In article ,
Luis Matos wrote:


I would recommend to begin by reading Nimzowitch "My System"

I know... they may say that this is a very old book, not updated, and
they may be right!!!



Just so you know, while some people love this book, I really thought it
sucked. Not very readable. It reminded me of the professor who is trying
harder to convinve you how smart he is rather than really trying to
teach you anything.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

snip
I would recommend to begin by reading Nimzowitch "My System"

I know... they may say that this is a very old book, not updated, and
they may be right!!!

best regards
Luis


Actually, it has been updated. The new version is called the 21st century
edition.

HA HA HO HO HE HE HE
you played players with ratings so MUCH higher than YOU and you expect
cracking
a few books for a few hours is going to let you win against them!!????
Tony!!! YOU GOT SOMETHING TO LEARN AND THEN SOME!!
GET A CLOCK and play about a zillion 5 minute games, Book over about a
million master level games, study some openings and end games, enter
tournaments,

WHAT A COMPLETE FISH YOU ARE AT THIS POINT!

love and peace,

(kirk)kirk gregory czuhai

p.s. i am a complete chess fish too (rating ~ uscf 1850 old)

Antonio Torrecillas wrote in message ...
En/na Alex ha escrit:
Round 1:
White: Me 1210
Black: 2187
24. Bxd1 Qe1#

Round 2:
White: 1923
Black: Me 1210
I resigned.

Round 3:
White: Me 1210
Black: 1850
I resigned.

Round 4:
White: Me 1210
Black: 1765
23. Kh1 Rg4#

I do not understand why do you hide the name of your opponents, I do not
understand it in any case, but more in that one where your opponents won
all the games!!

AT

In article m,
"Chess Player" wrote:

snip
I would recommend to begin by reading Nimzowitch "My System"

I know... they may say that this is a very old book, not updated, and
they may be right!!!

best regards
Luis


Actually, it has been updated. The new version is called the 21st century
edition.


They updated it to algebraic, but I still thought it sucked. Hey, I know
some people love this book; I'm just saying it's NOT for everyone.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

snip
I did my homework and looked up the
openings; now I know the variations that my opponents played. What am
I doing wrong in my games?? Why can't I beat any of these players at
my local chess club? It is really frustrating...You gotta help me,
please!!!

You've got to play a great game to beat someone that much higher than you.
You lost because you didn't play a good game. You need to quit worrying
about trying to learn openings and start learning tactics. There are too
many positions in chess to memorize them all so you'd better start thinking
about each move and if it makes sense instead.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6
7. f3
Your first mistake.

O-O 8.
Bc4

Your 2nd mistake. 7. Bc3 would have opened up your bishop and protected
your pawn in 1 move. Think about the best move, not just a good move.

Qa5 9. O-O

Now look at the diagonal g1-b7. Your king just castled into a wide open
diagonal. You're just begging to be chased! And your c4 bishop is hanging.

Ne5 10. Nb3

Instead of taking care of the problem (moving your bishop) you attack his
queen. Did you really think he was going to give up the queen? You have no
respect for your opponent. You think he will make stupid moves. You are
the only one doing that. You've already lost the game at this point.

Bill Smythe wrote:
"Bill Wong" wrote:

Uhm, you were supposed to lose all those games. You were severly
outrated in every one of them. I did not look at the games at all. You
shouldn't expect to win against such high rated opponents when you are
rated barely 1200. ....


That kind of answer is not helpful, and confuses the cause with the effect.

A player is rated 1200 because he is a (comparatively) weak player, not the
other way around. Somebody actually willing to help the poster out, by
analyzing the games, might help him to become a stronger player. After
that, his rating will follow suit.

Bill Smythe




If you cut my answer in half, then of course it isnt helpful.--Bill Wong

One need not even look at these games. You're more ambitious
than Salvador Dali and Howard Hughes playing guys who are almost
at master level. It really is no surprise you lost.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:41:50 -0500, "Bill Smythe"
wrote:

A player is rated 1200 because he is a (comparatively) weak player, not the
other way around. Somebody actually willing to help the poster out, by
analyzing the games, might help him to become a stronger player. After
that, his rating will follow suit.

Bill Smythe



Naturally it would be counterproductive for him to play opponents
who far too advanced. The 1400-1600 target is as far as I'd go.

A few of them (having no "life" outside of chess) actually enjoy
watching you squirm.


-- Robert D. James




Two Fischer quotes!

"I like the moment when I break a man's ego".

"Chess is life".