Concentration ProspersTexas, United States
I am happily married with my husband since 1997.
I have been playing chess since 1974. My first and favorite chess book was "Chess Strategy" by Edward Lasker (pub. 1911), given to me by my father. Lasker's excellent guide taught me the basics in QP and KP openings with clear and concise text. This book is available for free download at Project Gutenberg here: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5614 However, the important chess diagrams are not adequately represented in the HTML document. While Gutenberg is sometimes a useful site, a beginner is better off buying a chess book. I would suggest Lasker's "Modern Chess Strategy," the superior revised edition published in 1950.
I do not own any chess software of any sort, although in the past I've dabbled with Fritz and CM, but I find computer chess boring and pointless. The computer beats me every time if I sets the difficulty high enough. I only play against humans, either online or OTB. On correspondence games, I analyze positions and games on a board with pieces. The entire purpose of chess is mental exercise and recreation. I do not require the mathematical perfection that computers bring. Losing reveals the limitation of my mind, whether temporary or permanent. I feel one misses the point of chess by bringing computers to the table. I feel that it is dishonorable to rely upon machines to do the thinking. Computers do not need chess. Humans do. Computers already calculate certain problems with near-perfect precision. Humans have the flawed brains that can benefit from the rigor of chess-exercises. I do not believe that many people cheat on chess.com (and in fact it is not feasible in blitz games of less than ten minutes), but those that do are sad sacks to need the empty, petty "victory" of winning a stakeless game by underhanded means. They deprive themselves of the true purpose of the game, which is exercise of the human brain.
I prefer to play unusual openings that I developed largely on my own and do not care what the "received opinion" is on any opening. If you think my opening can be refuted then have at it, within the time limit allotted! I relish disabusing opening snobs of their prejudices! In my opinion, either color can move any piece or pawn to any square on the first move and still come out okay in the end with proper play. So prove me wrong, if you can!
Chess.com has great groups, including gay groups, is gay-friendly, and has Vote Chess, none of which is true of certain competitors. Chess.com also has a better service overall, not dropping connections due to technical problems or losing player histories, unlike certain competitors.
On Chess.com, I like to play blitz (not bullet), standard, and on rare occasions, against opponents of equal strength, games as long as one hour per side, but usually not longer.
I like Vote Chess, but have had to quit a number of games in which team members were not participating but merely voting with little or no discussion, which defeats the purpose of vote chess. If there is to be no discussion of moves, then there really is no advantage to playing vote chess over solitary chess. Communication is key.
I do not join groups just for the sake of joining groups. I only join groups of an ideological cast that I believe in. I believe that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol and should be legal. The reason marijuana is not legal today is because of the inability of some human beings to evaluate scientific evidence. I believe gays should have the right to marry. I do not believe in the major world religions. I believe it is the duty of a human being to exercise the right to vote and to resist tyranny and oppression in any form.
I believe in honor, do not cheat in any way, and will try to rematch players if they request it. I am not scared of losing and do not care what my rating is. I am glad for my rating to go down, because it means next time I will get an easier opponent. I just do not care whether I win or lose. In fact, I think it is silly to be obsessed with something like rating. If I do not rematch you, it means one thing, I am tired, and you must not get into a tizzy. There is more to life than chess.
Whether I win or lose, I like to encourage my opponent to complete their lessons in the game of Kings. I hope to inspire and motivate others. It may come as some surprise, particularly after I have won, when I employ the ever-charming colloquial, so different from traditional English. "I been done lernt you a lesson" is the past pernicious participle, as fellow grammarians have so rightly observed. See "Official Colloquial English Guide," 19th ed., Vol. IV, p. 571-579, where this is discussed in greater detail. Those who find mere text on a screen unsatisfying should visit Google Translate, where my words are spoken aloud: ( https://translate.google.com/?q=i+been+done+lernt+you+a+lesson#auto/en/i%20been%20done%20lernt%20you%20a%20lesson ). I recommend clicking the speaker icon once, then a second time. I find this most satisfying. Isn't Google Lady lovely?