Sometimes I will spend an hour on a move but won't make a decision and come back the next day to spend another hour until I can figure something out that looks good or is winning. I don't want to squander a position. I absolutely hate that.
If you are spending less than a minute on a move you are going too fast. That is how you lose a chess game. You have to always flip the board and look at it from your opponents view before you place your move. You can't do this in OTB, but you can in CC!! 🙂 Why not use your advantages to their maximum? USE GOOGLE! lol
But that is CC for you. You can use it to get good at certain lines by this type of study. Because after you have studied a position for over an hour it tends to stick in your memory for OTB games.
Originally posted by ChessJesteryep, I agree, it works pretty much the same way as the analysis of an ended game, but in CC we do the analysis before it ends...
But that is CC for you. You can use it to get good at certain lines by this type of study. Because after you have studied a position for over an hour it tends to stick in your memory for OTB games.
Originally posted by wormwoodLol, yes, this is the difference! things that may work in OTB conditions, for example highly speculative sacrifices, where our opponent has hardly the time in the world to find a refutation, may i think prove less effective.
-says the guy who's running 400m hurdles in a pole vaulting competition.
To state that OTB is real chess and that CC is something less is simply an unfounded prejudice. Take for example Silman, on commenting on a Purdy book, he finds it pleasantly surprising that it contains much practical wisdom, yet he himself states that he is uninterested in Purdys games. This is incredulous and reminiscent of the type of prejudice that CC receives, for Purdy was a world champion in his own right, won every tournament that he entered and only lost one correspondence game in his life! you would think that would be enough, but no, he prefers Kapsarovs games, why? because they were played OTB rather than by correspondence??? one can only imagine.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo the fact the opponent can move all the pieces on the board to figure it out makes speculative sacrifices work less. I don't think anyone would argue that. But, fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Lol, yes, this is the difference! things that may work in OTB conditions, for example highly speculative sacrifices, where our opponent has hardly the time in the world to find a refutation, may i think prove less effective.
To state that OTB is real chess and that CC is something less is simply an unfounded prejudice. Take for example Silman, ...[text shortened]... ames, why? because they were played OTB rather than by correspondence??? one can only imagine.
As to your second paragraph....
AS MY REAL INTENTION IS TO GET GOOD OTB-which in MY OPINION is real chess.
I allowed you your opinion. You are the one being prejudice(or probably more appropriate-high and mighty).
I simply use the tool for how it best fits my circumstances.
Use that which is yours and discard that that doesn't fit to paraphrase bruce lee.
To me real chess involves calculation,something which is unneccessary in cc. You don't even need to be good at endgames because you can just pull out a book and look at who has a winning position, you can go to an opening book to just copy moves if you so please. I am sorry, but a majority of cc chess is really just research. If you can't agree with that then you have blinders on.
Originally posted by erikidoI'm gonna start training online blitz in 120min otb games. it's MY REAL INTENTION and REAL CHESS. playing classical otb is just research. if you can't agree with that you're prejudiced and have blinders on.
So the fact the opponent can move all the pieces on the board to figure it out makes speculative sacrifices work less. I don't think anyone would argue that. But, fail to see what that has to do with anything.
As to your second paragraph....
AS MY REAL INTENTION IS TO GET GOOD OTB-which in MY OPINION is real chess.
I allowed you your opinion. You f cc chess is really just research. If you can't agree with that then you have blinders on.
Originally posted by heinzkatYou mean my rating based on about 7-10 games. My rating on chess.com is just about the same as yours here.
"AS MY REAL INTENTION IS TO GET GOOD OTB-which in MY OPINION is real chess."
I have read this more often, and always I think the one making the claim is full of excuses for their low-ish rating 🙂
Your superiority complex is unfounded.
