Positional Puzzles

I don't really care about getting a good rating on the internet, but anyway on my old account it was 2283 after 33 games. I expect eventually it could be anything over 2400.. 

Do you want a game? You say if you played OTB you'd be over 2500, so you'll thrash me obviously. And all these puzzles should be easy for you also.

My old account here was 2400 but that was 100% from just trying out off-balance crazy attacks.  This time around it will be much higher because I am strictly playing positional chess.  No I'm not interested in a game because I have no points to gain.  Challenge me when you get to 2000 at least, which shouldn't be long.  That is the minimal challenge I am accepting as of now.  I'm going to be playing less in the coming weeks and I don't want to waste any of my game slots against players I can't gain any points off of. 

Btw, you've got to be the only person I've ever heard of who can get to a 2500+ real life rating without knowing any openings. You must be like Bobby Fischer in the Middle and Endgame.. 

When I play purely tactically my middle game is exceptional and many times the game does not last until the endgame.  My endgame in those situations was merely ok because I didn't need to rely on it often.  Now that I'm playing strictly positional, my middle game is solid and my endgame has taken exceptional form.  I'm no Bobby Fischer though, and the 2500 estimate was purely that, an estimate.  I know I'll have to prove myself OTB before I can rest my hat on it.

I'm sorry, but I flat out don't believe you were anywehre near 2500 FIDE. Hell, your cc rating is over 250 points under it, and that's inflated. This was like ouachita's claim of being 2500.

Sorry - perhaps I was not clear enough.  I was responding to princejher's analysis, and on his tenth move, he overlooked a mate, and instead captured a pawn.  While it should make little difference, since white had the superior position, I was trying to point out that the mate was the better move.

Oh, so you are saying that I've peaked at 2230 here at chess.com?  Yea uhhh I've only lost 2 games in my last 130 games.  That's hardly peaking.  I know where my rating is headed, I've played on this site before.  It'll be well over 2500.  I'd be there now but I started 120 games immediately when I joined this time around because I felt like bullcrapping around.  That's all over and now my rating will be steadily increasing.  As for my 2500 real-life estimate, I believe that is correct but I'll have to prove it of course.  It won't be difficult, you'll just have to trust me.  Or not, I don't care.

By the way it's a bit foolish to compare OTB ratings with turn-based correspondence ratings.  Most of the top turn-based players here are garbage at OTB.  They only exist at the top because they have ample time per move.  Not to mention they have the luxury of searching through vast databases and opening books.  I use none of that crap yet I'll still be near the top.

i totally agree! that's why i support that my answer to nuclearturkey's puzzle  is better than his solution! (lol)

You may be quite good, but guesses about official ratings (especially when it's this high) when you haven't played many tournament games tend to be hard to trust and can be off by alot. Especially if you're going by blitz. The whole point of bringing up the cc rating is that they're very inflated and so if it's actually less than what you consider your FIDE rating is then it probably won't be anywhere near it. I used to think I was easily 1700 USCF, but that was a while ago and it took lots of work on my game just to officially reach 1600. So those bold (2500 is huge over the board, it's just a step below the elite!) claims really annoy me, even if it was true which I doubt. And if you don't use any benefits of correspondence, then it's just an inferior version of live chess in my opinion, except that on some connections it disconnects too much. But playing the same speed and using nothing online is like OTB... except with none of the tension.

You've admitted it takes proving, but I'd rather you not make any of those claims at all even if you "think" that's where it is.

You can prefer what you like but I'll make claims as I see fit.  I've beaten masters with standard time controls as well, not just repeatedly in blitz.  I know where my playing level is at. Like I said I just need to start playing in OTB tournaments.  The only thing holding me back is that I live about 100 miles away from the nearest reputable real-life club.  I'll start going eventually.

