Originally posted by XanthosNZPerhaps, if you quoted completely, you wouldn't have missed the meaning. I'll help you.
That's funny because I can see no trace of such an earlier apology.
"like I said earlier, I should have been much more careful before suggesting the possibility that you were cheating."
The "like I said earlier" refers to an earlier post which seems to have been deleted. I don't know why it was deleted and doubt that the action had any merit. Hopefully, it was an accident. The more I stay at RHP, the mor ediss In that post, I responded to an accusation of being a liar and ended by telling the accuser to be more careful with his lying accusations just as I will be more careful with any cheating accusations.
Well I didn't read the entire thread, so I will just respond to the initial question posed.
I don't benefit at all from correspondence chess. It eliminates from my game the measure of intuition that I am able to bring to OTB play. It turns it from a game of visualization and instinct, into one of brute calculation and analysis. And while it is important to analyze and understand postions, patterns and possible variations, I feel this is best done post-game. Add to that my tendency to be impatient and lazy and you get the recipe for numerous blunders. The games that I have done the best on RHP have also been my fastest games, often played in the course of a day. In my opinion, OTB is the best type of chess and it leads to the most creative and beautiful games.
On a side note: CC does demonstrate the importance of good opening theory (something I have neglected).
Originally posted by ETRThat about sums it up for me too!
Well I didn't read the entire thread, so I will just respond to the initial question posed.
I don't benefit at all from correspondence chess. It eliminates from my game the measure of intuition that I am able to bring to OTB play. It turns it from a game of visualization and instinct, into one of brute calculation and analysis. And while it is important to an ...[text shortened]... note: CC does demonstrate the importance of good opening theory (something I have neglected).
How sad.:'(
I agree in the sense that playing Chess in general is a good way to get better. Regardless of the way you play, you obviously start to understand it more and more and learn as you go.
I would say that the best thing abaout corr chess is that the record of your game is kept for you to access easily and look at your mistakes and replay certain lines etc. Wheras OTB, at least for me being a recreational player, it is normally just a fun game that I dont record.
I have found though that the 2-dimensional aspect of computer chess makes it easier for me to see the board better, and it has made it more awkward playing OTB than it used to be since I play the vast majority of my chess online.
Have certainly saved myself many a blunder utilizing the analyze function here at RHP though, but I dont know if that has made me a better Chess player or just good at editing 🙂
My experience is that Cor. Chess can help us improving our play.
My way (and the best I thing) is to search DBs for the opening I choose and to analyse the game by myself and not just cutting engine's moves.
Anyway what is the difference between the reading of a game and the analysis of my CC game?