Superiority complex?! I mean it as in that "they" (you) make up excuses why they are stronger than their actual rating. That has nothing to do with MY rating, huh?
edit 2: That's like saying I am actually of GM strength too, just never got around achieving the higher rating and scoring the norms 😛
Originally posted by erikidoit has to do with understanding, the differences between OTB chess and CC chess, that's what it has to do with! It was used as just one aspect which illustrates the difference, which you need a little help in recognising.
So the fact the opponent can move all the pieces on the board to figure it out makes speculative sacrifices work less. I don't think anyone would argue that. But, fail to see what that has to do with anything.
As to your second paragraph....
AS MY REAL INTENTION IS TO GET GOOD OTB-which in MY OPINION is real chess.
I allowed you your opinion. You f cc chess is really just research. If you can't agree with that then you have blinders on.
You allowed me my opinion in a public forum, to which i subscribe, well that's real generous of you for condescending to do so, do you also hold out the hope of being a dictator of some banana republic?
i do not agree with you for as yet i fail to see any merit to your ludicrous claims, when you understand that CC is not OTB and that there are intrinsic differences which when you may be able to put the constituent parts together lending one would hope to a real understanding, then we can talk, otherwise the brick wall seems a thoroughly better option, for at least the sound waves reverberate not into a vacuous region.
Perhaps they may have more merit if they were substantiated with references other than personal opinion, who can tell!
oh, everyone should agree that CC is different than OTB. I guess that is the reason it was given a different name and other tournaments and ratings in the first place. There is no need to offend one player of chess by saying that his time-controle method is inferior. Some prefere OTB, some CC, some blitz. Does it matter? No it doesn't, so you all stop whinning and let everyone do whatever he wants.
OTB chess is played via direct comunication. CC is played via indirect comunication. OTB chess has smaller time periods and doesnt allow research. CC has large (enournmous) time periods and allows research. That is the difference. Does that mean that one is better than the other? No it doesn't! It only means that it is different. You pick what you like, I'll pick what i like. It's my business, you've got nothing to do with it.
Saying that CC is not real chess is also, utter nonsense, shure, many parts may be pure research, but is that bad? Again it isn't, it only makes games interesting, in a different way. See you have to play with what you are given, you have to play and use these data to your advantage. Due to this CC becomes unbelievably complicated and precise, it achieves another form of beuty, its beuty is the search for chess perfection. OTB beuty is surprise, creativity. CC maybe less art, but it is more of a cience. It is different. You choose what you like, I'll choose what I like. Now get over it.
Originally posted by orion25contradictory much. Your first paragraph was my exact point.
oh, everyone should agree that CC is different than OTB. I guess that is the reason it was given a different name and other tournaments and ratings in the first place. There is no need to offend one player of chess by saying that his time-controle method is inferior. Some prefere OTB, some CC, some blitz. Does it matter? No it doesn't, so you all stop whinni ...[text shortened]... nce. It is different. You choose what you like, I'll choose what I like. Now get over it.
Your last paragraph was completely contradictory to your first.
Originally posted by heinzkatI never said anything about anyone elses rating until you gave the higher than though quote. And I never made an excuse for my rating on here. It is fact, I haven't had enough games to have an accurate rating(this is simple statistics, my rating may in fact be higher or lower on here. But, 7 games can't gauge what it should be.)
Superiority complex?! I mean it as in that "they" (you) make up excuses why they are stronger than their actual rating. That has nothing to do with MY rating, huh?
edit 2: That's like saying I am actually of GM strength too, just never got around achieving the higher rating and scoring the norms 😛
And maybe you don't understand that chess.com is in fact corespondence chess.
Which, by the way, I just drew NM michael aigner on there(f pawn).
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=24963710
I did also get crushed in another game we played. But, people who can draw with masters in your precious cc without any assistance are not weak players.
Originally posted by wormwoodThats a pretty good idea if you can't find a club to play at ;D
I'm gonna start training online blitz in 120min otb games. it's MY REAL INTENTION and REAL CHESS. playing classical otb is just research. if you can't agree with that you're prejudiced and have blinders on.