On Feb 21, 5:21 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

I was encouraged by beating a 2100 player in 14 moves when I had the black
pieces, and with the white pieces he resigned at move 18.

Huh? Is the "nearly-an-IM" titled player describing two
different games here, or does he have serious math issues,
I wonder?


You don't need to have rating envy to deny this,

One fellow o'er in Shakespeare land went so far as to
proclaim himself a 2450, no less! But why he stopped
there no one knows, for even higher numbers were well
within his envious grasp, had he simply reached for
them with all his might!

you just have to be a sad case full of perhaps this and perhaps
that, as if no real experiences were available to you.

Nonsense; anyone can play at GetClub and get real
experience of the game -- even patzers like Rob Mitchell.

Okay, maybe my advice wasn't so well thought out; but
the point was he played the opening cluelessly, moving
pieces about willy-nilly. In chess, it is best to have a
plan -- even a bad plan may suffice, provided the opponent
is a bit cooperative!


Such is your correspondent who spends hundreds of hours playing a
dork-computer program,

Rybka is no dork, fella! I'll wager it kicks your behind
with Knight odds. Of course, Rob Mitchell is a Rook
odds player; make that two Knights and a quarter-pawn.
Heck, with Rybka's genuine 3000 rating, make it Queen
odds -- what the heck.


Such is usenet. Real players just play, win or lose, and don't get messed up
about relative hierarchial positions.

That's just what I tried to explain to Hamlet, er, or was his
name Othello? Whatever. His attempts to pull the wool
over readers' eyes by making up stories about himself was
very funny, especially in view of the way he was caught and
exposed.

-----

On this matter of actually playing chess, I am now running
into somewhat tougher opposition at RedHotPawn. Yes, every
now and then an opponent will last well into the 30's or even
as long as 40 moves, which is a tremendous improvement!

Even so, my brilliant mind wins out in the end, almost
invariably with a sparkling "petite combination", worthy of
any great master of the royal game. Purists may bemoan
the fact that neither of us has followed along well-established
theory through the opening, yet I seriously doubt this takes
away from the artistic effect, the beauty of the finale and the
superlative technique demonstrated by the ingenious winner.
But I should pipe down, lest some may think me immodest.
Better to let others sing my praises, as Sanny has done, for
instance. But keep quiet about that; I don't want the creature
getting any more envious than it already is -- the pitiful thing!

-- help bot