Originally posted by darvlay Wrong and irrelevant again! You misrepresented my misinformed opinion on misery and misanthropy. Tract and retract, you hirsute swine!
Originally posted by SwissGambit Funny you should mention that. OTB games used to be adjourned. During the adjournment [overnight, before next day's resumption of play], a player was allowed to consult books and databases [think endgame books], or even have a team of other players analyze the position for him!
I've also prepared opening lines for my OTB opponents. The only limitation is that I must have it all memorized before the round starts.
Originally posted by darvlay Also, you might want to consider trying out the opening books as a resource because your chess desperately needs it. I am by no means a top level player and I could beat you easily (without books or databases) on my worst day after a three paper cannon and a bottle-cap full of coke.
What a macaroon. i hope you don't really believe that.
Originally posted by eldragonfly What a macaroon. i hope you don't really believe that.
Not only do I believe it, as evidenced by the games we played, but I would suggest your rating is inflated by about 400 points given the tactless openings you employed, the terrible blunders you frequently made and the nonsensical analysis you blathered on about.
Put your little board away, El-D, and go buy a book. You'll thank us all in the end.
Originally posted by eldragonfly i realize that, but it's not the same thing.
Yes, but I'm trying to get you to see things from a different angle.
Here's another question. Correspondence games can last months, even years. Should a player stop studying [for example] a book on their favorite opening for all that time?
Originally posted by SwissGambit Yes, but I'm trying to get you to see things from a different angle.
Here's another question. Correspondence games can last months, even years. Should a player stop studying [for example] a book on their favorite opening for all that time?
Wow!! A chess player, has chess books and even reads them?? Who woulda' thunk, who woulda' known?
Give me a break SwissGambit, only a severely deluded and hopelessly reticent sissyboy would play his moves by rote from ECO, an opening book or whatever, and not put any thought into his actual play. What you suggest is nonsense.
Originally posted by eldragonfly Wow!! A chess player, has chess books and even reads them?? Who woulda' thunk, who woulda' known?
Give me a break SwissGambit, only a severely deluded and hopelessly reticent sissyboy would play his moves by rote from ECO, an opening book or whatever, and not put any thought into his actual play. What you suggest is nonsense.
Seems like you know nothing about opening theory.
If indeed the moves from ECO are the best ones, why play worse if you know the lines. Playing without an idea what is going on is dumb, but playing CC without any databases, books or something for the opening, is even dumber.
A sissyboy you say? Chess is a hobby, not a bravery contest.
Originally posted by eldragonfly Wow!! A chess player, has chess books and even reads them?? Who woulda' thunk, who woulda' known?
Give me a break SwissGambit, only a severely deluded and hopelessly reticent sissyboy would play his moves by rote from ECO, an opening book or whatever, and not put any thought into his actual play. What you suggest is nonsense.
You assume people who play from books are not putting any "actual" thought into the lines they choose or analyzing the reason why those moves are appropriate; that is the only nonsense I'm reading here.
It's really no surprise that you are such a terrible player and haven't improved in the however many years you've been playing here.
Originally posted by kbaumen Seems like you know nothing about opening theory.
If indeed the moves from ECO are the best ones, why play worse if you know the lines. Playing without an idea what is going on is dumb, but playing CC without any databases, books or something for the opening, is even dumber.
A sissyboy you say? Chess is a hobby, not a bravery contest.
The operative concept here is cheating and getting away with it because you can, because no one is stopping you, and not knowing opening lines. Making your next move by rote from an opening book is not the same as knowing opening lines, that idea in and of itself is really stoopid. Again you would not play an OTB game in this manner, what you suggest requires no thought whatsoever beyond knowing chess notation and then "stealing" your next move from an openings book.
Originally posted by eldragonfly The operative concept here is cheating and getting away with it because you can, because no one is stopping you, and not knowing opening lines. Making your next move by rote from an opening book is not the same as knowing opening lines, that idea in and of itself is really stoopid. Again you would not play an OTB game in this manner, what you suggest req ...[text shortened]... soever beyond knowing chess notation and then "stealing" your next move from an openings book.
What I was originally picking at was that you claimed those two games looked like engines had played. Such a statement is simply stupid because they both were more or less still in the opening.
Originally posted by eldragonfly The operative concept here is cheating and getting away with it because you can, because no one is stopping you, and not knowing opening lines. Making your next move by rote from an opening book is not the same as knowing opening lines, that idea in and of itself is really stoopid. Again you would not play an OTB game in this manner, what you suggest req ...[text shortened]... soever beyond knowing chess notation and then "stealing" your next move from an openings book.
Um... making moves by rote and learning them, often by playing them out using book etc., is part of chess. Otherwise whenever you play 1. e4, "best by test", you are being a "sissy-boy". And what better way than actually having a willing opponent and everyone on here is willing for this to happen.
Is that logical? Think about it before you answer, although one does not need a degree in soothsaying to know what that will be.
Originally posted by eldragonfly Wow!! A chess player, has chess books and even reads them?? Who woulda' thunk, who woulda' known?
Give me a break SwissGambit, only a severely deluded and hopelessly reticent sissyboy would play his moves by rote from ECO, an opening book or whatever, and not put any thought into his actual play. What you suggest is nonsense.
I think your location is false- you, in LogicLand? Don't make me laugh. You won't even read the TOS.
Originally posted by kbaumen What I was originally picking at was that you claimed those two games looked like engines had played. Such a statement is simply stupid because they both were more or less still in the opening.
They both were banned for engine use, the rest is just commonsense. For all we know they might have been 800 players, this idea that they actually know these deep and complex variations doesn't fly.
Grintzi vs. nmdavidb
17 Apr '08 15:08
Back to Top