Discussion Forums > Gaming

Chess?

<< < (3/5) > >>

fohfoh:

--- Quote from: WiiLeeYum on July 23, 2010, 04:42:23 AM ---My knight usage is pretty much as general support for my pawns. I tend to hit and run a lot with my bishops and knights, but that's mid match. In late matches, if I don't have at least one rook, I tend to play sloppier or give up. One thing for sure, the knight shines in mid to late matches.


--- Quote from: luxfare on July 23, 2010, 04:23:37 AM ---I kinda suck at regular chess but much better at blitz chess. I play pawn chains a lot. I usually start off with E4,E5 as well.

--- End quote ---

All the tournaments I played at were blitz chess. 15-20 minutes per player. Ahh.. memories...


--- End quote ---

I concur. But yeah, it's tiresome without a rook in late game.

Blitz were pretty good for me too since I could calculate faster than the others. However, once the goobers began to show up with chess books and reading up patterns etc. That's when my time went out the shitter and I focused more on siamese chess (bughouse)

luxfare:
If I ever manage to make it into late game, the opponent should be pretty defense minded like myself. Wont be surprised if the pieces that have been taken off the board are my opponents knights and the pieces i traded them with.

daveLovesIt:
I love aggressive play, but I like to temper it with long term ideas. Most of all, I love sacrifice (who was asking what knights were for?). The more speculative and risky, the better. It's satisfying to land a game-winning sac that immediately prompts your opponent to slap their own head and resign, but this is just oversight on their part.

Most satisfying is when you give up material which they were not expecting because they didn't think anybody sane would ever do that. Then, after you spend the next 10 or 15 turns educating them in the concept of "positional compensation", you really feel like you won on your own strength, and not their weakness/error. Judging compensation accurately, or at least being able to understand it better than your opponent is a very advantageous ability in chess. There are also the negative psychological effects these sorts of things tend to have on your opponent, ranging from overconfidence to sheer blind terror, I love it.

I guess that's why I lean towards the more strategical themed lines, even though I very much enjoy sharp, tactical positions. With a typical equalising line, you're basically waiting for one player or the other to slip, which leads to great, tense chess; but when there is a lot of scope for strategy (as in my own favourite, the Queen's Gambit) there is more opportunity to gradually build up a winning advantage over time even if your opponent makes no immediately bad moves.

luxfare:

--- Quote from: daveLovesIt on July 23, 2010, 08:20:53 PM ---I love aggressive play, but I like to temper it with long term ideas. Most of all, I love sacrifice (who was asking what knights were for?). The more speculative and risky, the better. It's satisfying to land a game-winning sac that immediately prompts your opponent to slap their own head and resign, but this is just oversight on their part.

Most satisfying is when you give up material which they were not expecting because they didn't think anybody sane would ever do that. Then, after you spend the next 10 or 15 turns educating them in the concept of "positional compensation", you really feel like you won on your own strength, and not their weakness/error. Judging compensation accurately, or at least being able to understand it better than your opponent is a very advantageous ability in chess.

--- End quote ---


You are the type of player I fear the most >.< People who dare sacrifice a knight or bishop to make an opening in my pawn chains that is. One the other hand, I sometimes play like a loon myself. Pretty interesting when you push your opponent without end right?

daveLovesIt:
Ha ha, yes you've guessed I am a full-throttle kind of player! Win or lose, I always seem to enjoy the game more when I'm calling the shots and creating the play. If it's a choice between trying to muster up offensive or defensive resources, offence wins hands down for me every time.

But I hate to win with a massive material advantage, so If I'm up a fair bit, I'll simplify heavily at some expense to myself to get quickly to a won ending, even if I've made things difficult and I require critical accuracy for many moves just to keep the point. Not sure if I do it more for the endgame practice or to torture my opponent for a longer period of time when I feel they should have resigned.

On that note, I'm a resigner. I don't feel the need to have my opponent demonstrate an ability to know how to win the position, nor do I hold out in the hope that they'll return my blunders. When I'm losing to the point that I could win easily, if the roles were reversed, then I cede the point. Never played in a tournament or anything, nor have I ever really cared about online ratings to any great degree. No matter how intensely I've been devoted to it, chess has only ever been a "for fun" thing to me.

Any die-hards here who won't give up the fight for anything less than a forced mate?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page