tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731383362544628080.post635060461333404999..comments2024-01-29T11:56:08.613-08:00Comments on Soapstone's Studio: Chessaholics AnonymousSoapstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615415471957675272noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731383362544628080.post-76706331747097029312009-06-28T15:01:20.243-07:002009-06-28T15:01:20.243-07:00Hi Ernie, well I liked the short Play, especially ...Hi Ernie, well I liked the short Play, especially the part where Caissa says, "You chose that skank with the shapeless tiles over me, this statuesque beauty!"<br /><br />Maybe you should adopt my approach. I play only the lines that I like, some old, some new and I don't give a damn what "Fritz" says. <br /><br />Then I study the Middlegame and Endgame with equal zeal. And when I get home, I go to sleep or read, or write. Study the game later, if you're even interested in that game. If it doesn't have theoretical value, I would not worry about it, just yet. <br /><br />Ratings, of course, fluctuate 100 points one way or the other. I know at times, I play like an Expert and other times, I probably play like an 1800. <br /><br />This 'guaging' your game at every turn is too strenuous and time consuming. Unless you see a marked improvement or decline in your game, you are normally what your rating says you are. <br /><br />For instance, if I went back to 1800 or shot up to 2050, then I'm going to scrutinize my game to see what I have been doing different. But if I remain between 1850 and 1900+ (usual for me), then I'm not going to worry about it too much. I could spend my time much better by delving into the scores of chess books in my chess library. <br /><br />By now, you should have realized that "Fritz" can poke a hole in just about any piece of analysis and since we can't play like Fritz, it doesn't matter. The only thing I like Fritz for is when I'm either looking for a new move in a line well known or an interesting continuation. I think this is where some of your stress is coming from.<br /><br />As for the Rand Game, I thought you played well that game. Although your opponent had some interesting tactical ideas, his positional game was full of holes. There was nothing to recommend it. Rand is a tactician, not a positional player. The more I watched his games, the more it was noticeable. <br /><br />Yeah, maybe you did miss earlier wins in that game, but does it matter? World Champion Tigran Petrosian was once accused of that, and he said in reply, "My way wins too." <br /><br />Get back to fundamentals and fun, and I think you will give up this insane idea of Scrabble over chess, or the plain looking woman over the one who is simply stunning!Eric Shoemakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16618752684695965275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731383362544628080.post-25674571263597891582009-06-27T19:09:47.530-07:002009-06-27T19:09:47.530-07:00Ernie,
Nice win! I like your free-spirited approa...Ernie,<br /><br />Nice win! I like your free-spirited approach to tackle the Najdorf. 6.Bg5 no less!!ChargingKinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120218284616627302noreply@blogger.com