So fun, sac two pieces, blunder a third, then mate the bot.


[Event "ICC"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2009.04.24"]
[White "jkelsey"]
[Black "SlowBo"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1620"]
[BlackElo "1988"]
[ECO "C37"]
[Opening "KGA"]
[Variation "Double Muzio gambit"]
[TimeControl "1500+10"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3
6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qxd4+ 10. Be3 Qc4
11. Bxf4 Nf6 12. Nc3 Bg7 13. Be5 Qc5+ 14. Kh1 Qxe5 15. Rae1 Qg5
16. Nd5 Na6 17. Re7+ Kg6 18. Qd3+ Kh6 19. Nxf6 Nc5 20. Qh3+ Kg6
21. Rxg7+ Kxg7 22. Nh5+ Kg8 23. Qf3 Qg7 24. Nxg7 Kxg7 25. Qg4+ Kh6
26. Rf6#
1-0

When you're getting really frustrated by your inability to play well versus the Sicilian, there's no better cure than to have an 852 rated player try it against you: http://www.ficsgames.com/cgi-bin/sho...79;action=show

LMAO I'm running so good tonight. 10-2 (pushed my FICS blitz rating up over 1200 for the first time), with so many just insane luckbox "how in the world did I pull that one out" games.

Dropped rook, but it's okay, I have pawns!
Kingside attack while down #1
He drops his queen, I miss it, she has me in her sights, then he drops her again
Drop a pawn, win in 16
My queen gets chased around the board for about ten moves, and somehow it works out all right
Who cares what rank his pawn is on? I'm busy attacking the king!
Opening I've never won against before, played by a higher rated player than I've ever beaten? No problem!

The thing I like about the reference utility is the ability to quickly filter through millions of games so having a limited number definitely hurts its utility, but you could at least try it out and see if it's useful for you.

I don't know of any particularly great free databases.

www.chessbase.com is free and very good for searching for openings.

My blitz games have less tactical blunders now

http://www.ficsgames.com/cgi-bin/sho...78;action=show

Why am I so much better with black than with white?

White: 43 games, avg opponent rating: 1140, +22 =3 -18, 54.7% score. Opponent performance rating 1139.
Black: 42 games, avg opponent rating: 1078, +29 =2 -11 (11 game winning streak), 71.4% score. Opponent performance rating 963.

I mean I know my opponents have been tougher when I was white, but it doesn't seem like enough to explain that huge of a score difference. My opponents are performing 100 points below their rating with white, and performing at their rating with black. WTF?

That's not that much different. Ballpark 1141 with white, 1193 with black. Small sample size and difference in comfort level with openings probably is the difference.

How do you feel about the positions you're getting out of the opening as white?

I wouldn't recommend spending much time on theory, since at your level it's all 1 and 2 move tactics.

Well, if the small sample size contains any actual meaning then obviously I need to get better against moves other than 1. ... e5, I'm 40% vs. the Sicilian (10 games), 50% vs. the French (6 games), and 40% vs. the Scandinavian (5 games). I'm more comfortable out of the opening in any of those than I am in the Queen's gambit though (I mean I FEEL good about my position, and obviously given the level I'm playing at always have at least one chance to win easily according to post-game blunder checks with Fritz). Queen's gambit is the opening I feel least comfortable against, but I'm 67.7% vs. it in 9 games.

I know, this is all just a sample size issue. I don't really think it means anything more than that, which is why I brought it up in the BBV thread instead of the LC thread. Still, the numbers are just weird. I mean OVER 70% as BLACK? WTF?

Wait, so you're playing both 1. e4 and 1. d4? You don't have to learn openings, but you probably should pick one of those first moves and stick with it just to gain a comfort level. Or do you mean you're playing the queen's gambit from the black side?

lol @ n00b chess confusion itt

Playing queen's gambit from the black side ldo. I'm just comparing the white openings where I am losing with the black opening where I'm winning, and saying I feel more comfortable in the white ones (though I'm starting to feel more comfortable versus the queen's gambit when I beat it two out of three times, hehe).

I think at that level openings aren't really going to mean much at all. You could try opening 1. g4 or 1. .. g5 and I think you'd see your results would not change dramatically and may even improve as you also force your opponents to play on their own from move 1. Not that I'd ever recommend that. It'd definitely help with creativity but it has nothing to do with learning/practicing opening principles.

Maybe a good question is at what level would playing something ridiculous and nontranspositional like 1. g4 or 1. .. g5 dramatically impact results? I guess it also depends on the player. Somebody who relies on system openings or lots of theory would obviously do much worse than a creative player with better intuition. Online on average I guess you'd start to see a real influence around maybe 1800?

I concur with around 1800.

hey anyone under 1300 up for gamez on icc? its always more fun when its people I know. Im more motivated to kick bootay.

I think you guys would be shocked to see how much impact playing a terrible opening like 1. g4 (or 1...g5) would have even at 1200 level.

I used to teach chess in some schools/camps to players who were typically very weak. They would all miss tons of concrete tactics, and the games would inevitably become quite random. The result was frequently that whichever player had followed basic principles better (i.e was better centralized, better developed, had made less stupid weakening moves) would somehow develop a murderous attack and crush the opponent.

I can easily imagine that pawn on g4 being hit with an untimely ...Qxg4+ in those games!

Oh yay does that mean you want to teach me chess? Im up for the challenge !

Why didn't I stick with Caro-Kann?

Oh dear, what am I getting myself into?

Im a quick learner! You wont be sorry. There is this Slav that I wanna beat! Id need some direction. I wouldnt seek help with poker cuz thats innate but chess if you dont have some ability you can still become decent. Im so bored I need a non poker hobby!

LOL, I'm vaguely tempted to try 1. g4 a few times now. Damn you guys. My first thought was that I'd love to see someone try it against me, and of course I'd crush it, but then I started working my way through a couple of variations and I saw plenty of opportunities for black to overextend itself and get into trouble by trying to crush it. I could see myself blundering as black vs. g4, because I was trying too hard. It might be interesting to see if I can do anything with it.

Of course if they don't take the bait and overextend, they can always just develop solidly instead and I'm in trouble...

Have fun with it! It's not nearly as bad as it seems. There's a reason it's not a frequent guest at any real tournaments, but it's not really "refuted" by any means.

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6 and black is already somewhat better

Yip. But getting a somewhat better position is again far away from refuting. I'd feel quite comfortable in my chances to outplay a worse player in that position, and even against a better player I'm not exactly in tears just yet. And between two 11xx players I'd be incredibly surprised if black scored significantly better than white there especially since I think white's play (push pawns - smash) would be significantly easier for them to handle than the nuances of managing the space advantage of black.