WOW!!!!!! Guess what Guys!!!!!! I finally convinced my brother to play a game of chess with me, and guess what? I was just playing with him at Uchess.com, and guess what happed?
I WON THE GAME IN 4 MOVES!!!!!!! Can you belive that?
I got him on Checkmate by just playing 4 moves! Wanna know how? I used the Scholar's Mate on him, a he didn't even see it! :o) I ust Love it! And guess what he told me? He said: You a no longer a Mach for me AJ. I love it! :-D he also said: You are too good for me AJ. I finnally won! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally! Finally!
PS: Some of you may know my brother, because a long time ago I was telling alot of people about how good my brother was... But not anymore! :-D
Originally posted by AJMagicmanAJ, I hope you don't let your brother's comments go to your head. Beating someone with the Scholar's Mate is nothing to be proud of, for several reasons, not the least of which is that in order to succeed in achieving Scholar's Mate, you have to play some bad chess yourself. Please understand that you are not winning because you are good; you are winning because your opponenet is either really bad, or just suffered a moment of temporary insanity. Furthermore, you aren't learning anything new. I've seen from your past posts that you are eager to become a good chess player, but I'm afraid you will not advance at all if you just keep trying the same terribly unsound openings over and over again.
WOW!!!!!! Guess what Guys!!!!!! I finally convinced my brother to play a game of chess with me, and guess what? I was just playing with him at Uchess.com, and guess what happed?
I WON THE GAME IN 4 MOVES!!!!!!! Can you belive that?
I got him on Checkmate by just playing 4 moves! Wanna know how? I used the Scholar's Mate on him, a he didn't even se ...[text shortened]... ng time ago I was telling alot of people about how good my brother was... But not anymore! :-D
"troll
An outrageous message posted to a newsgroup or mailing list or message board to bait people to answer. Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it."
http://www.walthowe.com/glossary/t.html
I don't think he is trolling, just a classic chess newbie.
Listen, if your brother fell for Scholar's mate, then he was never a good player to begin with, that or he is a good player and was really drunk that night, but beating players when they are drunk at this game is very unfair. . .
What I recommend chess newbies do is first study endgames, learn how to checkmate with a queen and king, rook and king, bishops and king, knight and bishop and king, learn how to use the king, promote passed pawns, study why, say, a knight vs a king is a draw, etc.. . . Then I recommend studying tactics in the endgame and middlegame. Finally, you should study openings, I reccomend you study 1. e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 openings, worry about the flank openings and semi open openings later, as these tend to be noob unfriendly.
Yes, you heard that right, chess is a weird game, and I find newbies learn quicker if you teach them the ending first and the opening last.
Originally posted by mateuloseI really thought that a newbie should learn openings and ideas behind them,then middlegame and endgame in this order.
I don't think he is trolling, just a classic chess newbie.
Listen, if your brother fell for Scholar's mate, then he was never a good player to begin with, that or he is a good player and was really drunk that night, but beating players when they are drunk at this game is very unfair. . .
What I recommend chess newbies do is first study endgames, le ...[text shortened]... game, and I find newbies learn quicker if you teach them the ending first and the opening last.
How can a newbie study endgames first if he doesn't even know the most common openings and how to play them solidly?
Practice is all,and if you don't practice well ops and middle games it's difficult to reach a winning endgame and learn from it..............
Originally posted by RavelloNo, I am actually a lousy player, but I used to be good at this game at one time when I was a little kid. Unfortunenately, I turned schizo and I cannot think ahead 6-8 moves like I used to, mainly because I cannot remember anymore what I think up. But I took out all my beginner books, and most of the chess teachers, who write these books, agree that it's better to teach the openings last. Mainly because newbies tend to memorize opening moves, and that serves them little good, because guess why? They play other newbies who seldomly know the opening anyways and do stuff like a scholar's mate.
I didn't know it.
Are you a chess teacher?
