1 edit
Originally posted by powershakerNot true. I timed out with two 1300 players over the past couple of weeks. And, in the past 30 days, I had a 1600 rating. Doesn't raise my eyebrows or give me any concern. My point is: any player can lose to any player on any given day. Rating doesn't mean crap. Chess is life. Even if you're Bruce Lee walking down a dark alley at night... and you can't see the guy with the .38 caliber right behind you hiding behind the dumpster... chess is the same as life. We all make mistakes. There are good days and bad days.
Not much unlike your pretentiousness with a measley 1700s rating. Far from a master, I might add.
Originally posted by powershakerUh! If a 1600 player lost to a 1300 player, would you be awestruck then also? GIve me a break! 2500 is no push over!
Sometimes, I find myself looking at the comments of a RHP member. I am suddenly amazed by his articulate approach to a chess subject or game, and therefore, I am encouraged to click on his name and check out his rating. 1200? Nice going! I love the insights though. Terrific B.S.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
3 edits
Originally posted by z00tClassic, you are so out of touch. For a start its ECF (yes I did refer to it as BCF in my first post but old habits die hard) So how long is it since you stepped into a club? 115.
Someone who can win against 1800 players but is checkmated by a 1400 player is not in grip of the principles of chess. If he indeed has a BCF rating then it is nowhere mre than a 100 since you are not permitted to carry opening books or move pieces.
You should be in a position to argue your case without resorting to insults. You said [b]"Meh. Who are you to ...[text shortened]... does not drive on the wrong side of the road just because he is the Minister for Transport.[/b]
The games against Mctayto were played for sheer fun if you look closely iv played a lot of 1400's unrated and offered assistance and training to anyone under 1800. The only "serious" game iv lost here was to Davidmacc that came expecting to be able to push wood and still win....whoops. If you check the resigning point for both games the unrated one against a friend I played out to the end because we were having a nice conversation and its nice for a 1400 to mate someone much higher they will enjoy. In the "serious" Davidmacc game you will see the resign point is at the point where I assume the position can no longer be won.......although I might have tried to draw it just wasnt any fun to play. You totally failed to see this when looking at the games a bit like you fail to understand why Anand would sac.
I hope you will keep your lack of chess understanding about why players might sac so. Also the fact that you think im 100ecf (or below) just shows how little you know.
Who here wants an example of a good sacrifice?
Game 1576660
21. Bg5!! (in my judgement)
Just a note, Vandalizer is a lot better than his rating says. His claims in his profile? True.
Actually your pointless Qb6+ a bit earlier contributed to the problem. 26 ..Rff5 just looking at the analysis board for a second or two. Ouch I've just seen Bd5 + Those light squared weaknesses are fatal.
And your knight on a5 must be basking in the sun. Not a bad performance from a woodpusher.
Originally posted by z00t26. ... Rff5 doesn't save things. White still gets a good advantage after 27. Be4.
Actually your pointless Qb6+ a bit earlier contributed to the problem. 26 ..Rff5 just looking at the analysis board for a second or two. Ouch I've just seen Bd5 + Those light squared weaknesses are fatal.
And your knight on a5 must be basking in the sun. Not a bad performance from a woodpusher.
18. ... Qb6 wasn't too bad I don't think.
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe problem with Qb6 was it distracted your Queen from the e7 Knight/kingside. After Rf6 somewhere, Rh6 fails due to Q7f+ taking the unprotected Knight. It would have been batter to pursue b4 and pressure-rise his Queen-side. Also Bd7 was lame , better was Be6 preparing d5 and also protecting the King side.
26. ... Rff5 doesn't save things. White still gets a good advantage after 27. Be4.
18. ... Qb6 wasn't too bad I don't think.
Originally posted by XanthosNZBg5 was an excellent sac and the Ng6 a few moves later was a death blow.
26. ... Rff5 doesn't save things. White still gets a good advantage after 27. Be4.
18. ... Qb6 wasn't too bad I don't think.
Your commenting on a defeat gives me a strange feeling: respect for Xanthos.
Originally posted by z00tIn hindsight the Queen could have been useful defending the e7 square however at the time I wasn't looking at defence and the e7 knight seemed safe. The sac completely caught me offguard and left me scrambling to keep up.
The problem with Qb6 was it distracted your Queen from the e7 Knight/kingside. After Rf6 somewhere, Rh6 fails due to Q7f+ taking the unprotected Knight. It would have been batter to pursue b4 and pressure-rise his Queen-side. Also Bd7 was lame , better was Be6 preparing d5 and also protecting the King side.