Originally posted by clivestraddle Which do you prefer? and against which opponents (higher rated and lower rated.
I generally like to keep the game open against "weaker" opponents and closed openings against higher rated. I strive to steer the game into high about amount of tactics against lower rated players and strive to use complex positions against higher rated - I find that a ...[text shortened]... off - against a lower rated player I let them have all the "rope" they need.
Thoughts?
6,000 moves in 15 days.
How do you have time to even think about the type of game that you're playing?
Originally posted by clivestraddle Which do you prefer? and against which opponents (higher rated and lower rated.
I generally like to keep the game open against "weaker" opponents and closed openings against higher rated. I strive to steer the game into high about amount of tactics against lower rated players and strive to use complex positions against higher rated - I find that a ...[text shortened]... off - against a lower rated player I let them have all the "rope" they need.
Thoughts?
Same here, but I usually play the same openings regardless of my opponent's strength. I'm obviously going to want to play an open, tactical game against a player with weaker tactical ability than me.
Originally posted by clivestraddle Which do you prefer? and against which opponents (higher rated and lower rated.
I generally like to keep the game open against "weaker" opponents and closed openings against higher rated. I strive to steer the game into high about amount of tactics against lower rated players and strive to use complex positions against higher rated - I find that a ...[text shortened]... off - against a lower rated player I let them have all the "rope" they need.
Thoughts?
Fine.
Now go read Logical Chess Move by Move. Even though you're 2200 on this site I'm certain that you'll benefit greatly for it in your OTB games 😉
Originally posted by Squelchbelch Fine.
Now go read Logical Chess Move by Move. Even though you're 2200 on this site I'm certain that you'll benefit greatly for it in your OTB games 😉
Originally posted by clivestraddle Which do you prefer? and against which opponents (higher rated and lower rated.
I generally like to keep the game open against "weaker" opponents and closed openings against higher rated. I strive to steer the game into high about amount of tactics against lower rated players and strive to use complex positions against higher rated - I find that a ...[text shortened]... off - against a lower rated player I let them have all the "rope" they need.
Thoughts?
Well, being a lower rated player and having my rear handed to me by you recently, my thoughts right now are pretty much about how I hate you 😉
Originally posted by petrovitch It's not that simple. Paul Morphy was a genius at playing open positions, but played at a much lower level in closed positions. Of course, a lot has changed in theory since then, but my point is that it depends a lot on style of play, personality, and zeitgeist.
In general I would say that lower rated players are not capable of playing closed posit ics, culture, and technology change. The development of chess ideas is all about zeitgeist.
I don't know, I've usually found it even easier to get a quick advantage against LRP (< 1500) in open positions. However, grinding them down in a closed position is safer even if longer. The problem is at the 1900+ level where they know how to handle closed positions fairly well and it's hard to squeeze a win. It doesn't help that they're higher rated than me. :p In more open positions with opposite castling, it's much more speculative and difficult to evaluate so I find winning much easier even against strong opposition.
Originally posted by moteutsch Definitely open. I recently played an OTB game against a player who was rated 100 points over me. The opening went as follows: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. d5!?. I thought I was going to puke...
Originally posted by Squelchbelch 10111001001001010011000111000100100010100
01100101010101010101010100110101010101101
11011010101010100101100101010100101000101
00101110101110110101001010110101110110101
10101010010011010011001001010000100010010
11010100101010101010010101001010101001011
Um... that makes no sense. I think that you must have added an extra number somewhere.
I wished to reply to this message when I first saw it, but I was unable to do so due to forum posting rules. But now I can! Only what I was going to say has already been said by others. For the most part. So I'll merely add:
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I wonder if his poker playing companions are aware of his chesscapades?
He strikes me as the type who'd boast to his mates, so presumably he's had some explaining to do if he persuaded any of them to join the site or follow his progress!