Originally posted by eldragonflyMaybe this will work.
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.
They have been ACCUSED of engine use. Working on the fact this is impossible to certainly prove, how can you say they themselves didn't know these variations.
Of course they may be engine users, but you must learn to face facts when we admit we don't know- and neither do you.
To be honest, I think you're trolling- deliberately provoking moderate people who are trying to explain something to you. Arrogance personified.
Originally posted by eldragonflyWere you dropped on your head at birth, you arrogant, shallow idiot? Did you even read my first few sentences. Let me drum it into your abnormally thick, arrogant skull and shatter that blithely stupid attitude.
Your shallow and idiotic explanation seems to ignore the fact that both were banned for engine use. 🙄
They were both ACCUSED only.
They were both ACCUSED only.
They were both ACCUSED only.
It is impossible to prove either way.
Originally posted by BifrostThey were both banned for engine use, your childish temper tantrum is quite comical.
Were you dropped on your head at birth, you arrogant, shallow idiot? Did you even read my first few sentences. Let me drum it into your abnormally thick, arrogant skull and shatter that blithely stupid attitude.
Originally posted by eldragonflyI didn't suggest anything. I asked a question. As predicted, you failed to answer it.
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.
This makes two threads where you're generally being contentious and argumentative.
I find it hard to believe that this is coincidence. Perhaps it is merely your personality.
In the future, please do include a straightforward answer before your start responding with your attitude and disgust, so that even us macaroons can see what answer you give and can't claim not to have seen it.
The troll-like ranting tends to be distracting when someone is looking for an actual answer.
And online chess at places like RHP and Gameknot *IS* considered a form of correspondence chess, because the pace of the game is much slower than any OTB games by necessity.
If you wanted online chess games which better resembled OTB chess, you could always go to someplace like Yahoo Games! where the game occurs in real time, rather than post-by-post.
I will also note that I think study of opening theory and in-depth study of some specific openings can strengthen one's chess play both here and in OTB games. For one, you can try to learn the purpose of each move in a number of the opening lines in addition to merely following some rote set of moves without any understanding..
(The latter can get you into trouble if your opponent deviates from known lines, and you don't know why you've been moving as you have.)
Or perhaps some players study to understand the opening as well.
No single player can move beyond a certain point in ratings without having some understanding of chess principles, and not even opening databases is enough to win against a sufficiently experienced and wise chess player.
Once the game hits middlegame, you will have to make your moves based on your understanding of chess theory. No game database in the world is thorough enough to suffice for the widely varying board positions of middlegame, many of which are full of very subtle nuances that someone playing by rote only won't see, including positional play as well as sharp lines and well-hidden traps.
To be sure, some people may use opening databases to try and boost their ratings, but their ignorance will become evident against players with legitimate chess understanding.
Originally posted by eldragonflyAnd who said you needed to learn ALL the openings? And who attempts to study all openings in depth at one time?
Wrong. There are far too many openings and far too many variations, again what you suggest here is pure nonsense.
When a chess student studies openings, would they not study one or two at a time, in order to understand not only the main lines of established play of that opening, but also the reasoning and concepts driving those lines of play?
Armed not only with the examined lines of play, but also with the various goals that line represent on both sides of the board, they are then capable of playing that opening much like a good chess player might play middlegame, with specific goals in mind, and equipped to handle deviations from the expected opponent response without falling into the traps many of the openings may hide.
You don't have to study ALL openings to make a legitimate study of opening lines, nor is it advised. It is too much information. But limiting your study to one particular area of openings can improve both your overall game, and your understanding of chess as well.
(I don't consider rote memorization for its own sake 'understanding of chess'. It's just rote memorization.)
Originally posted by geepamoogleNice cut and paste job geepamoogle. i'm impressed..
And who said you needed to learn ALL the openings? And who attempts to study all openings in depth at one time?
When a chess student studies openings, would they not study one or two at a time, in order to understand not only the main lines of established play of that opening, but also the reasoning and concepts driving those lines of play?
Armed ...[text shortened]... rote memorization for its own sake 'understanding of chess'. It's just rote memorization.)