23 Jun 06
Originally posted by Red NightIs it?
Rhetorical question.
Do I play better of the only reason that my opponent play badly?
Do my opponent play worse only because I play well?
I don't think so.
My question is if the game is a good game? If the game is won only because that he played well? Couldn't it be so that his opponent played badly?
I don't find the question is rethorical, rather as a seed of which a disussion of the matter can grow.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf you seriously want an answer to that question, I'll give you one.
Is it?
Do I play better of the only reason that my opponent play badly?
Do my opponent play worse only because I play well?
I don't think so.
My question is if the game is a good game? If the game is won only because that he played well? Couldn't it be so that his opponent played badly?
I don't find the question is rethorical, rather as a seed of which a disussion of the matter can grow.
No, the game was not very well played by either side.
"two armed mobs chasing each other around the country, from which nothing could be learned..." Helmut von Moltke.
But that's just my opinion.
23 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by LanndonKaneThe p1600 has played and won 8 games. The highest rated opponent was 1306 at the time and is now a 1287. So, who knows what his true rating will be.
I don't know, it kinda looked like the 1600 was playing like a 1500, and the 1200 was playing like a 1300, as he was leading the game; until the blunder, that is.
As far as I can tell they were both playing like 1200s and I don't think there is a lot to analyze here.
Do you want to try to analyze this game?
EDIT: You know what, I don't want to be too harsh. I looked it over and after the initial somewhat questionable moves, they play alright up until the hanging Bishop.