When "Chomping On Hanging Pieces" is a TERRIBLE Idea...

I still think chomping on hanging pieces is a good idea. I don't care how old my account is. You can't change my mind.

Building up your pattern recognition to capture free material will take you past 1400. You are overestimating how much skill it takes to get past 1400.

I don't get it, being a troll and giving Bad advice correlated, but not equivalent. We all agree that HPC is a troll right ? You can't say the opposite. Outside of this, he gives advice. Is it good or not ? Every one has an opinion on the topic, and I can see that many high rated players find it good enough to reach a certain level. I do respect this opinion, but it is surely not mine. IMO, it's the "good enough" that is the problem here for me. I didn't do the stats, and I won't do it, but it might be interesting to see how much people hang pieces at different ratings, and its influence on the result of the game. I will take my last game as an example : I lost a pawn and played poorly during the opening because I wasn't concentrated. I then was able to keep it equal by getting my bishop and knight to the center, and my rooks on open files. I'll admit I got the win because my opponent didn't see a fork (is it a hung piece then?), but still, I think chomping pieces can get you to a good rating, certainly better than what I am, but it is the basic of chess. If you can give the same advice to 600s, 1200s and 1800s, I'm sorry but it is not a good advice. People suggestede to find game plans, and positionning my pieces better, and I've suddenly won more games. Everyone can take hanging pieces, while finding tactics could be what makes you better than your opponent. Plus, "chomping on hanging pieces"is quite confusing, and it's the point of this thread, to tell people that the advice goes deeper than that. In fact, still in my last game, I won because I sacrificed my bishop which he took but he didn't see I could checkmate him. So yes we shouldn't make HPC look like a fool because he is higher rated, but a troll. His advice is confusing, and in my opinion not the best to improve.

Of course I am 1400 rapid, so my opinion doesn't matter apparently but I still wanted to share it

What people use the forum for is their business, to an extent. I was hoping people would share cool openings or games where offering a free piece was a trap, but if people want to argue here instead, they can. 
I have little interest making HPC look like a fool - in my opinion he does that himself whenever his answer to an argument is to settle it on a live-streamed bullet match or some such nonsense.

You’ll note that I returned here twice to add more opening fun to it, it’s other people who want to argue about his merits or otherwise. Honestly, I’m kind of surprised at the amount of support for him - as if somehow telling people to take free material is going to be the one line of advice that will make a beginner’s chess improve exponentially… I’ve always found it frustrating that if he is a legitimate player at that rating he doesn’t use his experience to actually lift other people up.

I don't think that matters. I think if a 2000 fide repeatedly plays an 1100 chess.com in 90+30 OTB that the 2000 fide would win about a million in a row.

If a 2000 fide plays Magnus in 90+30 OTB the 2000 fide would win maybe once every 300 games?

I'm shocked you'd stand by this Curry. Or anyone reasonable for that matter.

You said earlier that we are underestimating what there is to learn but I'm overestimating how much skill it takes to get past 1400? Either I don't get your point, and I'll be glad to understand it, either you're not coherent.

Btw my last point was a joke about you judging people with a number. I'm almost 1700 Blitz, and only 1450 in rapid because I started 2 weeks ago, and I'm improving for now, and not only by chomping on hanging pieces

Magnus wouldn't lose to a 2000 player in 90/30.

Looking at it from a purely statistical perspective, you'd have a .0003 percent chance to win a single game against Magnus. Plugging that into a Bernoulli trials calculator, you'd only have an 8% chance to win a game in 300 games, a 12% chance in 500 games, and 22% chance in 1000 games.

You'd have to play more than 4500 games to even have a 50% chance of winning one game.

This doesn't even account for the sparseness of rating points at right tail of the rating distribution or psychological factors at play. Assuming zero growth or decay of playing strength over time, you probably wouldn't win a game irrespective of trial numbers. Youre nowhere close.

I've drew to a GM OTB before. Naka recently almost drew to a 1900 fide player. 1 in 300 is conservative.

I don't believe your stats. Another site says it should be 1 in 100 when it's an 800 elo difference.

A draw isnt a win. Here's the winrate probability

It's a neat model created by mathematician Francois Labelle.

I'm too bad at maths to understand this site so I'll just trust it.

Still though an 1100 on chess.com is maybe 500 fide (if that rating existed) so it would be worse than 1 in 4500 wins.

Lol this site is definitely wrong. An 1100 on chess.com being 1500 fide? That's ridiculous.

I'm nearly 2600 bullet on lichess. Am I a GM according to this site?