03 Feb 07
Originally posted by wormwoodWhich critique?
how do you ever expect to get any better if a mere thought of critique gets you all defensive?
Critics come in more than one form. Some are constructive. Others are counter productive.
Remarks in a thread such as this, resembling 'your chess is rather primitive' is unneeded criticism, along with others.
It really makes the commenter look rather bitter towards the person.
Someone rated at 2400 may indeed feel that someone rated at 2100 has a rather primitive understanding as well. More than likely they have more class than to enter a thread of appreciation for said person and point that out.
My mother always said if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Would seem to fit for a thread of this nature.
Rahim didn't even bother commenting in the thread, 'tooting' his own horn as some have said, until one poster falsely stated how he achieved his rating.
So we have false statements and somewhat disparaging comments from the critics.
I certainly do not plan on getting any better listening to critique of that nature.
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by JusuhHe can be teacher for novice - nobody denies it. But not for more qualified players.
the point is that while RahimK's understanding of chess is more or less incomplete, it doesn't have to make any difference here. I think he can actually be better teacher for novice players than most of the GMs would.
and lets face it, 2200 rated also has rather poor understanding of chess.
For you reaching 2200 would be exellent (learning to argue your opinion wouldnt be bad too) .
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by MctaytoWhere did I said to shut up?
If a lower rated player is helped by his posts then that is all that matters and the folk perched on the 2000 + seat should shut up or put up a better thread for the other members
If they have better help available for lower rated players then lets see/hear it
03 Feb 07
For all others:
Texts like "After all that I've done for you guys.", which is adressed to stronger players than novice), in my opinion means only one - RahimK strongly overrates his chess understanding and quality of his lessons. So if he wants to be better he needs to improve too. That`s all I wanted to say.
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by Teshuvahyou sound just like grandmouster. he always put me and rahim down because our 'criticism was unconstructive and counter productive'. he never got any better because he couldn't take critique without throwing a fit. we can take it, and that's why the score is now:
Which critique?
Critics come in more than one form. Some are constructive. Others are counter productive.
Remarks in a thread such as this, resembling 'your chess is rather primitive' is unneeded criticism, along with others.
It really makes the commenter look rather bitter towards the person.
Someone rated at 2400 may indeed feel that someone r ...[text shortened]... s.
I certainly do not plan on getting any better listening to critique of that nature.
rahimk 1822
wormwood 1822
grandmouster 1506
03 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Korchwhat anything has to do with my rating?
For you reaching 2200 would be exellent (learning to argue your opinion wouldnt be bad too) .
I am not sure if I am missing something here (like some thread "I want to teach 2000 rated players" by Rahim), but Rahim, as a +1800 player, has mostly tried to help players with under 1800 ratings.
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by Jusuh"Helping players under 1800" is too ambitional by his side. I`m not sure that (for example) cmsmaster (whose rating is below 1800) understands chess less than Rahim.
what anything has to do with my rating?
I am not sure if I am missing something here (like some thread "I want to teach 2000 rated players" by Rahim), but Rahim, as a +1800 player, has mostly tried to help players with under 1800 ratings.
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by wormwoodI'm not putting either of you down.
you sound just like grandmouster. he always put me and rahim down because our 'criticism was unconstructive and counter productive'. he never got any better because he couldn't take critique without throwing a fit. we can take it, and that's why the score is now:
rahimk 1822
wormwood 1822
grandmouster 1506
You, sir, are the one putting somebody down in the thread.
I merely stated, and stand by the statement that in a thread of this nature, your comment appears rather bitter and classless.
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by KorchThat is true.
Your lessons can be useful only for weak players, because your understandfing of chess is rather primitive.
But several of the games I went over from a book I had for the moment, were Super GM vs Super GM.
Surely just going over those games with the comments I had given would help anyone. Anyone!