Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 30 Dec '10 04:07 / 1 edit
    About the game, this is my typical style of play, so naturally I always think i'm using some strategy to achieve the objective of the game...Please reply say who you agree with...Game 8033728
  2. 30 Dec '10 04:12
    what did he say?
  3. 30 Dec '10 04:14
    Lugnut said whilst resigning:
    "Just trading pieces like your bringing your queen down just to trade, to me isn't any kind of chess strategy that I've ever heard of. I must be pretty good. You couldn't get me in check until you took all my pieces off the board. Pretty boring game."
  4. 30 Dec '10 04:22
    The scoreboard is all that matters.
  5. 30 Dec '10 04:25
    Trading pieces to gain something (position, space, bishop pair, relieve pressure, whatever) is a perfectly fine to do. If your opponents are bored with certain types of games that's their problem.

    Though I have to say that final position looks drawn to me.
  6. 30 Dec '10 05:11
    Originally posted by Zelnick


    Though I have to say that final position looks drawn to me.
    Are you serious?
  7. 30 Dec '10 05:59
    Had the board flipped the wrong way...
  8. 30 Dec '10 13:28
    thx for feedback; i thought it would be along those lines, and there's a couple of other points also:
    1. You don't necessarily 'force' your opponent to trade-off since many times they can counter it, provided of course that they have a superior strategy,
    but more commonplace is the fact that there will be disastrous effect on them if they don't...

    2. The player intiating the trade-off is simply showing confidence in his ability to play without the piece he is sacrificing, and nothing is wrong with that...

    ...Sorry Lugnut, but this just helps to show you're still a n00b and sore loser...
  9. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    30 Dec '10 16:09
    In before Greenpawn!
  10. Standard member Thabtos
    I am become Death
    30 Dec '10 22:11
    Originally posted by Iere man
    Lugnut said whilst resigning:
    "Just trading pieces like your bringing your queen down just to trade, to me isn't any kind of chess strategy that I've ever heard of. I must be pretty good. You couldn't get me in check until you took all my pieces off the board. Pretty boring game."
    Just giving up material, and ruining your pawn structure for no reason as white did isn't any kind of strategy I've ever heard of.


    The point ain't check, it's mate.

    But you should know you won't get a game like that against someone who develops their pieces and tries to control the center instead of needlessly pushing flank pawns.
  11. 30 Dec '10 23:03
    Hi Tere Man,

    It's best to totally ignore anything anyone says after they have
    lost a game of chess. I've found on here an apology follows a day or
    two later without any reply from me.

    Also it's perhaps a good idea to keep it out of the main forum,
    now this wee episode has been shared it will make it all the harder
    for it to blow over. (If it ever will).

    You missed a better trade off here.


    You played 17...f6 but 17....Nxf2 18 Bxf2 Rxd1+ 19Kxd1 Nxf2+ 20.Ke1 NxR
    is trading a Knight and Rook for a Bishop and Two Rooks.


    A simple combo. You reacted to his threat on g7.

    Look at your threats first, if you can see nothing on then (and only then)
    do you consider what he is up to. (and if it's not mate then ignore it and
    threaten something bigger).

    You are always attacking in chess even when you are defending.
    And if you are attacking, then you are not defending.

    Here is me in an OTB game from 1983.
    I ignore a Rook going with check, I see my threat to his King is a
    bigger trophy than a mere undeveloped Rook.

    And as for the check....

    ....I've been checked before, and I'll get checked again...checks never hurt anyone.

    G.Chandler - P.Donaldson .Edinburgh C.C. v Civil Service 1983

  12. 31 Dec '10 00:59 / 1 edit
    thx GP, that was loaded and much appreciated
  13. 31 Dec '10 02:20 / 2 edits
    It's alright enjoyed going into my old database looking for a example.
    Been a long time since I did that. Met some old friends.
    (and a few I'd rather forget)

    What a mess it is, years missing, names missing. I have one game
    with me playing me! Recall spending weeks about 15 years ago entering
    in games from score books and score sheets. There are loads missing.

    Seemed to enjoy playing the Civil Service lads. I use to walk past their club
    on the way to the Edinburgh Club. Sometimes pop in there for some skittles
    as they had a bar. Played for them in another league.
    Good bunch of lads.

    This is the following year. Not a great game but a nice finish.

    G.Chandler - G.Anderson Edin CC v Civil Service 1984.

    Black played a kind of Evans in reverse.
  14. 31 Dec '10 02:55
    Originally posted by Iere man
    About the game, this is my typical style of play, so naturally I always think i'm using some strategy to achieve the objective of the game...Please reply say who you agree with...Game 8033728
    A win is a win is a win.
  15. 31 Dec '10 03:01 / 1 edit
    Enjoying this.

    A league decider from 1983. Everyone else had finished and the crowd
    gathered around the board. I love playing to a crowd.

    Watch me pull out every trick I know to win this. And also note how I
    don't mind getting checked.

    If I recall a draw was no good to them, he had perpetual but declined it.

    And then he saw his win. This is when you are at your most vulnerable.
    The mind clocks up the point and your guard drops.

    I only had one trick left in the bag. It worked 1-0.
    G. Chandler - I. Maclean Edin CC v British Leyland, 1983



    More? The flawed masterpieces of G. Chandler - somebody say yes.