Originally posted by SwissGambit 2) As you progress, avoid playing weaker players and stick to players at least your own size, or preferably a bit better.
I don't think this is quite fair. I would prefer this rule:
2) Seek out players a bit above your own level to improve, but if a weaker player wants a game with you, do not avoid him but do him the same favour that you yourself seek in your preferred opponents.
Originally posted by Shallow Blue I don't think this is quite fair. I would prefer this rule:
2) Seek out players a bit above your own level to improve, but if a weaker player wants a game with you, do not avoid him but do him the same favour that you yourself seek in your preferred opponents.
Originally posted by Shallow Blue I don't think this is quite fair. I would prefer this rule:
2) Seek out players a bit above your own level to improve, but if a weaker player wants a game with you, do not avoid him but do him the same favour that you yourself seek in your preferred opponents.
Richard
This is not a list of principles of chess fairness.
Originally posted by Shallow Blue I don't think this is quite fair. I would prefer this rule:
2) Seek out players a bit above your own level to improve, but if a weaker player wants a game with you, do not avoid him but do him the same favour that you yourself seek in your preferred opponents.
Richard
Fairness aside, the rule fails because if everyone tried to follow it, no games would be played.
It is questionable to suggest that higher rated players should be willing to play you as a lower-rated player when you yourself are not willing to do the same.
Originally posted by Paul Leggett Fairness aside, the rule fails because if everyone tried to follow it, no games would be played.
It is questionable to suggest that higher rated players should be willing to play you as a lower-rated player when you yourself are not willing to do the same.
So much for my rules being exactly what you would have written! 😉
No, the rule does not fail, because only the player who is serious about improvement need follow it - meaning only a small percentage of the playing population will.
Originally posted by SwissGambit So much for my rules being exactly what you would have written! 😉
No, the rule does not fail, because only the player who is serious about improvement need follow it - meaning only a small percentage of the playing population will.
I think the occasional game with a weaker player is a good thing. Playing stronger players teaches you not to make mistakes. Playing weaker ones teaches you the most efficient way to punish them.
Originally posted by Thabtos I think the occasional game with a weaker player is a good thing. Playing stronger players teaches you not to make mistakes. Playing weaker ones teaches you the most efficient way to punish them.
Quite the opposite - playing weaker players 'teaches' you that you can win in several different ways since your opponent won't put up much resistance in any case.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Quite the opposite - playing weaker players 'teaches' you that you can win in several different ways since your opponent won't put up much resistance in any case.
If there were only one way to win, would the majority of us be playing chess?
I know that of course, there's the objectively best move, but speculative sacs, positional grinds v. sharp positions, etc. mean there's a lot of different flavors to success, even at your level. 🙂
Paul Morphy wouldn't have even bothered to play if he only played stronger opposition.
I only seem to play weaker players these days. Probably established about my level and now just play with a couple of friends on very lax time control.
Sadly, whilst I enjoy the puzzle of every game, I lack the motivation to make myself better at the puzzles as a whole.
Originally posted by Thabtos If there were only one way to win, would the majority of us be playing chess?
I know that of course, there's the objectively best move, but speculative sacs, positional grinds v. sharp positions, etc. mean there's a lot of different flavors to success, even at your level. 🙂
Paul Morphy wouldn't have even bothered to play if he only played stronger opposition.
Flavors are good and well, but it's a question of accurate prosecution of a won game. A weaker player will let you get away with some inaccuracies. A stronger player will seize upon them and fight back to equality.
And Paul Morphy did not instantly become the world's best player once he learned the moves. 🙂
Originally posted by SwissGambit Flavors are good and well, but it's a question of accurate prosecution of a won game. A weaker player will let you get away with some inaccuracies. A stronger player will seize upon them and fight back to equality.
And Paul Morphy did not instantly become the world's best player once he learned the moves. 🙂
It is worth noting that Morphy left Europe after offering odds to anyone, and finding that no one would play him.
Originally posted by Paul Leggett It is worth noting that Morphy left Europe after offering odds to anyone, and finding that no one would play him.
Paul
Morphy Maniac
I remember reading that a contemporary of Morphy stated that he introduced no
innovations and was the most booked up player of his time. The fact that when Steinitz
tried to visit him and Morphy acquiesced, but remarked that his gambit was 'no good',
would seem to bear this out.
23 Jun '12 13:32
Chess Principles of Play, #101
Back to Top