I have been accused by my opponent of being a bad player, an accusation that I admit is true. He said that I was just pushing my queen around and that I telegraph everything I do. While I'm sure this is true also, if I were to win would it be less of a win because I didn't follow a script out of a book? Or is a win a win, no matter how you get there. Most of the truly good players that I have played have been able to handle my inept play with ease.
Originally posted by CliffLandinI'm not clear on what you mean by script.
if I were to win would it be less of a win because I didn't follow a script out of a book? Or is a win a win, no matter how you get there.
Shakespeare said our lives were scripted. Why should chess be any different.
Book openings are what they are because half a millenium of sytematic study has demonstrated that certain plans in the opening offer the best prospects. These opening systems apply proven strategic principles.
The U.S. military only hires officers with training in tactics and strategy. Why should chess differ?
Well, then my question is; If I were to win without using age old tactics, is it less of a win? I haven't had the time or the money to go out and buy books on chess, so I muddle along, occassionaly winning, but enjoying the ride. Are my wins less valid since I don't know the names of tactics and moves?
Originally posted by martinbeaverOoops. I meant to respond to this:
you do realise that T+C don't permit comment on a game in progress.
Well, then my question is; If I were to win without using age old tactics, is it less of a win? I haven't had the time or the money to go out and buy books on chess, so I muddle along, occassionaly winning, but enjoying the ride. Are my wins less valid since I don't know the names of tactics and moves?
No, it means nothing. A win is a win. And IMO you should be quite proud of any you get.
Originally posted by CliffLandinIMHO, you will never be good, because you beat others around your rating quickly with silly opening traps, so you will never quit playing these traps, and then, never become good. A win by an opening trap is cheap in a sense that you don't learn anything and cannot progress as a player. Chess teachers would have a very hard time teaching you, because how can they tell you NOT to play opening traps if you win with them? You would be a very difficult student, although most chess teachers are used to this happening and spend countless hours, wasting time, going over common noob opening traps so players in their club don't fall for it, hoping they learn that way not to do them and play sound chess instead.
I have been accused by my opponent of being a bad player, an accusation that I admit is true. He said that I was just pushing my queen around and that I telegraph everything I do. While I'm sure this is true also, if I were to win would it be less of a win because I didn't follow a script out of a book? Or is a win a win, no matter how you get there. ...[text shortened]... of the truly good players that I have played have been able to handle my inept play with ease.
Who would have the temerity to say you're a bad player? We're all "bad players" compared to someone else. I wager your opponent is a "bad player" when he plays a better one. Then that particular player could point out all the flaws in his moves. I don't care who I played, I'd never make a remark like that. I might suggest not to move your queen around so much, but even then I'm careful not to give unasked for opinions. A lot of players are depressed when they lose, and don't want any advice at that moment. It all comes down to etiquette or ethics of play. And if he makes those remarks during a game, so much the worse.
Okay these games are over, he resigned because he was angry. I would like someone to look at theses games and tell me if what I was doing was wrong or not sporting. I'm just trying to win, that is the goal. I don't want to piss people off, but I also don't want to do what my opponent wants me to do.
Game 895513
Game 895514
The only thing you did was that you outplayed your opponent! Chess may be art and science but it is also a battle, not a codependent relationship. The idea of your opponent blaming you for beating them in a certain way is comical!
Wife to husband -- "take the damn trash out! And while you're at it, stop moving your queen around like that! How many times have I told you to play me the way I want you to play me!"
On that note, I once played a blitz game in which I was black. The guy played 1. e4, to which I replied with my usual 1...c5. He then sent me the following message -- "play proper chess, idiot!"
Equipped with this dubious attitude, he proceeded to lose in about 12 moves, LOL.
Originally posted by CliffLandinHe resigned because he was in a loosing position.
Okay these games are over, he resigned because he was angry. I would like someone to look at theses games and tell me if what I was doing was wrong or not sporting. I'm just trying to win, that is the goal. I don't want to piss people off, but I also don't want to do what my opponent wants me to do.
But I do see why your opponent accused you of just pushing the queen around. In game Game 895513 seven of the final eight moves are the queen. 🙂 But since 4 of the 7 are captures of hung peices I think it's wrong to call this poor play by you. In fact I win (and loose when I am on the otherside of the equation) many of my games similarly by just threating something and then watching my opponent make a non-ideal reply. No supreme master long term strategy. Just finding and attacking the current weak spot.
You demonstrated the right attitude, "don't want to do what my opponent wants me to do." However in both your opponent, after 5 moves, was simply reacting to your ideas and generating none of his own. If you only react to threats, with no counter threat in return, you are simply at the mercy of your opponent and all you can do is pray for a mistake.
Therefore, to help develop this important skill, the exercise is to play the loosing side. Start at say, move 7. Foreach winning side move, find and understand the threat, then find a reply that both defends the threat and simultaneously threathens something in return. These games are good for the beginner because in neither is the threat to be defended some abstract concept. It's always something tangible and obvious (those are the best kind because they are difficult for your opponent to ignore!).
Originally posted by CliffLandinNothing wrong with those games, you had some very good attacking ideas/principles, like attacking the castling squares when he didn't castle. Most ppl around your rating don't think that way, they think mate is about forcing things, in those games you showed mate can be about stoping the king from running away, you may become a good player someday.
Okay these games are over, he resigned because he was angry. I would like someone to look at theses games and tell me if what I was doing was wrong or not sporting. I'm just trying to win, that is the goal. I don't want to piss people off, but I also don't want to do what my opponent wants me to do.
Game 895513
Game 895514
Looked fine to me. Mind you, I'm no great chess player. I usually like it when folks bring out their queen as it's USUALLY not a very good piece to lead an attack with.
But you DIDN'T bring your queen out real early in the game where she's vulnerable to all sorts of attack, and you seemed to do very well attacking with her, and he did very poorly in harrassing her.
Against better players, though, you'll find that there is a _reason_ for the rules. I've just started my journey to do more than "just play". I've bought some books, and I'm trying to "learn" -- and my play has declined LOL!
So enjoy your play!
Nonny