe Black]?
I've often considered this tread like the movie, " Beautiful Mind" (I hope that's the title).
Where the his vindication wasn't proven throughout the story (where he'd believed, and more than likely, made everyone believe there was a conspiracy).
In the end, though...even though his conspiracy theory was found out ta be delusional...his mind, his life was beautiful. To be ultimately shared.
Yes. I have stated many times throughout, that I believe White to play wins. From the Opening.
I discount black, from the initial position with white to play, can even win.
My Late Uncle often said to me, "Play to win as white, draw with black..."
I totally believe this to be true.
Of course, Im just making an analogy. I'm not saying your thread is an "conspiracy".
I would say "Play to win as White and also play to win as Black. In the 7th USA Correspondence Championship I won all 7 of the games where I had Black. [which is a record which will never be tied or broken]
In my two exhibition matches here on Chess.com, I took Black in all my games in both exhibitions.
World Champion, Carlsen, often keeps the pressure on even when playing Black.
Yes, I agree in the practical sense! When the opportunity presents itself, in any position (white or black) play to win.
" play to win as white, draw as black" is merely a guide. Because, as I truly believe, white to play wins...whereas as black, I play not to lose (draw) UNLESS white loses the initiative, I manage ta equalize (or close to it)
It's anyone's game!
I would presume, being part of US chess lore, your recent successes as black really would motivate you to honestly say...black can win 50% of the time. Much more so, equal amount of time. Your impressive record is indeed historical.
It is more of an testament to your quality of play than actual credence to this discussion that black has any hope of winning vs best play from white.
Fischer himself decreed, you have to equalize first before fishing for something (as black). I believe that still holds true as a fundamental.
Schlecter & Petrosian were extremely difficult to win against, white or black. It's because of their style of play and negativism. Playing not to lose. Every chess player, as well you should know, takes calculated risks.
Thing is, often when they do not have the initiative. They're often cramped, pawn structure is symmetrical.
Of the basic fundamental tenants of chess, I believe having the initiative or more tempi is the most important.
Losing a tempo as white may equalize, or have no significant impact. But losing tempo as black often result in being overrun. Indeed, white often has the initiative as early as the third move.
I would definitely agree to challenging you to a match whereas the condition would be I'm white the whole way.
What say you?