Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 17 Aug '17 22:06 / 1 edit
    What determines the outcome of your games? Do your good moves win the game or your lack of bad moves?

    At my level definitely lack of bad moves seems to be the case. Just wondering if this ever changes.
  2. 17 Aug '17 23:27
    At my level, mistakes on either side will usually determine the outcome. A few of my games show some forsight and positional knowledge. Those are the ones I feel best about.
  3. 17 Aug '17 23:41
    " Do your good moves win the game or your lack of bad moves? "

    My bad moves encourage bad moves. then I play a few good moves and win.
    If don't get a bad move in answer to my bad moves. I don't win.
  4. 18 Aug '17 02:43
    Originally posted by @greenpawn34
    " Do your good moves win the game or your lack of bad moves? "

    My bad moves encourage bad moves. then I play a few good moves and win.
    If don't get a bad move in answer to my bad moves. I don't win.
    Yes, I've seen your complaints through the years.

    You hate computers because they don't play like people. They don't fall for tricks.

    You topped out at a certain level because when you play against strong enough people they don't fall for your traps either.

    Lucky for you there's a sucker born every minute. Lots of new faces showing up who have never seen your tricks.
  5. 18 Aug '17 02:47
    Originally posted by @montymoose
    At my level, mistakes on either side will usually determine the outcome. A few of my games show some forsight and positional knowledge. Those are the ones I feel best about.
    I think it might have veen bigdog who told me that I need to do something more than just wait for my opponent to make a mistake.

    Greenpawn suggest applying pressure and watch the human in front of you crumble. It has worked several times, but bit me in the butt a time or two as well. But it was always fun.
  6. 18 Aug '17 10:29
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Yes, I've seen your complaints through the years.

    You hate computers because they don't play like people. They don't fall for tricks.

    You topped out at a certain level because when you play against strong enough people they don't fall for your traps either.

    Lucky for you there's a sucker born every minute. Lots of new faces showing up who have never seen your tricks.
    After reading this in the morning it came off as much more jerky than intended. The thumbs down was warranted


    Sorry for the negative tone. I was just trying to explain why it seems to me you dislike computers. Your style takes advantage of the fact that people make mistakes. It is what you play to.

    Welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly.
  7. 18 Aug '17 12:21
    Hi Eladar,

    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 is a
    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.)

    Computers?

    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.

  8. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    18 Aug '17 16:55 / 1 edit
    It's a combination [sic] of both, mostly. In all the games I have lost, I definitely made at least one mistake and my opponent was able to capitalise on it. Of all the games I have won, my opponent made at least one mistake and I was able to capitalise on it.

    There have been games I should have lost, but my opponent was not able to capitalise on my mistake(s).
  9. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    18 Aug '17 21:42
    Yes.

    The pressure I apply encourages mistakes. Or vice versa.
  10. 18 Aug '17 23:30
    ...'Sorry for the negative tone.'...

    ...'It's ok. I'm cool',,,

    Wait. What? A sincere apology and a sincere acceptance? We should put this over in General/Clans/Debates/Spirituality and watch their minds melt. 😛
  11. 19 Aug '17 23:59 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @greenpawn34
    Hi Eladar,

    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 is a
    recent example. 3...Nc6 in the Latvian is known to ...[text shortened]... ld the ending if he keeps an eye open for back rank mates. What is wrong with this line.} [/pgn]
    Why play 19. a5? I don't see a possible benefit.

    I've read your post several times. I just looked up the Greek Gift on several sites. I have of course looked at it in the past, but now I want to really understand it an when I can use it.

    Chess is like that for me, I can not understand something and be ok with that for a while, but then it frustrates me. When it makes me angry enough then I spend the time it takes.

    I do not believe that I have the same ability that you have to be all consumed with something, but I might if I actually believed I could find something unique and not something obvious to a great many players.


    As for guys who say, "but the computer doesn't like it", they either have a very low understanding of chess and play memorized lines simply because the computers tells them to or they are only interested in getting a higher rating. Any sort of enjoyment of a position would not compute. It speaks more about them than it does about you.

    It seems there are some around here who are much more like you. Many of them are solid players like you not just novice hacks like me.
  12. 21 Aug '17 00:30
    Hi Elador,

    You are going back 35 years. but here:


    Karpov played 19.Ng5 the task I set myself was to find the win with 19.Bxh7+

    Remember I was working by setting and re-setting the position up and
    digging and digging and I was wanting a 100% win. Not an unclear win or position.

    I'll give three lines that I can recall where Be7 kept appearing .
    My idea of a5 first takes Be7 off the board. Of course here.


    In some lines the Bishop on b4 becomes unprotected and can be used as a
    tempo gainer to play Rc4 and Rh4 The conclusion last time I looked at what the boffins were
    doing with this was Karpov has a probable draw with Bxh7+ instead of Ng5
    after which he still had at least a draw till he blundered a few moves later.






    The game went: 19. Ng5 h6 20. Bh7+ Kh8 21. Bb1 Be7 *


    There is Be7 (again) So I also looked at 19.a5 and 20. Ng5 lines. Nothing.
  13. Standard member congruent
    Chess Player
    22 Aug '17 22:47
    Nice game the Bxh7 one.
  14. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    23 Aug '17 18:40
    chess games are not won they're lost
  15. 24 Aug '17 01:02
    Originally posted by @eladar
    What determines the outcome of your games? Do your good moves win the game or your lack of bad moves?

    At my level definitely lack of bad moves seems to be the case. Just wondering if this ever changes.
    25% Good moves on my part, 75% bad moves on my opponents. It's slowing getting better though.