Originally posted by erikidoal right, I understand now. It is the tradition problem with non-face-to-face comunication. Interpretation.
First you tell people to just let people do what they want and stop whining. Then you tell me to "get over it". Which I am not sure what I need to get over-it seems that you need to get over the fact that other people have different opinions on anything.
I stated I thought real (purest) chess is otb and you got pissy and defensive. Telling me I need ...[text shortened]... ize to you who actually like obama or softball or sushi. I mean really get over yourselves.
I will explain why it is not contradictory: the post was not ment to serve as an answer to you in particular but to all those above who were discussing the subject at hand. You will understand now that "get over it" wasn't ment for you but for everyone, I meant to say Just accept the difference between forms of chess and stop whining about it, I admit, maybe I didn't put it too correctly and you misunderstood, mea culpa.
I'd like to state also that I didn't get pissy or defensive, I just gave my opinion about the subject, without defending or attacking anything. I just tryed to explain why I didn't agree that there is a true form of chess. But I think everything gets clear after the elucidation above. As for your 3rd paragraph that was exactly what I was trying to say (except that part of getting over yourselves: take it easy man, peace!).
1 edit
Originally posted by erikidoHuh? I think you have to depersonalize all of this QUITE a bit. I was commenting on players (you in this case) who say they do not play correspondence chess with an external board and do all the calculation in their head so that their important "OTB chess vision" would improve - which is a weak argument in my eyes.
and once again you avoid my valid points. Nice job TROLL!!LULZ!
Originally posted by orion25🙂 sorry for the misunderstanding.
al right, I understand now. It is the tradition problem with non-face-to-face comunication. Interpretation.
I will explain why it is not contradictory: the post was not ment to serve as an answer to you in particular but to all those above who were discussing the subject at hand. You will understand now that "get over it" wasn't ment for you but for every ...[text shortened]... as trying to say (except that part of getting over yourselves: take it easy man, peace!).
Originally posted by erikido1986 ðŸ˜
I would take a 1900 rating over a 1982 rating with 99 percent of the "games" played against the same "opponent" who apparently really likes to lose to you. I mean, uh, this "1982". And as usual I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Originally posted by heinzkatlol. Yes I do now see your edit. I knew u would enjoy the ad hominem after telling me you were intending one of your posts as more of a personal attack. Which I unfortunately missed. I need more sleep. It might have been rather humorous.
Huh? I think you missed my EDITs of the messages 😕 Keep 'em off topic ad hominems coming 😲
Originally posted by heinzkatwhat is weak about it. You don't think it improves the vision or you don't think that I do not use the analysis board?
Huh? I think you have to depersonalize all of this QUITE a bit. I was commenting on players (you in this case) who say they do not play correspondence chess with an external board and do all the calculation in their head so that their important "OTB chess vision" would improve - which is a weak argument in my eyes.
1 edit
Again some incorrectness - I did not intend it as a personal attack, but afterwards I remarked it could be read more as a personal attack than the previous messages from my hand/keyboard (and yet you said, OK, this does not seem like a personal attack)
Anyway. By saying you refuse to take out a board and play out variations - like you ought to - you are in fact explicitly stating that you are, "of course!", better at chess than your rating reflects. It's only that you are improving your OTB calculating skillz by not moving around the pieces on a physical board.
Hi
Not read all the thread - most of it just seemed nipping at each other.
But caught this:
"By saying you refuse to take out a board and play out variations..."
This is the real joy of C.C. chess. You can sit down at your board
to plot, plan and bewilder.
(or to discover just how much trouble you really are in).
You are missing a lot of fun by NOT messing about with the
position. There is no doubt you get ideas.
Some good - most bad - but you do get ideas.
Originally posted by greenpawn34yep I agree. I sometimes, while analysing a move, I wander of just playing the first thing that comes to my head, and end up looking interestingly at a position 15 moves ahead, wich will nver actually happen, but is beutifull all the same. I sometimes even feel tempted to play weaker variations in order to achieve these positions. I'm crazy 🙂
Hi
Not read all the thread - most of it just seemed nipping at each other.
But caught this:
"By saying you refuse to take out a board and play out variations..."
This is the real joy of C.C. chess. You can sit down at your board
to plot, plan and bewilder.
(or to discover just how much trouble you really are in).
You are missing a lot ...[text shortened]... the
position. There is no doubt you get ideas.
Some good - most bad - but you do get ideas.
Originally posted by heinzkatFirst of all to the caps. Wrong. Where does it state in the rules that players must take out pieces and actually physically look over moves.
Again some incorrectness - I did not intend it as a personal attack, but afterwards I remarked it could be read more as a personal attack than the previous messages from my hand/keyboard (and yet you said, OK, this does not seem like a personal attack)
Anyway. By saying you refuse to take out a board and play out variations - LIKE YOU OUGHT TO- you are i ...[text shortened]... re improving your OTB calculating skillz by not moving around the pieces on a physical board.
Second of all no I am not stating that. I am simply stating that I don't move the pieces nothing more nothing less. If you want to interpret it a different way, then you can. But, you would be wrong.