1. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 May '14 22:07
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    Lol. Your post is readily available to read. There is no such disagreement in your first post of this thread.

    Btw, I'm not that stupid. I was tipped off by the fact that the shown rating never fluctuates for a win or loss but the in game rating does.

    The in game rating has risen to 1742 last I checked while the rating on my home screen and the ...[text shortened]... game history are 1366 either. I just lost a standard game so my rating has fallen back to 1718.
    Although I did not come out and say "I disagree with you"; I thought the implication was rather obvious.
  2. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 May '14 22:101 edit
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    Also, what happened when I disagreed with you in my game analysis thread?
    You revealed that you already thought that you played a great game until your friend distracted you, causing you to piss it away. Your request for advice was shown to be BS. That's what happened.

    What's happening in this thread is a further enhancement of your already sterling reputation. 😕

    As for the Stock fish analysis, humans should not play like computers (especially humans rated 1300). Computers defend perfectly in open positions. Humans do not. Humans do better not creating undue weaknesses in their position when they don't have to.
  3. Joined
    10 Apr '14
    Moves
    273
    06 May '14 22:47
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    You revealed that you already thought that you played a great game until your friend distracted you, causing you to piss it away. Your request for advice was shown to be BS. That's what happened.

    What's happening in this thread is a further enhancement of your already sterling reputation. 😕

    As for the Stock fish analysis, humans should n ...[text shortened]... o not. Humans do better not creating undue weaknesses in their position when they don't have to.
    You are ridiculous. I showed multiple moves where I didn't know what to do in that game, and I proved you wrong in your trash advice that you gave condescendingly. The advice didn't address any of the issues I had during the game which further shows you obviously didn't read my whole post in that thread before responding.

    Matching an engines move is not "playing like an engine" and pawns are correctly advanced in front of the king in many human games. Should I never play a bayonet attack? What about ...f5 in the KID? Should I fear every move that violates some dogmatic principle because swissgambit thinks it's not ok for someone to play a good move? And what does rating have to do with playing good moves? A good move is a good move whether a c player or a grandmaster plays it.

    I'm not 1300 rated anywhere accept for the false rating on ICC.
  4. Joined
    10 Apr '14
    Moves
    273
    06 May '14 22:49
    Originally posted by ChessPraxis
    I'd answer you but I don't talk to people under 1400. Sorry
    At least this is actually funny.
  5. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 May '14 22:55
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    You are ridiculous. I showed multiple moves where I didn't know what to do in that game, and I proved you wrong in your trash advice that you gave condescendingly. The advice didn't address any of the issues I had during the game which further shows you obviously didn't read my whole post in that thread before responding.

    Matching an engines mov ...[text shortened]... er or a grandmaster plays it.

    I'm not 1300 rated anywhere accept for the false rating on ICC.
    No, you didn't prove anyone wrong.

    So you say you need your 'issues' dealt with. Isn't that a presumption that you know where to look? If you ask for advice and someone thinks you are looking in the wrong place, just how are they supposed to break that to you?

    The bayonet attack is 9.b4 in the KID. That's a Queenside pawn. Your king is castled on the other side of the board. 🙄

    ...f5 in the KID is fine, because all of black's pieces are behind it in the KID. In your game, all your pieces were on the other side of the board, and yet you weakened your Kingside anyway.

    1300 rated players tend to be so in part because they have little to no defensive skill. It's not that their rating makes any specific move bad or good; it's that they are not likely to produce several solid moves in a row accurately defending a self-inflicted weakness.
  6. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 May '14 22:561 edit
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    At least this is actually funny.
    I thought the 'iChugWoodForFree' bit was f'in hilarious.
  7. Joined
    10 Apr '14
    Moves
    273
    06 May '14 23:163 edits
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    No, you didn't prove anyone wrong.

    So you say you need your 'issues' dealt with. Isn't that a presumption that you know where to look? If you ask for advice and someone thinks you are looking in the wrong place, just how are they supposed to break that to you?

