Originally posted by KorchThe question isn't silly, but it was trying to support a really crappy arguement
I dont think so. So please be so kind and explain: Why this question is so silly?
actaully, now that i think about it, it isn't the arguement that is crappy, just the reasoning supporting it.
QED:-
the arguement:
just because a game has a high percentage of book moves doesn't mean hard work went into it
evidence:
"why do you think akizy & weyerstrass took over a week to move straight from move 1 in their games? "
leaving the reader to of course, assume that they must be "thinking" for that time
but....There could be a million and one reasons as to why those 2 players took over a week to make the most basic of opening moves....the time they took isn't any real indication of how long they spent thinking, seeing as the same phenomian could be just as easily explained by bad interent conection.
^ thats why i called it silly --
Originally posted by Shinidokiyou were wrong, just admit it. side-stepping won't fool anyone. 🙂
The question isn't silly, but it was trying to support a really crappy arguement
actaully, now that i think about it, it isn't the arguement that is crappy, just the reasoning supporting it.
QED:-
the arguement:
just because a game has a high percentage of book moves doesn't mean hard work went into it
evidence:
"why do you think ...[text shortened]... st as easily explained by bad interent conection.
^ thats why i called it silly --
Originally posted by wormwoodAnalysing book moves...what a terrific way to waste one's time.
the only thing that's silly, is your notion of there not being work to be done while the game is still in book. if you want to do it right, there's a huge amount of theory to dive in, positions and games to analyze. it's not nearly enough to just pick a book move, if you want to give your best in correspondence chess. in fact, not analysing the book moves will most likely get you into trouble.
Originally posted by Shinidokiright. because that's the real issue here instead of you having no clue what you're talking about.
that or, you can try reading.
as a tip for the next time you try converting an informal discussion into a peudo-formal logic to justify a silly straw man, 'qed' goes after the proof. it won't make your logic any less flawed, but at least it'll make you look less silly.
2 edits
Originally posted by Raven69I don't make book moves that don't at least think I understand. I need to know if I like the following position before I commit to it. and there's a lot of book moves that take me to positions where I'm uncomfortable, hence they weaken my play. like ...e5 in sicilians leaving the d-pawn backward. it almost always becomes a huge pain sooner or later.
I always make moves I don't understand. 😵
But seriously, why analyze a move you are going to make anyway??
Originally posted by wormwoodSometimes I make a move that I do not "understand" why it is better, but I can see, that at least on the surface, or at first glance, looks better. For example a simple pawn move that closes the path of a bishop, or a knight that is trying to set up a fork. There may be much more to the move than what I did, but hell if i saw it.
you have a habit of making moves that you don't understand?
Originally posted by wormwoodWorm, Worm, Worm! Book moves and analysis thereof are just fine for the chess scholar, like yourself. But for people like Raven and i who are in it for the persuit of fun.....we would rather read the alcohol content on a bottle of Jagermeister before making a move! Right Raven?
I don't make book moves that don't at least think I understand. I need to know if I like the following position before I commit to it. and there's a lot of book moves that take me to positions where I'm uncomfortable, hence they weaken my play. like ...e5 in sicilians leaving the d-pawn backward. it almost always becomes a huge pain sooner or later.
Originally posted by smw6869sure, and nothing wrong with that. but it's not giving your best.
Worm, Worm, Worm! Book moves and analysis thereof are just fine for the chess scholar, like yourself. But for people like Raven and i who are in it for the persuit of fun.....we would rather read the alcohol content on a bottle of Jagermeister before making a move! Right Raven?
Originally posted by wormwoodI understand from your postings that you are quite the chess scholar ( and this is a chess site) and you should want to do your best, but could it have gotton to a point of Fear Of Failing? That's OK too! I actually admire people like you who want to do the best they can at something! Keep reading.
sure, and nothing wrong with that. but it's not giving your best.
Originally posted by wormwood--Woodworm, I actaully agree that using book moves (in high level chess, at least) is not done idly or brainlessly -- but i do question the 'amount' of effort that top corr. players but into it compared to mid & end-games --
right. because that's the real issue here instead of you having no clue what you're talking about.
as a tip for the next time you try converting an informal discussion into a peudo-formal logic to justify a silly straw man, 'qed' goes after the proof. it won't make your logic any less flawed, but at least it'll make you look less silly.
as for my "strawman" i say "what strawman" --where is he?
how did I misrepresent what you said? -were you or were you not implying that the two players take a week or so in the opening because they are thinking/analyzing the opening? -- or is my 'strawman' something else? i'd kinda like to know. -enlighten me obi wan.
as for "Qed" well, a quick check on wiki revelled you were right on that one.