Originally posted by KWCoronaWell, if you're not good enough to play someone who plays 2. Qh5, then you're never really going to learn anything against someone who plays, say, the Sicilian Najdorf or the Dutch Leningrad (sorry Paul!) You'll find yourself thrashed the first 50-odd games until you learn the basic responses - then someone will just play another opening and you'll get thrashed another 50 games.
Ok, I think you are making my point. I am not good enough to teach everyone else how not to play. I am here because I want to learn myself. Is that a crime? Tell you what, next idiot I get that tries scholars mate, I'll send them your way.
There are no shortcuts to learning.
Originally posted by lucifershammerLucifer,
Well, if you're not good enough to play someone who plays 2. Qh5, then you're never really going to learn anything against someone who plays, say, the Sicilian Najdorf or the Dutch Leningrad (sorry Paul!) You'll find yourself thrashed the first 50-odd games until you learn the basic responses - then someone will just play another opening and you'll get thrashed another 50 games.
There are no shortcuts to learning.
I have had it with you. I established at the early stages of this thread that I can easily defend Qh5. I was only saying that I would hope that I could see something other than that. I have been reading up on Sicillian lines, KID, etc. I was only commenting that it was a waste of time defending against Qh5 and perhaps I might persuade just one person out there to retire the six-year-old's favor trick and start playing a grown up game of chess. Put that inside your head and shake it a little. Maybe it will stick to something up there.
Originally posted by KWCoronaI don't see what makes "defending against Qh5" such a "waste of time." You use the same principles and skills to defend against Qh5 that you do to defend against the more common and (slightly) sounder openings.
I was only commenting that it was a waste of time defending against Qh5 and perhaps I might persuade just one person out there to retire the six-year-old's favor trick and start playing a grown up game of chess.[/b]
Anyway, it's not as though everyone plays 2. Qh5-- I think I've encountered it about three times in my games here.
Originally posted by KWCoronaIf somebody tries to help you, it is not necessary to ridicule him even if you are not satisfied with the reply.
Lucifer,
I have had it with you. I established at the early stages of this thread that I can easily defend Qh5. I was only saying that I would hope that I could see something other than that. I have been reading up on Sicillian lines, KID, etc. I was only commenting that it was a waste of time defending against Qh5 and perhaps I might persuade just one p ...[text shortened]... ess. Put that inside your head and shake it a little. Maybe it will stick to something up there.
Originally posted by jgvaccaroWell...funny you should say that. I figured I had pretty much mastered defending Scholar's Mate on Yahoo! I thought when I found this place I might see some good openings...Well the FIRST game out of the chute was a scholar's mate attempt. If my being pissed that the only online game I can get is against the equivalent of my 8-year-old nephew, then I sincerely apologize.
I don't see what makes "defending against Qh5" such a "waste of time." You use the same principles and skills to defend against Qh5 that you do to defend against the more common and (slightly) sounder openings.
Anyway, it's not as though everyone plays 2. Qh5-- I think I've encountered it about three times in my games here.
Tovmauser--Lucifer was not trying be helpful, he was being insulting. I have spent more than my share of defending against that mess. Aparently, you can't understand that its a bit frustrating that people won't give me their best game. Ratings mean nothing to me. I could get beaten everytime. So long as my chess game gets better and I learn something I can use against my chess club buddies, that is all I ask. As for my involvement on this thread...I have said my peace. trash me if you will, but know that if you challenge me to a game, I am trying 100% to beat you. I expect the same from you.
Like I said, I think one in every hundred games at most someone moves their queen on the second move (scandinavian defense excepted). It simply is not an issue in my experience here.
Of course such moves are going to be more common if you play lower-rated, less experienced players. The solution? Play higher-rated, more experienced players! You should have little trouble finding such players here.
Ultimately, I think a game won't be interesting or boring because of the opening played, but because of the skill and style of the opponent. If you find playing against Scholar's Maters easy and uninteresting, it's probably because poor players tend to play that opening, not because the opening itself is inherently easy to beat.
Originally posted by jgvaccaroThat is a good point taken. I am going to take the ratings limit off my account immediately
Like I said, I think one in every hundred games at most someone moves their queen on the second move (scandinavian defense excepted). It simply is not an issue in my experience here.
Of course such moves are going to be more common if you play lower-rated, less experienced players. The solution? Play higher-rated, more experienced players! You should ...[text shortened]... layers tend to play that opening, not because the opening itself is inherently easy to beat.