    The bayonet attack is 9.b4 in the KID. That's a [b]Queenside
    pawn. Your king is ca ...[text shortened]... t likely to produce several solid moves in a row accurately defending a self-inflicted weakness.[/b]
    No, a bayonet attack is g4 when both kings castle short, usually preceded by moving the king to the h file and the rook to the g file.

    The bayonet attack to the KID is different, another type of bayonet attack also happens in the caro kann after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.g4.

    Thinking someone is wrong and telling them is fine, but getting uppity when they disagree because you have some preconceived notion of their chess knowledge is plain ridiculous.

    My structure on the kingside was not weakened by my pawn advances as you say. Which I knew because I am not a 1300 chess player and am pretty confident in my chances against you from that position.

    Also, another principle. When the center is locked look for action on the wings. In that game the center and queen side were locked up so play on the kingside was a natural response backed by solid principles.
  8. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 May '14 23:36
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    No, a bayonet attack is g4 when both kings castle short, usually preceded by moving the king to the h file and the rook to the g file.

    The bayonet attack to the KID is different, another type of bayonet attack also happens in the caro kann after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.g4.

    Thinking someone is wrong and telling them is fine, but getting upp ...[text shortened]... am not a 1300 chess player and am pretty confident in my chances against you from that position.
    Give one example of where g4 in a mutual Kside castling situation is called a 'bayonet' by someone other than yourself.

    Yes, I do tend to come off as 'uppity' to insincere, dishonest people spoiling for a fight under a guise of 'asking for analysis and helpful suggestions'. Especially when they cannot give good reasons for rejecting the analysis. Your inability to deal with that is your problem.
  9. Joined
    10 Apr '14
    Moves
    273
    06 May '14 23:531 edit
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Give one example of where g4 in a mutual Kside castling situation is called a 'bayonet' by someone other than yourself.

    Yes, I do tend to come off as 'uppity' to insincere, dishonest people spoiling for a fight under a guise of 'asking for analysis and helpful suggestions'. Especially when they cannot give good reasons for rejecting the analysis. Your inability to deal with that is your problem.
    Wow. The only one ever spoiling for a fight was you. I was the one who posted the game with a clear intention of where I wanted advice. Which should have been obvious by my annotations where I said, "I didn't know what to do here." I never asked where my mistakes were, I pointed out where I thought I was wrong after the fact and showed where I didn't know what do... it was all in my annotations.

    I have never had any problems with any other person ever asking for advice like this until you.

    "I had to play ...f6 to protect my e pawn.

    Maybe my wording was unclear but I wasn't afraid of white moving his bishop to e6, I wanted to move my knight there without him having the opportunity to trade it.

    I will take your advice into consideration, however I had thought about the possible weakness of the kingside during the game but that is the problem any time you gain space, if it isn't maintained it becomes weak squares, but isn't the weakness not very easy to target because of the closed center? Even so, it wasn't really a headache, his queen maneuver was just an easily defended threat.

    I know where my decisive mistakes were, even the ones white failed to capitalize on. My main concern is what should I have been aiming for coming out of the opening? I played ...d4 early on and I don't think that is correct along with my ...a5 move but these types of moves were results of not having any knowledge of the structure I was dealing with.

    If I were playing a better player, he would have played for f4 when I have no idea what I should be playing for, maybe the prevention of f4? but then I am just defending and relying on a mistake by white to win the game"

    That was my original response to you. Not picking a fight, simply discussing chess and clarifying what I wanted help with

    "Protect it from what? Nothing was attacking it.

    And asking people for advice, followed by telling them, "thanks, but I already know where my mistakes are" is strange behavior. Perhaps you don't really want to know where your mistakes were.

    It's easy to focus on the tactical part of the game, later on, where you see you had a better defensive move, and call that the 'mistake'. But why put yourself in a situation where you must find precise moves just to preserve your advantage at best, and avoid losing at worst?"

    And that was your response. You never showed me anything, you just said some moves were bad that are shown to be not bad. Now you are trying to say that it is only a bad move for lower rated players.

