You wanna get to 1950-2000?

Hi thaughbaer

No it does not help if you play me.

I will win and put the game on The Corner.

You are over 1800 so you are doing something right.

Now is the time to pick carefully who you play and ease yourself into the 1950's.

I see you have just started two games v 2Advent. The games are 1 move old.

He's 1700+ and has 292 games in progress.

He also has no timeouts against his name.

Therefore he is a quick mover, and will almost certainly fall for two moves tricks.

Take him gently out of the book (no silly sharp stuff). get developed
and let him think of something to do.
When he does - counter it with a 2 mover. He won't see it coming.
(trust me on this - the first trick you play he will fall for. He has too many games).

Then you can come on here, post the win and buy me a pint next time
I see you in Sandy Bells.

Trev: "Horrible Advice?"

OK but you must come up with an alternative.

Simply stating negative without a positve is not valid.

Tells us what works for you.

Originally posted by greenpawn34

No it does not help if you play me.

I will win and put the game on The Corner.

By "yourself" I didn't mean your good self.. although I have no reason to believe you are anything but good.. I meant "I" versus "I".. which apparently is not allowed.. but only sometimes.. allegedly..

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Sandy Bells.

Postcode ? I am on the South Coast... but if FlyBe have a one pound offer I may be tempted... I've done stranger things.

Edinburgh.

Picture of me outside Bells carrying a set in my profile.

We go in you buy me beer, I play you at 5 minute chess and after closing time
you carry me home.

The perfect night out.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The perfect night out.

I googled it. "Be prepared to climb over 'bodies' to partake of the restrooms when there is a big session on!".

Originally posted by greenpawn34


Trev: "Horrible Advice?"

OK but you must come up with an alternative.

Simply stating negative without a positve is not valid.

Tells us what works for you.

well here's what i pointed out that i didn't like..

Pick your opponents carefully. I do.

No over 2000 players if you can help it, certainly no over 2200's

and finish them all before you start another bunch.

Attack at all costs. All chess players under 2200 are lousy at defending.

playing against and losing to over 2000s (assuming you lose) won't lose you that many points and the possibility for learning is greater than playing say. a 1550 rated person...

agree with less than 20 games but not sure about starting them all at once and not starting any new games until, they're all complete.. that might take ages and you could possibly forget some things that you picked up while playing the original 20... in the opening for example.

attack at all costs might work if your style/ability allows it... some of us like to sit back and wait for our opponent to mess up their attack because 'all chess players below 2200 are lousy at attacking'.

as for your 'choosing opponents carefully' comment i'm not 100% sure what you mean here... go through their games and see if your style suits theres? or just rating wise? either way i don't think it's a good idea... the game is all about learning, and there's a greater possibility of me doing so if i play a wide range or styles and ratings. sure i could beat up on a bunch of -1400 players and reach 1800+ but what would be the point? would i really be a 1800 player or merely have that number beside by name?

sure if you just wanted the number, take your advise but if you actually wanted to be as strong as your average 2000 player it's going to take a lot more than beating 1500 players consistently.

just out of interest... what's the 3 best players would've beaten on this site?

Originally posted by trev33
horrible advice.

Maybe it's just me, but I just assumed -

Enter the world of greenpawn34 ...where things are not always quite what they seem

😉

I don't understand what you guys are saying about opponent's rating. If a 1600 strength player chooses to play 1,000 games against players with ratings of 2000 or 1,000 games against 1000 rated players his rating will approach 1600 either way won't it?

Hi trev.

You wanna get to 1950-2000?

Was the title of the thread and that is the way.

Of course if you want to actually BE 1950-2000 then you have take your
advice and play stronger players. But that will take time and effort.

A lot of time and a fair bit of effort.

Most attacks under 2000 win as these games are all about blunders.

You can play an inexact move once. twice, even three times when attacking
and get away with it.

One slip when defending - doom.

It's how 1400-2000 are conditioned.

!White to play and win" are the tests.

Never 'White to play and defend.' (who is going to do those?).

Good players I have beaten? None. (else I would never have beaten them) 😉

I try not to play them.
What's the piont of giving advice if you don't follow it yourself.

The good players will not fall for my silly tricks and traps.

They do OTB (I have a few IM scalps on my CV ) but the good clean
players on here take their time.

My style is not suited to net play.

Also 6 of my 9 losses have come from banned over 2000 cheats.
And I cannot beat a box.

It's one of the reasons I said "sod it" and just started playing established
under 1500's and NO 1200 p's, potential banned users returning.

I'm 1960 on here by following my advice. 😏

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi trev.

[b]You wanna get to 1950-2000?

Was the title of the thread and that is the way.

Of course if you want to actually BE 1950-2000 then you have take your
advice and play stronger players. But that will take time and effort.

A lot of time and a fair bit of effort.

Most attacks under 2000 win as these games are all about blunders. ...[text shortened]... s, potential banned users returning.

