19 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by hamworldam getting an inapropriate post warning 😕
That's kind of unfair. Some people can't afford to play tournament chess so they play online. I'd like to think that if someone earns a 2600 rating in 5/0 chess, that means they could play well OTB(assuming they're not cheaters).
They say a 5/0 1800 player would lose to a 1500 OTB player over the board...
but the 1800 player is not invincible. An 1800 might lose to a 1500, the same way a 1500 might lose to an 1800.
so hereby TEST TEST 1 2
edit: works allright.I wonder what was so inapropriate about my post.....
19 Jul 12
Originally posted by Fat LadyThat's exactly what makes those principles interesting. When is it a good idea to move a piece twice? When is it not a good idea to move a piece twice?
It's amazing how harmful some of the advice given to beginners can be. I've seen players (admittedly quite young players) refusing to win a free piece in the opening with, say, knight on f3 takes a undefended bishop on g5, as they don't want to move a piece twice in the opening because their teacher told them that was bad.
I used to think that there are ...[text shortened]... out, you can get to a remarkably high level just by going for cheap tricks all the time.
When should you centralize a queen in the endgame? When should you not? I think everyone should know what the principles are, and what their exceptions are. Sometimes, I think the player who understands the exceptions/principles better than someone else will beat that person.
20 Jul 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI don't know. It seems to me that all he said was the the person making the statement sucks at chess and is hopelessly clueless. I think that's been said many times already by many different people.
Well said, and better expressed than my effort. Thanks!
The question is then, how good do you have to be inorder to be worthy of making suggestions?
20 Jul 12
Originally posted by EladarI suppose a decent answer is the Socratic "know thyself" (overconfidence in one's abilities opens the door to error), although in this particular case the Hyppocratic "First, do no harm" fits better.
I don't know. It seems to me that all he said was the the person making the statement sucks at chess and is hopelessly clueless. I think that's been said many times already by many different people.
The question is then, how good do you have to be inorder to be worthy of making suggestions?
The value of all advice is relative, but to tell someone that the only reasonable and playable move in the position -the best move- is a bad move is not just poor advice. It is dead wrong advice, and if the truth be told, really isn't advice at all. It's sabotage.
I'm not sure how you would like to determine "worthiness", but I think that it really does not have much to do with chess knowledge, but is really about instructional ability.
There are really great tournament players who struggle to express themselves, and then there are so-so tournament players who are very successful coaches.
20 Jul 12
I think you guys are being a bit hard on dewi.Sure he gave bad advice.But don't we all at times?
I think I'm a lot more experienced than dewi,both as a player and an annotator,and when I analyse a game for someone I adress only the things I'm certain of.Still,I make mistakes.It's only normal.
Furthermore he deserves credit for giving his own thoughts instead of spewing fritz lines.
Give him time and room to err,he'll get better.
As for damaging advice.A strong player once got mad at me when he was showing me a way to win a position which I couldn't really understand,and I said I trusted his analyses to be correct.He told me to never just accept anything from anyone,always check and make up your own mind.
The russians have a great little saying for this "Trust.But verify!"
20 Jul 12
The post that was quoted here has been removedOf course fat lady,and others,was right in setting him straight.And I agree dewi's 'tone' could've been better.
But I was getting the impression people thought he shouldn't be trying to help his friend for he may cause damage.And that I don't agree with.Though he might want to find a better way of going about it.