Originally posted by mateuloseAlso it's just the right way to think about the game. The idea behind much middlegame strategy is to make it into a good ending. The idea behind much opening strategy is to make it into a good middlegame and from there into a good endgame.
You teach newbies the endgame first because it helps them understand how the peices move.
Lots of things in the opening aren't going to make any sense unless you know a little something about the endgame. Things like the minority attack start to make a lot more sense then.
Originally posted by mateuloseI agree.
You teach newbies the endgame first because it helps them understand how the peices move.
I still consider myself a beginner. I heard the "start with the endgames" advice, and believe it has helped me better understand how the pieces work together. I've looked at tactics, and have just started openings. But I still need a lot more work on endings, especially work with pawns. It seems my understanding of pawns is coming slowest.
Originally posted by zucchiniThat's quite normal, usually newbies have trouble understanding knights and pawns, as to be honest, they are weird peices that move in weird fashions and they take some time geting use to.
I agree.
I still consider myself a beginner. I heard the "start with the endgames" advice, and believe it has helped me better understand how the pieces work together. I've looked at tactics, and have just started openings. But I still need a lot more work on endings, especially work with pawns. It seems my understanding of pawns is coming slowest.
Originally posted by dscpI thought the whole point of the minority attack was for the middlegame, to stick the victim of it with a backward pawn or an isolated pawn that can be leaned on to win material?
Lots of things in the opening aren't going to make any sense unless you know a little something about the endgame. Things like the minority attack start to make a lot more sense then.
Originally posted by paultopiaSometimes you see a minority attack in the endgame. Generally, though, having one less pawn on the q-side can be an advantage in the middlegame (it really depends on the specifics of the position) but can turn into a serious disadvantage in the endgame, when one side may force a distant passed pawn.
I thought the whole point of the minority attack was for the middlegame, to stick the victim of it with a backward pawn or an isolated pawn that can be leaned on to win material?
Understanding these dynamics is key in making decisions such as simplifying or opening up a position. And without knowing how to execute in the endgame, you'll lose more often than not to an oponent who does.
Originally posted by paultopiaFour words:
I thought the whole point of the minority attack was for the middlegame, to stick the victim of it with a backward pawn or an isolated pawn that can be leaned on to win material?
Rook and pawn endgame.
The most common endgames in chess, they happen 65% of the time. However, in king and pawn endgames (the second most common ending) minority attacks are just suicidal and stupid IMHO.
Anyways, I think I identified a weakness in my game that makes me lose, in the game I'm playing now, I'm black and actually ahead in the opening with a superior pawn structure and peice deployment. Then I make a stupid careless pawn advance, and my king is suddenly threated with a bishop sacreficing mate attack, so then I am forced to double up my king's pawns just to stop the mating sacrefice mate that would of happened forcefully in 4 moves if I didn't see it at the last second, but on the plus side, at least the move forced the queens off the board, so no mate, but at the expense of doubling my pawns and making my peices inactive. So I do it, save myself.
At this point I am pissed, I ruined my winning chances. Then my opponent moves into a pawn fork and I don't even notice it until after I moved! ANOTHER MISTAKE! My opponent then realizes his mistake and moves outta the fork.
At this point my pawns suck and I have a knight at the backrank with a bad bishop behind all my pawns, the only plus I have is my rooks are placed on both half open files. 30 moves later, I am clawing in an endgame I may draw through defending those 30 moves and I'm still defending it now. It pisses me off how I always throw away games like this through emotion, my first mistake was I underestimated my opponent, then when he came with a good move against my silly pawn advance, I overestimated him and missed a winning fork.
I am an emotional guy and this is simply not good when trying to become a good chess player. Now I may draw this but it's going to be a 60 plus move game, that I could of won in 30, argh. . .
AJMagicman! Congratulations on your victory over your brother. 😀
I am sure that all the wonderful advice for improving your game is greatly appreciated...😕
However, I would like to join in your celebration of finally, finally, finally, finally defeating your brother!!!😏
Enjoy the sweet taste of victory😉