I like turn-based chess because it's relaxing.  But there is no way I will sit over a database or an opening book to pick my moves for me, that's not chess in my eyes.  I get my OTB-style fix somewhere else as the Live Chess here is awful. (so far)

Anyway don't let my comments give you an inferiority complex.

ah, for me live chess is excellent, you see, and that's the best way to play OTB for me besisdes actually going to a tournament. I understand that living far is tough for tournaments, but still it's not an excuse to make claims like that. Everyone overestimates their rating pretty much. Blindly looking at databases is indeed boring, however, thinking about the position then seing how many masters agree with your move/idea is quite enlightening, and you can try to figure out the reason. The analysis board exposes you to more positions so it has plenty of value, it just can't be used to brag. So you can play "straight up" if you want, but you might learn something by looking into the position deeply with ease (analysis board). It won't teach you to calculate, but it's not like you have to learn everything together. There's seperate studies for tactics, endgames, strategy, etc. but if you really play like you do OTB on online, then that's impressive, though it's still inflated because of the rating system in general for online. But for you to claim to be 2500 without any evidence and not many games played in tournaments is just arrogant, I think.

Actually I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I do use the analysis board in turn-based chess, which is another reason I could hardly compare the rating here to anything OTB related.  I just don't use any type of database or opening book.

I can still get high rated without the analysis board as I have in the past, but I can't get as close to the top as I want to.  At the higher levels if your opponent is using the analysis board to play out lengthy variations and you are not, you might as well let them use a program against you

I was quoting from your analysis on post 15.

You can think that if you want, I don't care. If you refuse to be humble and learn something valuable it's no skin off my nose.

i can be humble without you humiliating me. because it was your original comment  and answer, to  my response to your challenge to find a better move, that is very arrogant! check your statement first before spewing your sarcasm.

WildFireMayhem, solving all of these puzzles and posting your solutions (with explanations) may prove something..

"I didn't even read most of your analysis, yet I'm very sure that you were following the wrong thought process just by looking as far 2.e6?! How? It's quite simple: After the initial exchange White has a totally dominant position where Black has little to no meaningful counter-play. Therefore White should make the simplest winning moves which lead to the most clear cut advantage. If Black had simply retreated his Bishop after 2.Bc8 although White is still better the position is more unclear. White can't seem to force anything clear cut." -Nuclearturkey

i made some remark and diagram to challenge your assessment to my solution and all you came out are rethorics. other people who viewed our interchange seem to support my line, that i even got corrected of the right check mate move. my line is  more forceful than your continuation that is very slow.

You still don't understand. Some positions such as this do not require deep analysis, when simple, no risk moves do the job more easily. It doesn't matter if someone has found a mate somewhere down your non-forced line. Study some Colle/Torre Attack games for many cases when this is so.

Anyway, all that is necessary has been said, so I'm moving on from this discussion. If you still choose to disagree with me that's fine.

Nuclear, my brain is fried right now or else I'd entertain everyone with my genius.

Seriously though, you and prince seem like good gents, and are obviously equally passionate about chess.  You both have slightly different methods of achieving what is essentially the same outcome.  Shake hands u2, you are both strong players.  Maybe play each other in an unrated game.  Nuclear, no one wants to play your provisional 1200 rated self in a rated game, something tells me it'd be a death trap.

Well, I've been trying to jump in with long posts but it takes me so long to write em I time out and lose the whole damn thing ... but at any rate...

I am very curious about the solution to the second me vs 1917 diagram... by curious, I mean I really don't believe there's a good answer and I strongly suspect I'll disagree with your evaluation of that position, and that feeling is strenghtened by the fact that although you think I didn't understand the first diagram (because I noted the N hit e3 *rolls eyes*) your continuation, as given to Princejher was weak, as were your refutations of his variation. At any rate, I like Princejher's approach to the position though I don't think his move was best. The strongest continuation IMO was h4.

But I am reasonable and I'm open to education... let's move on to the second 1917 diagram (NOT the second puzzle diagram on the page): What move is it you believe is strong in the second diagram? IMO White could approach that position more than one way, and he has a number of modestly attractive candidates. I don't see a stand out.