It's OK. I'm cool. it's about right, though I don't class my opponents as suckers.
Victims of a con man is more apt.
I play in these hard core event and play more than a few dodgy but tricky opening
moves hoping for a quick trip up. Of the top of my head Game 12326223
recent example. 3...Nc6 in the Latvian is known to be bad but I often play it.
"Playing a move you know is bad shows a defect in character." Jonathan Rowson.
But me and my defected character are happy to play the game how I want
to play the game. (though I often wish I had that advice when I first started.)
They done away with adjournments which is good point in their favour.
Cheating is an obvious reason but my biggest complaint is they
have taken away the human search for traps and TN's and mistakes in analysis.
I loved the group sessions we had in the late 70's early 80's when we looked
for improvements and ideas. I recall two solid days of looking at the famous
Karpov - Miles a6 game. And if a Bxh7+ worked.
Danny Kopec and Craig Pritchett were working on their book about the
young GM's when this game popped up.
Can Karpov play 19.Bxh7+ or perhaps, my idea, 19.a5 first and then Bxh7+
In the book (game 8) there is a full page of analysis dedicated to this.
Me and Ian Mullen came to the conclusion it was very unclear and if Karpov
had played it then Miles would have to find some very exact only moves and
OTB it was worth a try.
Theses day a computer spits at the idea within a few seconds.
Who got more from this position. Me for spending all that time trying
and trying and trying to find a killer move. Or a dip who put the position
into a computer, got an answer in 20 seconds and left it.
Even if you say, it has tremendous OTB potential you will be met with
a blank stare. "The computer says no."
I suppose I feel how a portrait artist must have felt when the camera
was developed and made public property.
And mistakes in published analysis. I stopped looking at analysis from
2000 onwards. Pointless. It's rarely human and if it had it would have,
been computer checked.
In the BC days (Before Computers) you looked at every move in analysis
for a missed tactical shot. You enjoyed it. (well I did). and I know it did me good.
Here is an example for you from a letter in CHESS, December 1969
a piece of analysis by Bob Latter.