 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
why don't you tell him that instead of us?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
Sicilian defence is all i ever use but it's very susceptible to an early attack so i usually either lose in the first five minutes or go on for an hour or two
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Psychology: He usually wins and therefore he believes that you will respect him less if he loses. He lost, so he is trying to "defend" himself to keep your respect.
Possibly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
not really monkspider... just i used to play with these two boys and i got determined to beat them so i learned a lot. one of them was a real bad winner though so i only played with him a few times and lost (you got to see this man play basketball or run track... and he's even worse of a bad winner in chess)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
so this guy is gay too? i was under the impression he wasn't...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
It's a closed, neo-classical style strategy, used by Chess greats such as Capablanca.  |
Who is way out of style. Personally, I prefer the "cut out their still beating heart and hold it up for all to see" style of Tal.
The problem with both the Ruy (which IMO is a very mediocre opening to pursue from the white side) and Sicilian (which IMO is nearly unsound, and has no real prospect for equalization except for burying white in a labrynth of fishy variations) is that they are simply done to death theoretically, so if you aren't prepared to outstudy your opponent in every stinkin' variation, you can get hammered. Even at the IM level, let alone Senior Master or below, there's no real possibility of doing good theoretical work or good analysis in those openings that hasn't already been worked and mined and most likely published somewhere.
There is one and only one goal in the opening, IMO, and that is to take your opponent out of his prepared plans, and into territory you, not he, understands.
It's really fun to have someone think they're going to take you for a ride with the Sicialian and look at their confuzzled widdle faces when you close it up with 2 Nc3. It's even more fun when you later cram those f and g pawns down his throat and he wonders what happened to that Q-side counterplay he heard you got with the Sissy.
But that's just me... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
i havent played chess in four years and i probably have completely forgotton all the moves but you're right, mtg... i dont know why i kept using the sicilian... it left me vulnerable for the first few turns (very frustrating watching you get checked like the third or fourth turn; especially before you castle) and all it really did if successful was make a little fortress that i was real cautious breaking up to go on the offensive. looking back i got no idea why i used it almost every game. it probably guarenteed me only having an occasional win and losing most of the time
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Tal huh? Interesting choice.
We all have our own styles of play, and I find that playing sound, classical-style chess will get you further than these hyper-modern strategies, fianchettos, and what have you. But to each his own. You sound like more of a Fisher style player Mikey. |
Hypermodern theory was crap, it just took a while for the refutation to demonstrate the lack of soundness in it.
I'm an opportunist. Or was, anyway. If someone wanted to play an open game, I'd close it, if they wanted to play a classical, positional game, I'd look to shatter things and attack. K-side fianchettos are for wimps, but God give me bishops on the A3 and E3 diagonals, and that beating heart will be mine.
As black, I kept a real simple repertoire of French against e4, and Queen's Indian against d4. I had somewhere around a 80% record as black with the French, including two draws with GM's (Grefe and Sarawan) and a 90% record as white against it, simply because I made sure I understood it inside and out. (Easy, when you had Uhlmann to sponge off of )
To me, the opening is never about objective advantage on the board - although that's a byproduct more often than not. It's about psychology, and breaking the opponent's confidence. The rest of it is just execution and organ harvesting.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
(Capablanca) is way out of style. Personally, I prefer the "cut out their still beating heart and hold it up for all to see" style of Tal.
|
I would guess that Capablanca's popularity is down to the style of writing of his books - he's a pretty easy introduction to the strategy side of chess, even if he doesn't really go for depth on a lot of stuff.
Not that I'm any sort of expert on chess - my junior club playing was so bad that after 2 solid years I was still unrated.
The only reason I kept it up for 2 years was the local club was over a pub - ah, the joys of underage drinking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
If that's not the game where you say 'king me' when you get one of your pieces to the other side of the board, then I'm in the wrong forum.
Why isn't there a Texas Hold'em forum? Oh yeah, this is for turn-based or real-time strategy game discussion. WHAT was I THINKING?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-07-2003 09:00
|