@RoundMoundOfUnsound said in #1:
> It's recreational chess, park chess, trick chess, and many interesting forms of chess.
>
> It is not championship chess.
>
> If either player is under 2700 ignore the game it is meaningless. These games are like playground basketball.
Well, you're not completely wrong. But that's probably not a bad thing. We don't need to play like Grandmasters.
> It's recreational chess, park chess, trick chess, and many interesting forms of chess.
>
> It is not championship chess.
>
> If either player is under 2700 ignore the game it is meaningless. These games are like playground basketball.
Well, you're not completely wrong. But that's probably not a bad thing. We don't need to play like Grandmasters.
@RoundMoundOfUnsound said in #1:
> If either player is under 2700 ignore the game it is meaningless. These games are like playground basketball.
Stockfish 15 says that under 3500 is meaningless so no human should play chess.
> If either player is under 2700 ignore the game it is meaningless. These games are like playground basketball.
Stockfish 15 says that under 3500 is meaningless so no human should play chess.
@The_Warrior_Prince said in #24:
> Nobody asked for your opinion.
Why would they this is an open board?
Who do you try to impress by calling attention to yourself verbally abusing someone who did nothing to you with a tone you'd never use to someone's face?
Women see guys like that as loudmouthed weaklings who have nothing to offer other than trying to insult someone.
2700s don't bother with such lameness notice they never comment like that.
> Nobody asked for your opinion.
Why would they this is an open board?
Who do you try to impress by calling attention to yourself verbally abusing someone who did nothing to you with a tone you'd never use to someone's face?
Women see guys like that as loudmouthed weaklings who have nothing to offer other than trying to insult someone.
2700s don't bother with such lameness notice they never comment like that.
@Meriten said in #33:
> Stockfish 15 says that under 3500 is meaningless so no human should play chess.
I agree which is why humans should work to get to 3500 and why I use an engine as my coach.
> Stockfish 15 says that under 3500 is meaningless so no human should play chess.
I agree which is why humans should work to get to 3500 and why I use an engine as my coach.
@SD_2709 said in #32:
> Well, you're not completely wrong. But that's probably not a bad thing. We don't need to play like Grandmasters.
We do only if we want our analysis to be something other than meaningless.
> Well, you're not completely wrong. But that's probably not a bad thing. We don't need to play like Grandmasters.
We do only if we want our analysis to be something other than meaningless.
@Pric_2014 said in #22:
> It takes time to be a 2700 player, so do not tease any players under 2700. Garbage chess does not exist. Players can still be good.
The *chess* is garbage, the players are not.
I spent a lot of time refuting really stupid openings then I realized when I began studying only games where both players are 2700 that I would naturally acquire the technique to refute the crap.
Some people spend their whole lives developing a really fine understanding of the latvian gambit.
> It takes time to be a 2700 player, so do not tease any players under 2700. Garbage chess does not exist. Players can still be good.
The *chess* is garbage, the players are not.
I spent a lot of time refuting really stupid openings then I realized when I began studying only games where both players are 2700 that I would naturally acquire the technique to refute the crap.
Some people spend their whole lives developing a really fine understanding of the latvian gambit.
@arbez said in #23:
> So looking at your own score (2258; 1384?) you want to tell everybody that playing chess against you is like playground basketball? I just wonder why you wrote this post. As far as both sides really want to win the game this game by definition can't be meaningless ...
I meant meaningless to chess theory and once I leave my book, yes the rule applies to me or I wouldn't be 2258 (actually 2308 peak on my training account and rising steadily).
I've been training seven years post-computers. Hopefully I'll be 3000 within 18 months.
Right now, only death can stop me from becoming world champion though at my age that's a major threat.
> So looking at your own score (2258; 1384?) you want to tell everybody that playing chess against you is like playground basketball? I just wonder why you wrote this post. As far as both sides really want to win the game this game by definition can't be meaningless ...
I meant meaningless to chess theory and once I leave my book, yes the rule applies to me or I wouldn't be 2258 (actually 2308 peak on my training account and rising steadily).
I've been training seven years post-computers. Hopefully I'll be 3000 within 18 months.
Right now, only death can stop me from becoming world champion though at my age that's a major threat.
Are you ok? Are you alright? xxx
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.