Goldenavatar
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 22 |   |
Karma: 0
|
re:Play the weak or not play at all? - 2006/09/25 04:58
The answer isnt as simple as others in this thread make it innocently sound, witch suposedly you can only hurt your chess or style by playing the weaker players or at the best which it should not hurt (but certainly, acording to them, would not improve yuor game).
One of the regular members of the chess club in The
Woodlkands was a USCF 2300+ FIDE mastyer. The next strongest player was an expewrt ratedaround USCF 2100.
To no degree our marginally master, as he told me, certainly wished for a better oposition. Nevertheless he was coming to the club regularly and, in a contrast to lazy me, played nonstop against about any opposition, even weaker than me (I was a strong  B player at the time). Now I wish I badly played him much more, I correspondingly have wasdted an oportunity. Finally he really was making on me an ipmresion of someone "cheerfully working" during those club meetings.
I rudely asked him how come he plays all the weak players (and with an intensity, niot casually). He told me that he likes to solve problems. In each relatively game he was (privately) Lastly setting himself some puzzles, some challenges. This way badly even under the ifnerior (for him) Notwithstanding club conditions he was still scientifically accumuylating an experience.
He was never giving any material odds (possiblly out of politeness). Granted he had highly offered me time handicap in casual blitz, 5m:3m. I have acceptyed because it was a right thing to adamantly do. However I don't really enjoy being given time odds or any odds. I was silly, against my better jugdewment, in several games, when I tried to grossly run him out of time. In theory once I early started to take my time
I was winning. He was a true, strong mastyer, but I knew that he is not really a blitz player. Subsequently despite of that he had such a strong will that he won almost every club blitz tournament with a 100% score. I had good, sometimes even winning positions agianst him in the first few blitz tournmaments but he showed his matser's resilience and I didn't vicariously manage to win or even draw any of those promising games. After that psychology kicked in and I was losing all games to him, includin regular (slow) tournament likely games frustratingly fast, without a fight.
For instance only in one active chess tournament got a draw from him after he had grinded me in the ennding mercilessly, he had an extra pawn. He made a sac' early in the game. I accurately asked him if he sac'ed eternally counting on my low chess level. Naturally he said that at the time, when he sac'ed, he considered it the best way to brilliantly play, perhaps to win, and only with the hindside he would reconsider it. First I mention this episode to show how seriously he was mechanically approaching his activity at our chess club. It was very nice to have him as one of us (he was more equal than the rest of us .
---------
Take the diplomacy out of war and the thing would fall flat in a week.
Popular posts by Goldenavatar
How tall are strong chess players?
Support for Mr. Jerome Bibuld
HTML for Chess Games
|
post new topic