Originally posted by KWCoronaLet's put the facts down here - you've only played three games on RHP. In one of them, your opponent tried for Scholar's mate. And as to your "mastering defending Scholar's mate" - you were down a pawn with no compensation when your opponent just blundered a piece away. If the equivalent of your 8-year-old nephew can do that to you - then maybe you should master the Scholar's mate first before jumping onto Sicilian, KID etc. As Paul pointed out - the area you need to work on is your tactics - as long as you don't have that down pat, no amount of "playing the right openings" is going to help.
Well...funny you should say that. I figured I had pretty much mastered defending Scholar's Mate on Yahoo! I thought when I found this place I might see some good openings...Well the FIRST game out of the chute was a scholar's mate attempt. If my being pissed that the only online game I can get is against the equivalent of my 8-year-old nephew, then I sinc ...[text shortened]... ow that if you challenge me to a game, I am trying 100% to beat you. I expect the same from you.
To be fair to Tovmauser - I started this thread wanting to help. But I'll admit I was being disparaging in the last post (and this one) - and you deserve it IMHO. First, you're getting worked up over a single opponent who tried the SM against you. As lots of people on this thread have pointed out - that happens in less than 1% of the games in RHP - unless you're stuck in a rating band where most players play the SM. And if you're stuck there and can't get out - then I'd guess your tactical ability is not developed enough to learn anything (to use against your chess club buddies) from players who might play and beat you with the "standard" openings. If you can get out of the rating band - you'll automatically start facing players who wont always try the SM. Ratings may mean nothing to you - but it is a system that works.
Originally posted by KWCoronaI've played 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5 three or four times on ICC in 3/0 games against >2000 opponents, with a plus score (and lots of 1/0 games in case people have premoved 3...Nf6 🙂). If you play weak players who play 2.Qh5, you'll beat them from any opening and won't get much better. If strong players try it you'll get a decent game of chess - the position is still equal.
Well...funny you should say that. I figured I had pretty much mastered defending Scholar's Mate on Yahoo! I thought when I found this place I might see some good openings...Well the FIRST game out of the chute was a scholar's mate attempt. If my being pissed that the only online game I can get is against the equivalent of my 8-year-old nephew, then I sinc ...[text shortened]... ow that if you challenge me to a game, I am trying 100% to beat you. I expect the same from you.
Until you are over 2200, it's the middlegame and endgame that counts not the opening.
Originally posted by OssePrecisely.
I've played 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5 three or four times on ICC in 3/0 games against >2000 opponents, with a plus score (and lots of 1/0 games in case people have premoved 3...Nf6 🙂). If you play weak players who play 2.Qh5, you'll beat them from any opening and won't get much better. If strong players try it you'll get a decent game of chess - the position ...[text shortened]... qual.
Until you are over 2200, it's the middlegame and endgame that counts not the opening.
skeeter (with a rec)
Originally posted by lucifershammerthat does not point to your opponents successfully ignoring opening ideas but perhaps some mistakes in your defense...e.g. you should not have played h3 (and their are some other issues...e.g. his attack on the wing should have been met by a counterattack in the center and certainly not by your wasting tempi with all those knight moves)
If you're so [chess] smart, why don't you just thrash everyone who plays it against you? Not only will your oponent learn not to use it again, but you will gain a better understanding of opening principles (what makes a good opening good) as well. Eventually you'll find opponents who play "standard" openings against you.
If you think I'm talk ...[text shortened]... this was it. And I have learnt a lot from it.
A little humility goes a long way for learning.
Originally posted by hypermo2001Agreed.
that does not point to your opponents successfully ignoring opening ideas but perhaps some mistakes in your defense...e.g. you should not have played h3 (and their are some other issues...e.g. his attack on the wing should have been met by a counterattack in the center and certainly not by your wasting tempi with all those knight moves)
My point is - the opening is not the be-all and end-all of chess. Nor is playing an oppenent who starts off with a [potentially] inferior/non-standard opening a total waste of my time (which seems to be KWCorona's attitude). Every game I play teaches me something - regardless of who I play (granted, some games more than others).
Luc
PS - Thanks for the tips on the game! I haven't done my post-mortem on it yet, but will keep your points in mind.
Originally posted by lucifershammeryou seem to be very open minded with no chess cockiness...that is a real asset in the game!
Agreed.
My point is - the opening is not the be-all and end-all of chess. Nor is playing an oppenent who starts off with a [potentially] inferior/non-standard opening a total waste of my time (which seems to be KWCorona's attitude). Every game I play teaches me something - regardless of who I play (granted, some games more than others).
Luc
...[text shortened]... e tips on the game! I haven't done my post-mortem on it yet, but will keep your points in mind.