No1Marauder accuses me of not being able to analyze, he literally calls me retarded and dares me to think I have the advantage because white is attacking in my black games. Anyways, my concensus of all this sillyness is, white attacking in ANY GAME is overated. White plays first, white develops first, white has the better openings, white of course can lauch a big assault at will at anytime and there's little black can do but to buckle down, this is part of chess.
In fact, I love defending big attacks, I say, "bring it on", it's some of the most challenging games ever, and it will improve your chess, and I actually find this fun. Perhabs that is my downside, perhabs I find this a little bit too much fun to defend a big attack and purposely go out of my way to make sure white attacks. Most players hate and scratch their heads at such games, they hate being attacked, but I love it. I goes back to the time when I used to play vedio games, and made impossible to win scenarios where 5000 men tried to invade my castle of 100 men, in which I would probably lose 100 times, but the odd time I would win and it felt more special then 100 wins with even odds.
My goal is to prove, that white attacking, is simply overated. A lot of ppl say this is too passive, good players will find some miraculous mating combo to kill you, and to that I say, bring it. No1Marauder may point out my opponent did several mistakes to not finish me off, and "I'm lucky" (there's no luck in chess), and I'm sure he chuckles with a few of his high rated friends how my opponent missed an "obvious" 6-10 move mating combo, and I'm sure there are many examples of this in my games, but I literally dare my opponent to find this mating combo, if it is even there, and in most cases, they simply cannot, and when they cannot, I pull ahead.
Like Tal launches big attacks that may later be proven to be unsound, I invite my opponent to attack and I set up a defensive bind, that may also be unsound, but the goal is the same, make life hard for your opponent, make him think hard. It's a unique style that seems to be working:
My record as black is 21 wins 10 losses and 6 draws, mostly against players top 10% on the site. Contrast that to my dismal white record of 7 wins, 7 losses, and 3 draws. The difference beteewn I, and say a great player like No1Marauder, is he is simply a better white player and typicly wins most of his white games, as he mathematicly should, but I'm going to pound my chest and say, despite the fact a Marauder is a way better white player then me by far, I'm willing to bet we are at the same level with the black peices.
Originally posted by mateuloseYou lose your bet; my record as Black is 125 wins, 43 losses and 23 draws; far better statistically than yours. And when you start playing Dave Tebb, BBarr, TRACKHEAD21, Feivel, Nicohuyboom, etc. etc. and see how you do against them, then you can talk about the caliber of your competition, not before.
No1Marauder accuses me of not being able to analyze, he literally calls me retarded and dares me to think I have the advantage because white is attacking in my black games. Anyways, my concensus of all this sillyness is, white attacking in ANY GAME is overated. White plays first, white develops first, white has the better openings, white of course can lauc ...[text shortened]... white player then me by far, I'm willing to bet we are at the same level with the black peices.
Aren't you usually moaning about your opponents killing you with simple tactics as White?
The difference between you and No.1 is that he can analyze a position objectively - as you show in the 'worst losses' thread and others, you have absolutely no ability to look at one of your games objectively.
Originally posted by mateuloseWhen playing weaker opponents this is probably true. Just play to not blunder and wait for opponents to over extend themselves or enter unsound "sacs" (this assumes you can spot the mistake BTW). However when playing opponents rated above 1500 I am often fighting for the smallest of advantages (probably just a single center square) in hopes of converting that advantage into a win.
My goal is to prove, that white attacking, is simply overated. A lot of ppl say this is too passive, good players will find some miraculous mating combo to kill you, and to that I say, bring it.
Are you seriously suggesting that I play passive and just hand these advantages over to them?
Do you really think a strong player (1500+) could not convert these advantages into a win more than 50% of the time? There is quite a lot of evidence that they can and do.
If I don't attack, aka play passive, aka play without a goal in mind, how do I select a move?
I think this will be an extremely difficult proof.
Originally posted by egsmithYou simply move what is the best defensive move all the time, like a Petrosian. Of course, sometimes I reach an optimal defensive position (ie: I like where all my peices are) and I don't know what to do if my opponent doesn't attack or decides to stop attacking.
When playing weaker opponents this is probably true. Just play to not blunder and wait for opponents to over extend themselves or enter unsound "sacs" (this assumes you can spot the mistake BTW). However when playing opponents rated above 1500 I am often fighting for the smallest of advantages (probably just a single center square) in hopes of converting ...[text shortened]... a goal in mind, how do I select a move?
I think this will be an extremely difficult proof.
Originally posted by mateuloseWhat makes a defensive move "best"? And not having a clear course of action in situations that should be expected to pop up, to me, says the overall plan is flawed.
You simply move what is the best defensive move all the time, like a Petrosian. Of course, sometimes I reach an optimal defensive position (ie: I like where all my peices are) and I don't know what to do if my opponent doesn't attack or decides to stop attacking.
I also love to defend and choose positions where a sound defense is key, aka the french. However I think you are missing a key concept of defense. When a peice is defending it is glued to a spot, because if it leaves that spot then what it was defending becomes available to attack. This severly limits the mobility of that peice. A peice dedicated to offense has no such limitation because the attacker can choose to call off the attack with no immediate penalty (the drawback is this spot no longer needs to be defended).
So a smart attacker looks to force his opponent into making defensive moves. Then once the defensive move is made he looks to create more attacks (spots that must be defended) until the mobility of the defending peices is so restricted that further defense is impossible. Against a skillfull attacker there is no "optimal" defensive position. The attacker, with more mobility, readjusts faster to meet and overextend the new defense.
The only way to prevent this snowball effect is to create attacks of your own, which in turn limits the mobility of your opponent and his attacking possibilities. With skillfull counter-attacks, the snowball will start moving in his direction and the attacked becomes the attacker.
You should always count on your opponent making the best move. Therefore the outcome of continually making moves that are purely defensive, even if they are the best, will be to be overwhelmed slowly.
I understand that in reality most opponents can be counted on to make a mistake (this is why I don't resign or ask for a draw immediately as black) but to base an entire game on catching it is very risky and unnecessary.