    You were the one who picked the fight, not me.
  10. Joined
    10 Apr '14
    Moves
    273
    07 May '14 00:164 edits
    And for the example of g4 in a mutual kingside casting situation being a bayonet attack.

    How about Alekhine-Weenink, Prague 1931 which Vladimir Vukovic calls a bayonet attack in his book "The Art of Attack in Chess" ??? Does that work for you?

    Also, it doesn't HAVE to be mutual castling but it is always b4/...b5 or g4/...g5 against the opponents castled king and usually happens in mutual castled positions. The reason for this is because in opposite castled positions it is usually stronger to play a pawn storm because there is no king needing cover.
  11. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    07 May '14 02:31
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    Wow. The only one ever spoiling for a fight was you. I was the one who posted the game with a clear intention of where I wanted advice. Which should have been obvious by my annotations where I said, "I didn't know what to do here." I never asked where my mistakes were, I pointed out where I thought I was wrong after the fact and showed where I didn' ...[text shortened]... t is only a bad move for lower rated players.

    You were the one who picked the fight, not me.
    Of course you can't be shown anything, because you refuse to accept it. Duh.

    I didn't say weakening the Kingside was bad for lower-rated players. I said it was bad for humans.

    Again you show great difficulty comprehending simple statements. What a shock.

    I'm fine with having you as my enemy. Although I believe you started the fight, as you can see, I am willing and able to continue it.
  12. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    07 May '14 02:37
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    And for the example of g4 in a mutual kingside casting situation being a bayonet attack.

    How about Alekhine-Weenink, Prague 1931 which Vladimir Vukovic calls a bayonet attack in his book "The Art of Attack in Chess" ??? Does that work for you?

    Also, it doesn't HAVE to be mutual castling but it is always b4/...b5 or g4/...g5 against the opponen ...[text shortened]... ed positions it is usually stronger to play a pawn storm because there is no king needing cover.
    I'm going to suggest that the term 'bayonet' is much more commonly used to describe the 9.b4 King's Indian than it is for a general maneuver labeled in a book that came out in 1965.

    In Alekhine-Weenink, just look at this position.



    THIS is when white played g4. Black is putting up zero resistance. Of course white plays g4. Black has not an iota of counterplay, especially on the Kingside. I daresay Alekhine could engage a friend in a complex philosophical discussion while easily finishing off the win.

    Whereas you lost your game precisely because of counterplay against the weakened Kingside! I say, congratulations to your opponent for exploiting your arrogance and obstinacy and stealing the game from you.
  13. Joined
    10 Apr '14
    Moves
    273
    07 May '14 03:261 edit
    Lol you are a complete dolt. I gave you an example, there is a section specifically for bayonet attacks in that book... There are others who call it a bayonet attack as well.

    I show you that the moves weren't bad and you obstinately refuse to admit you are wrong. He didn't win because of my weakened kingside, he won because I dropped a pawn in the center and then dropped my rook. I did happen to be distracted but even if I genuinely blundered it does not, in any way shape or form invalidate my earlier pawn advances. In that game if I had played 34...exf4 35.Qxf4 Nf7 I would have a decisive advantage partly because of my well placed pawns!

    In other words, you just aren't good enough to give me advice in chess so just leave it alone and move on. I can go tit for tat all day and continue showing how wrong you are... People say to ignore trolls but I find it better to fight back until they are exhausted.
  14. Joined
    05 Nov '08
    Moves
    13417
    07 May '14 03:50
    would you two get a room please
  15. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    07 May '14 05:55
    Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
    Lol you are a complete dolt. I gave you an example, there is a section specifically for bayonet attacks in that book... There are others who call it a bayonet attack as well.

    I show you that the moves weren't bad and you obstinately refuse to admit you are wrong. He didn't win because of my weakened kingside, he won because I dropped a pawn in th ...[text shortened]... are... People say to ignore trolls but I find it better to fight back until they are exhausted.
    Hah! Mr. 1300-on-ICC thinks he's a better player that I am.

    Good one. 😀
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree