How to Play Smart like That, but WITHOUT holes?

@OctoPinky said in #30:
> So there is a point where Black can decide if White was playing QG or London?

Yes, Black can try to force the issue.

We have to remember if white wants to play Queen Gambit.
They can do it as early as move 2.c4.

White delaying the move does keep flexibility, but it also leaves Black with an impression that they might not be going for Queen Gambit.

As a result, Black side players could try to do a Queen Gambit of sorts for themselves with a c5 pawn strike.

It is a very common way for Black to force the issue.
The Triangle set up (London) is a similar how Black plays when White plays the Queen Gambit.

well that go you 2 going. .you don,t need me. I will look later.. good. thanks. i did want to showcase how the discussion could be helped by lichess features.. from study.. a gem. pity that both are not very visible from lobby.

The OP is very quick to show the games he wins
BUT HE CAN’T HIDE THE GAMES HE LOSES.



Is it a coincidence that I explained how Black can exploit White position 14 hours ago.
Then the OP has a game only 4 hours ago which is similar?

@X_Player_J_X said in #33:
> The OP is very quick to show the games he wins

Yes, the game analysis forum is full of his wins - especially the smart and perfect ones. Let him enjoy the admiration, he can probably make good use of it.

@derkleineJo said in #34:
> Yes, the game analysis forum is full of his wins - especially the smart and perfect ones. Let him enjoy the admiration, he can probably make good use of it.

Maybe, I am confused about what this thread is trying to accomplish.

If the OP wanted people to admire him and cheer him on for playing his games, The OP should of stated the above things in the thread topic + original posts.

When I read the thread topic + original post, It sounded to me like the OP needed help.
This is why I began trying to explain to him the situation.
Than posted examples of his own games which he lost vs. strong players who took advantage of his errors.

If the OP just wants people to cheer him on, Than fair enough.
Good Job OP!

Keep being fabulous, You will be an expert Chess player in no time
Awesome

I thought it was about the notion of holes in the smart play. which I interpreted as plans or above turn by turn vision, having goals and maneuvering toward it, an agreeable thing to share when ones gets to experience chess that way, it makes game scope story, instead of stitched puzzles. You get to set the goals as part of the problems. I thought instead of finding all the errors we could have tried to understand the positive aspect the op was trying to share, not in admiration of the individual player, but of the chess insight of a learner seeing above the next ply, or ply per ply calculation. But the words collided. using coordination seems to me like using previous placements in combinations. I have not looked enough yet for the post#2 point. for the longer term. But the op was proud of certain shorter term stories. Of making moves that were kind of quiet locally but being stepping stone for further tactics.

I think we focus too much on the best chess and do not see the emerging positive. There are many plans possible. I am still curious to find out what where the holes per op subjectivity. I find it an act of communication in chess to try to do so. Whatever the intentions of the op in sharing that. I prefer such not perfect games. I might be curious about human chess thinking more than perfect chess it seems. Of course the op will not share games not of positive outcome.

I appeciate the op having put some discussion fodder with some of own words, and ask a question that might make sense, albeit needing many heads to translate. I do not care if it was a pretext to be proud. I do not think so. I am not interested in admiring the player, just understanding what the op was thinking.. I don't even want to understand all the moves of the games as errors or not.. Just what the smart play impression might have been, and then the holes. (which might be weak square related but maybe not). I seem to also be taking that as pretext to voice a certain philosophy of dicussion.. and now I do not have the energy to apply it.. myself. So finally, I ask others, what did the op mean by holes? was it as I thought, perhaps the sense that it was not plans that ranged over the whole game scope, but still of say mediuam term above puzzle scope (in depth).

beyond pure tactical.... I feel like games of others are too long to figure out such things without help of others. many heads. Is it possible in chess, or do we always have to make it about the player prowess?