A translation of some commonly used phrases you will hear at the bar/analyses room of chess tourneys all over the world.
"He got lucky"
I was totally outplayed.
"I was better throughout the entire game but I lost after overlooking a cheap trick"
I had no clue what my opponent was doing and decided to push some pawns and pieces forward not paying any attention to his moves
"I should've won"
I should trade my opening manuals for tactical puzzles.
"I slipped"
Didn't see that one coming!
"I have a controlling position"
I'm clueless but it doesn't look like he can do anything much right now.
"He played some weird,weak opening and only won on time"
My opponent came well prepared and surprised me in the opening which cost me a lot of time and caused me to flag in the end.
"Real men don't play anti-sicilians"
I've been studying my pet Najdorf for 2 years now but all I ever face are the closed sicilian,the Bg5 variations and the wing gambit.People should play into my preparation,dammit!
"On his 1.e4 I went for my usual caro-kann,he tried 2.c4 going for the anti-caro-kann but I countered with 2.d5,the anti- anti-caro-kann and blablabla...."
I don't know a pin from a fork but memorised some difficult sounding opening names.Surely everyone here now thinks I'm a chess genius!?
Please add your own 🙂
Originally posted by Ajuin"I played like Kramnik!"
A translation of some commonly used phrases you will hear at the bar/analyses room of chess tourneys all over the world.
"He got lucky"
I was totally outplayed.
"I was better throughout the entire game but I lost after overlooking a cheap trick"
I had no clue what my opponent was doing and decided to push some pawns and pieces forward not paying any at ...[text shortened]... veryone here now thinks I'm a chess genius!?
Please add your own 🙂
I agreed to a draw before getting out of opening theory.
Originally posted by AjuinThis is an interesting tournament observation I have made while playing in Florida, USA:
"Real men don't play anti-sicilians"
I've been studying my pet Najdorf for 2 years now but all I ever face are the closed sicilian,the Bg5 variations and the wing gambit.People should play into my preparation,dammit!
Please add your own 🙂[/b]
For 3 years I tried to play the Sicilian Dragon. "Tried", I say, because all I ever got was the Closed Sicilian. I scored well against it, but it still struck me as peculiar.
As I was playing in the Central Florida Class Championship, I got up from my seat after my 3rd move to do a quick survey of what all the other boards in my section were doing. The top 14 boards in my section all opened 1. e4. More than two thirds responded 1. ... c5, and every White response was 2. Nc3.
At that point I accepted the fact that, in Florida, the Main Line of the Scilian WAS the Closed Sicilian, and all the open Sicilian variations were merely sidelines that an enterprising White player could spring on an unsuspecting opponent, confident that they had probably never seen or faced 2. Nf3 and 3. d4 in a tournament game.
The Moral: If everyone is seeking an alternate route, and they are taking the same alternate route, it's not the alternate route- it's the main path as soon as someone looks up from the pack and recognizes the truth.
Now I play Alekhine's, and the most common second move I see is... 2. Nc3. Go figure.
Somewhere there are a bunch of amateur chess players who all own copies of "White to Play and Win with 2. Nc3!", written by some chess widow who is hoping to destroy chess and get her husband back.
Paul
Originally posted by heinzkatPeople win or lose because of how they play. I think that's a pretty common misconception. How the other person plays is pretty irrelevent.
"He got lucky" - I don't know why, but chess players tend to deny the ability of the people who defeat them far too often and far too much.
Originally posted by EladarNo, they win or lose due to the interaction of their own moves versus the moves of their opponent. Chess is, interaction of ideas.
People win or lose because of how they play. I think that's a pretty common misconception. How the other person plays is pretty irrelevent.
Originally posted by Ice ColdNot in a lot of people's own minds. That was my point. It wasn't about the reality of chess. It is about the way people seem to view the game. This is why people deny the other person's ability.
No, they win or lose due to the interaction of their own moves versus the moves of their opponent. Chess is, interaction of ideas.
Originally posted by EladarYou have no right to make a point, because you lack ability. 😉 🙂
Not in a lot of people's own minds. That was my point. It wasn't about the reality of chess. It is about the way people seem to view the game. This is why people deny the other person's ability.