I'm 1960 on here by following my advice. 😏[/b]

Most attacks under 2000 win as these games are all about blunders.

You can play an inexact move once. twice, even three times when attacking
and get away with it.

One slip when defending - doom.

i still debate this... one bad attacking move and the counter bunch could kill you, plus one early defensive slip and there's more than enough time to recover... most players -2000 aren't good enough to carry a small advantage from start to win without giving the other guy a chance of getting back into the game... i know because my openings often leave me with a poor position and often recover.


so you're 1960 here... it's just a number. how do you feel you would do against guys who are 1900 by playing 1700-2200 rated guys?

Hi Trev.

Glad you came back. I love talking chess.

My case. under 2000 v under 2000

In my experiece under 2000 player attack a lot better than they defend.

Often the attacking player will not play the best, sharpest move and still win.

However when one of them is defending then the mistake is often fatal.

Infact a mistake when defending at ANY level is usually fatal.

The defending player is then relying on the attacker not finding the refutation
and as players attack better than defend the advantage is with the attacker.

So my first task was to find a game of yours you won but did play exact.

(exact in my opinion is what I would have done. There is no trickery here)

Not to prove a point or make you look silly, but what better game to use than
one of yours?

A quick run down your finished games showed your recent games all featured
games from set postions.
(a few things there could do with improving but I needed a complete game).

(And we won't talk about that 3 Knights stalemate) 😉

Honest Trev the first one I looked at after all the red shields. Game 6767206

A bit of a shambles really. You won it but only because White could
not defend himself. (the under 2000 syndrome)

This lad should never have been allowed to see a middle game.

Here Black (you) to play.



I bet you played 8. Nc2+ within seconds.
I saw a better move literally seconds later.

Not the best, according to me. You are snagging an undeloped Rook with
a very strong Knight.

The good guys are now looking at 8.Bg4



He cannot take it.
(But you know and I know and everyone knows he would have).

8....Qxg4 9.Nd3+ and Nxf2+ and NxQueen.

A bit better I think than a poxy undeveloped Rook.

Now some chimp might turn up with a box and tell me that Nc2+ is best
because the box will not take the Bishop (I don't know is it?)

I've looked at what can happen if White moves the Queen.

1st Rule in a sac combination:

What Happens If He Does Not Take It.

And remember. I wrote the book on the tactics. (not many of you can say that) 😏

Where does the Queen go without Black steaming in with Nd3+
White is being mauled and it's a very easy postion for Black to play.
White can only sit and watch.

But all that is by the by. He would have taken the Bishop on g4.
Not convinced? 8.Qg3 Nd3+ 9.Kc1 Qd4



Hits f2. Sneaky threat Qxc4 and Qb3 mate. It's a tanking.

Go to

http://www.timeforchess.com/gamesexplorer/

1000's of examples of screwed up attacks winning and guys in level postions
missing one move mates against them.

Now me.

Your last sentence.

"so you're 1960 here... it's just a number. how do you feel you would do
against guys who are 1900 by playing 1700-2200 rated guys?"

I don't know these 1900 players are just a number. Your words. 😉

Me v a good guy on here.

White v RFN Game 5958183 he is 2140.

I sac my pawns centre pawns like I've done 100 before and won.

This guy plays the defence perfect. I do not get anything.
I resign before the middle game.
No point in playing on. He's good, he won't blow it.

I need some bad defending to get my sole chess ability 'tactics' into action.
I'm good at it. I worked hard to get good at it. I very rarely miss tactical tricks.

Game 7141635 Some bad play is what I need.

Most likely not the quickest best moves but towards the end I was
in 'cute' mode looking for a pretty finish.

had that been a rated game i'd like to think i would've taken the extra time on the position to look for a better move. i don't take unrated games seriously... as seen in the 3 knights stalemate. but how that person got to p1700 is beyond me, tbh i didn't even remember playing the game.

i guess it depends on the player... with regards of attacking/defending goes. i'm sure i can give you a game where i defended badly but my opponent couldn't take advantage with xe's poor attacking skills.

i'm not saying you should go all out defend, of course not but a good attack is often based on a good defense... everyone in chess is player depended though.

Game 5623529 a long time ago and i'm a much better player now but here's a game where my defending blunders weren't capitalized on... had no right getting a result here but poor play and i win. to make it worse this was the last game being played in the group and he just needed a draw to progress as group winner.

Originally posted by trev33
had that been a rated game i'd like to think i would've taken the extra time on the position to look for a better move. i don't take unrated games seriously... as seen in the 3 knights stalemate. but how that person got to p1700 is beyond me, tbh i didn't even remember playing the game.

i guess it depends on the player... with regards of attacking/defendin ...[text shortened]... game being played in the group and he just needed a draw to progress as group winner.

you may run trev, but you cannot hide forever, i am coming to getcha!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you may run trev, but you cannot hide forever, i am coming to getcha!

🙂 you're on my list as well 😛

Originally posted by trev33
🙂 you're on my list as well 😛

gulp! 🙂