I'm saying it's a bad assumption (completely baseless) to say that someone plays speed chess and spends one or two seconds on each move when they have almost only played online (correspondence) games.
And it is also a bad assumption to think that someone who plays online chess exclusively always thinks carefully.
Yes, if he was rated 2500+ then it would be an plausible assumption, but not for a 1223.
Great, I didn't make that assumption.
I think it was just different interpretations of what Alec847 meant.
I think "only play speed chess" was interpreted by Scottrf as meaning blitz and bullet games. SecretOfManain interpreted it as a way of playing, regardless of time control.
It makes sense to point out the OP had only played CC, because regardless of interpretation it makes Alec847's accusation baseless.
Secretofmana points out it's not impossible that Alec was correct anyway.
The argument seems to be about semantics. Both of you understand these ideas of course, but are talking past each other.
My language was not only fine, it was exemplary. That's why I'm a professional at it. And you again show you didn't understand the guy you were arguing with.
It WOULD be a bad assumption to say somebody playing correspondence only is playing their moves swiftly. That's not what he said.
Read post 7.
I think it was just different interpretations of what Alec847 meant.
I think "only play speed chess" was interpreted by Scottrf as meaning blitz and bullet games. SecretOfManain interpreted it as a way of playing, regardless of time control.
It makes sense to point out the OP had only played CC, because regardless of interpretation it makes Alec847's accusation baseless.
Secretofmana points out it's not impossible that Alec was correct anyway.
The argument seems to be about semantics. Both of you understand these ideas of course, but are talking past each other.
I'm not talking past anyone. Regardless at the fact that you can play online chess moves quickly, it's a bad assumption to say that someone playing 3 day time control games and not lightning games is making moves in 1 or 2 seconds. That was my only point, and is inarguable. But naturally there's always someone to try and argue.
That's right, no one is arguing against eachother's points, you're just continually reaffirming your own original points which do not in fact contradict each other 
"position" and "chess winning"...how can you master this in a short while?
I'm saying it's a bad assumption (completely baseless) to say that someone plays speed chess and spends one or two seconds on each move when they have almost only played online (correspondence) games.
And it is also a bad assumption to think that someone who plays online chess exclusively always thinks carefully.
Yes, if he was rated 2500+ then it would be an plausible assumption, but not for a 1223.
Great, I didn't make that assumption.
Hmm...
Why? because you guys only play speed chess you don't have the patience and the discipline for the slow and very,very careful build up of the position plan like Reshevesky and Karpov all you do is bang pieces like crazy in 1 or 2 seconds every single move like brutes even in 75 minute games it doesnt work that way.
What are you talking about? He's played almost exclusively correspondence games.
It is interpretable in different ways, and let's keep it that way. An endless discussion which does not contribute to the OP's question.
But I have to correct you on this:
You think it's me that doesn't understand the language when you can't use the word imply properly? As a clue, imply =/= guarantee.
im·ply (
m-pl
)
In a more logical way, if A implies B, and A is true, then B is also true. That is how an implication works.
Your logic is incorrect.
Your logic is incorrect.
As long as you are talking about the first part, that's fine, it's debatable (which we don't do of course).
However, the definition of implication, which I stated, is correct.
Your logic is incorrect.
As long as you are talking about the first part, that's fine, it's debatable (which we don't do of course).
However, the definition of implication, which I stated, is correct.
#19.
Your logic is incorrect.
As long as you are talking about the first part, that's fine, it's debatable (which we don't do of course).
However, the definition of implication, which I stated, is correct.
#19.
Just to be clear, do you argue about the definition of implication or the proposition I gave?
I argue your extension of the definition.
Express/indicate, these can be used to say that an playing online chess implies longer thinking than speed chess, but doesn't guarantee it.
Anyway if you're going to keep thinking imply = guarantee, we're done.
Go through games with good annotations. It will help you understand what's going through the player's mind when he made the moves. You can play me if you like. I can help you a bit on this. I learnt, and still learning to play positional chess since 6 months ago.
postions can b hard cause there are so many different possiblities in a single move much less 4-5 moves down the road, i read on line that in a 40 move chess game there are 10^43 thats 10 with 43 0's after it way to many to count lol, so just go with ur gut, it helps me (most of the time) and dont worry bout thinking 20-30-40 moves down the line, thats IM level and those ppl have been studying chess religously since they could walk, for me 3-4 moves usually is good enough sometime u have to do a bit more but teh most ive thought ahead is 6 or 7 so just go with ur gut and try not to miss the obvious stuff, which sometimes is easier said than done lol and gl with future games
It's a ten with forty-two zeros after it or a one with forty-three zeros after it : )
Position play, I love it. Don't think about double pawns is not positional. I think it's best to learn endings to play positionally.
Position play, I love it. Don't think about double pawns is not positional. I think it's best to learn endings to play positionally.
Doubled pawns aren't positional? Of course they are. Depending on the position it could be good or bad.
Position play, I love it. Don't think about double pawns is not positional. I think it's best to learn endings to play positionally.
Doubled pawns aren't positional? Of course they are. Depending on the position it could be good or bad.
that is his point you have to look at the broader context
My language was not only fine, it was exemplary. That's why I'm a professional at it. And you again show you didn't understand the guy you were arguing with.
It WOULD be a bad assumption to say somebody playing correspondence only is playing their moves swiftly. That's not what he said.