Who has Fritz chess program

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I make a lot of hasty moves that cause me to lose. Haste is caused by carrying too many games. Right now I have one here, but fourteen and nineteen at two other sites. Last week I had ~45 games in progress--too many. I also play online blitz most days and OTB as often as possible.

I aim to achieve an USCF expert rating. All forms of online chess are seco ...[text shortened]... I took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.

I took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.[/b]

wow that's pretty cool trout fly dude, can i ask you, what did the master do that you could not do yourself? was it aspects of your play that were difficult to see were weak? for its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us, and objectivity we are told, is one of the governing principles in chess.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

for its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us, and objectivity we are told, is one of the governing principles in chess.

Thats where the word "Introspection" becomes important in your studies.

hence all of my "ridiculous" and "out of place" ramblings on self annotation, and
edification of annotations. Introspection

Originally posted by heinzkat
You should be feeling great because you were the one that made your opponent mess up, not somebody else. Fritz isn't going to pat you on the back.

I have (rarely) had Fritz give one of my moves an exclam, so I guess I could call that a pat on the back!

Paul

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.

wow that's pretty cool trout fly dude, can i ask you, what did the master do that you could not do yourself? was it aspects of your play that were difficult to see were weak? for its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us, and objectivity we are told, is one of the governing principles in chess.[/b]

He helped with a lot of little things. He helped hone my repertoire in the French, which he plays well. It helped to think through games together (I sometimes hear little things that he said echo in my head when I'm playing). His compliments helped build confidence.

He was a weak master, and a college student when I took the lessons. In fact, his rating dipped briefly below 2200 that summer. But, his current USCF and FIDE ratings are both over 2300 now.

I still learn mostly from books, from free and really cheap online lessons via Playchess, ICC, ChessBase, Europe-Echecs, etc., and from analyzing games at my local club with players slightly stronger or slightly weaker than myself. There's no single road to improvement, even blitz helps a little when it does not become obsessive.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
There's no single road to improvement, even blitz helps a little when it does not become obsessive.[/b]

I think this is the essential truth, and we each are biased in favor of whatever method works best for us.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
He helped with a lot of little things. He helped hone my repertoire in the French, which he plays well. It helped to think through games together (I sometimes hear little things that he said echo in my head when I'm playing). His compliments helped build confidence.

He was a weak master, and a college student when I took the lessons. In fact, his rating d ...[text shortened]... 's no single road to improvement, even blitz helps a little when it does not become obsessive.

mmm its realy interesting. i have always wondered if lessons would help but pride and a sense of independence has led me away from it. its the folly of the self educated 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I took lessons from a master several summers ago. MY USCF has improved about 250-300 since then.

wow that's pretty cool trout fly dude, can i ask you, what did the master do that you could not do yourself? was it aspects of your play that were difficult to see were weak? for its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us, and objectivity we are told, is one of the governing principles in chess.[/b]

its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"

Originally posted by philidor position
please don't distort what I said there. it should be obvious it wasn't your chess level I'm talking about.

But you were talking about my approach to chess, an approach that is obviously so much inferior. You pretend to play some sort of sophisticated level, while I just play some moves and see where it leads me

Originally posted by Green Paladin

its well understood that its almost impossible to see ourselves as others see us

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"

lol, from my Athenian friends profile

An thers a han, my trustee feer! An gees a han o thyn!
And we’ll tak a right gude-willie-waught, fir ald lang syn. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, from my Athenian friends profile

An thers a han, my trustee feer! An gees a han o thyn!
And we’ll tak a right gude-willie-waught, fir ald lang syn. 🙂

He's a good man, our Beetle.

Originally posted by heinzkat

But you were talking about my approach to chess, an approach that is obviously so much inferior

yes, I was talking about your approach to chess, and I never used words like "inferior". I just said it was "way too simplistic," mainly referring to the part where you said: "If your worthless analysis is enough to take out the other guy, then it's enough. Just keep your pieces & king protected and apply some pressure here and there, make some threats, screw the other guy. That's all that matters.." Looking at this again, yes, I find this way too simplistic.

You pretend to play some sort of sophisticated level, while I just play some moves and see where it leads me

what? I never pretended I play some sort of sophisticated level, nor implied you didn't. you are making things up. you sure don't take criticism well.

I read it as mine being "way too simplistic, silly, stupid" vs. your own approach, which must be better, of more distinction and prestige.

Don't make me angry. 😛

Originally posted by heinzkat
I read it as mine being "way too simplistic, silly, stupid" vs. your own approach, which must be better, of more distinction and prestige.

Don't make me angry. 😛

"way too simplistic" doesn't belong anywhere near "silly and stupid." it just means I believe you have oversimplified a complicated matter.

of course I believe my approach is better, since we are discussing about it, it almost comes by definition, if I thought your approach were better, I would adopt that approach and it would be my approach too. but I never implied a "must" or something.

it's ok to be angry, but it's not ok to accuse people of being pretentious about their game without even the actual hint of it.

Where did I say pretentious
😛

We're reading each other incorrectly [+ my messages are poorly phrased]

"That view is way too simplistic", I disagree, it is how Chess is/should be played🙂

Just keep your pieces & king protected and apply some pressure here and there, make some threats, screw the other guy. That's all that matters.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
He's a good man, our Beetle.

yes, hes awesome! 🙂