Can I interject? The OP needs to really understand what chess education is... Does he think the top over-the-board players are not using prepared lines? The only difference in that and non-machined CC (like this site) is that the poor human is not required to have a super-human memory. Many (most?) prepared (or preplayed?) lines in chess go to a point where there is still an active discussion (games!) going on about who is better in the given position. I enjoy playing from known lines for the reason greenpawn34 mentioned. You can find the move that establishes who is better (or at least pushes the conversation to another level.) There is nothing wrong with this! This is how chess advances! Theory is NOT a cheat-sheet. It is simply every game ever played by anyone anywhere. The trivial results are not cataloged. The disputed results are.
In any case (also as greenpawn34 points out) you will find that most players here usually deviate quickly from known lines. (The secret of greenpawn34's and my success!) I don't mind leaving theory on move 2. I also don't mind playing to a book position and seeing which one of us really understands it. Cheating is when you are just using moves from some other source and not demonstrating your own understanding of the position. When you do that you are not a chess player; you are just another machine.
We all know there are cheaters but I pity them because they are less than human. It must be a hollow feeling. When I win I am happy because I did the work but when I blunder (and I do constantly) it hurts but I try to learn something from it. Theory is just painless learning. You don't need to put your hand on the stove, just be open to learning and you can avoid that pain. (But not all pain! Then you wouldn't be human!)
Originally posted by Shallow Blue Nothing, AFAICT. Much as in the Cunningham and Becker Gambits. It should properly be called the Blachly defense against the King's Gambit, but that's a bit of a mouthful. Hence the shorter Blachly Gambit
We all know there are cheaters but I pity them because they are less than human. It must be a hollow feeling. When I win I am happy because I did the work but when I blunder (and I do constantly) it hurts but I try to learn something from it. Theory is just painless learning. You don't need to put your hand on the stove, just be open to learning and you can avoid that pain. (But not all pain! Then you wouldn't be human!)[/b]
Human or not.The biggest problem is the type of rating systems on chess sites,no I don't know of a better system and I know even clubs use point sytems but it makes correspondence chess more cut throat than club chess.For some it drives them crazy not knowing they might be playing against an opponent using some form of outside help.I personaly have studied mega opening databases with guilt but that kings gambit was driving me crazy.I found the Blachly gambit works the best for me.
Originally posted by dinc168 ... I personaly have studied mega opening databases with guilt but that kings gambit was driving me crazy.I found the Blachly gambit works the best for me.
Up to you, of course, but I think you have nothing to feel guilty about - that's what databases are for, whether you apply what you learned OTB or online.
If you really want to avoid the King's Gambit, don't play 1 .. e5. I hardly ever see 1 .. e5 OTB at club level. Which annoys me, as I like playing the King's Gambit!
Originally posted by aquatabby Up to you, of course, but I think you have nothing to feel guilty about - that's what databases are for, whether you apply what you learned OTB or online.
If you really want to avoid the King's Gambit, don't play 1 .. e5. I hardly ever see 1 .. e5 OTB at club level. Which annoys me, as I like playing the King's Gambit!
I see 1.e5 here. Not every time but often enough for me to play the Ruy or the Vienna and have some fun. Haven't tried a King's - yet! (You give me ideas.)
You are right tho - no one should feel guilty about learning from the history of chess. Did Einstein feel guilty about Newton? (It is a silly question.)
Originally posted by TerrierJack You are right tho - no one should feel guilty about learning from the history of chess. Did Einstein feel guilty about Newton? (It is a silly question.)
Standing on the giants i think its called.
If mankind didn't, we'd have no wheel n no KFC :-)
Originally posted by toeternitoe Ok,thanks.Bad naming is what I was thinking too.
I wouldn't call it bad, as such. It's abbreviated. But then, so is "King's Gambit". You're not gambitting your king, so it should properly be called "King's Bishop's Pawn's Gambit". But nobody would play it if it were called that, because it wouldn't fit on your score sheet.
Originally posted by hedonist Standing on the giants i think its called.
If mankind didn't, we'd have no wheel n no KFC :-)
Newton said it first. "If I have seen further, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants". It has to be said that he was having a dig at his arch rival Hooke who was short and had a hunched back. The principle is good though, we build on the experience and knowledge of those who went before us.
Originally posted by dinc168 Human or not.The biggest problem is the type of rating systems on chess sites,no I don't know of a better system and I know even clubs use point sytems but it makes correspondence chess more cut throat than club chess.
Oh, come on. First the problem was opening databases. Then it was pre-game engine analysis. Now it's the rating system? Nonsense. None of these are a problem.
The big problem is people trying to find cheap excuses for why they lost games they shouldn't have. My excuse is that I'm no bleedin' good at this game - what's yours?
Originally posted by Shallow Blue Oh, come on. First the problem was opening databases. Then it was pre-game engine analysis. Now it's the rating system? Nonsense. None of these are a problem.
The big problem is people trying to find cheap excuses for why they lost games they shouldn't have. My excuse is that I'm no bleedin' good at this game - what's yours?
Richard
I guess my problem is people like you that will never get any better because you eventually get frustrated with how low on the totem pole of life you sit and then use any way you can to win instead of doing something else with your life like maybe switching to checkers.
Originally posted by Shallow Blue Oh, come on. First the problem was opening databases. Then it was pre-game engine analysis. Now it's the rating system? Nonsense. None of these are a problem.
The big problem is people trying to find cheap excuses for why they lost games they shouldn't have. My excuse is that I'm no bleedin' good at this game - what's yours?
Originally posted by dinc168 I guess my problem is people like you that will never get any better because you eventually get frustrated with how low on the totem pole of life you sit and then use any way you can to win instead of doing something else with your life like maybe switching to checkers.
Checkers are completely worked out to a draw. You can get the irrefutable analysis and never lose. Care for a game of chess?
Originally posted by dinc168 I am watching a tournament game on another site. The game opened with the Blachly gambit.I did A database search on opening moves,to learn about this opening and found a library of many games that have used this opening.In this game there have been twenty two seperate moves and every move has been identicle to a game I found in the database.How many moves do ...[text shortened]... etime before in another game and is it possible that someone in the other game was cheating too?
I have played the pirc as black over 4000 times at a blitz chess site. I know it so well i don't need a program. So if there rating is higher then mine i doubt they would need one.
Blachly Gambit
30 Jan '11 16:221 edit
Back to Top