English Chess Forum

Hi all,

I've recently almost given up online chess such as blitz, bullet and any other time controls; I did this because I felt playing online chess had a serious effect on my OTB chess and was making me play nonsense and making me impatient and just generally doing me more harm than good.

Since I have pretty much given up online chess and I just play 5 games a week I only do this as it's part of my chess routine.

What do other people feel do they think it has a good impact on their OTB chess or are they with me thinking it's making them play worse.

I do play rapidplays otb however I see that these have helped my chess.

Matt.

I suppose you mean too much as opposed to to much. Can't believe this grammatical error has occurred twice in such a short space of time.

Personally I think online chess is fine but only in small measures. Too much of it is bad for you as, although I see it as a tool to rattle through my openings and overall chess game, you can pick up bad habits. Also there is a lot of ideas you which you could not possibly pick up without research or a rare moment of genius. One of many examples: in the Grunfeld defence the Smylsov variation move the nF7 to nd7 which technically breaks a couple of rules, the most obvious being moving a piece twice in an opening.

So OTB is best, but online is fine in small doses in my opinion.

"I suppose you mean too much as opposed to to much. Can't believe
this grammatical error has occurred twice in such a short space of time."

Then;

"...the Smylsov variation move the nF7 to nd7..."

I suppose you mean Nf6-d7. I Cannot believe this error in chess
notation has occurred twice in such a short space of time.

Geoff Chandler wrote:"I suppose you mean too much as opposed to to much. Can't believe
this grammatical error has occurred twice in such a short space of time."

Then;

"...the Smylsov variation move the nF7 to nd7..."

I suppose you mean Nf6-d7. I Cannot believe this error in chess
notation has occurred twice in such a short space of time.

DOH

Gavin Strachan wrote:the most obvious being moving a piece twice in an opening.

There is of course no rule which says that you lose if you move a piece twice in the opening. At best, it's a guideline that the move under consideration might not be the best available. You move pieces to squares because they need to be there, are on their way to somewhere else or to create a threat. None of this needs a memory of a piece's previous moves. If I remember Smyslov's idea in the Gruenfeld correctly, the point is to uncover the g7 Bishop to attack d4 and to move the Knight to b6 where it attacks a Queen residing on c4.

"There is of course no rule which says that you
lose if you move a piece twice in the opening."

Correct.

Infact in some case if you don't move a piece twice
in the opening 4 moves then the chances are you will lose.

After 3...a6 in the Lopez.
It's a good idea to move that Bishop again.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Gavin Strachan wrote:the most obvious being moving a piece twice in an opening.

There is of course no rule which says that you lose if you move a piece twice in the opening. At best, it's a guideline that the move under consideration might not be the best available. You move pieces to squares because they need to be there, are on their way to somewhere else or to create a threat. None of this needs a memory of a piece's previous moves. If I remember Smyslov's idea in the Gruenfeld correctly, the point is to uncover the g7 Bishop to attack d4 and to move the Knight to b6 where it attacks a Queen residing on c4.

what I meant by that are those unwritten rules about development which are not correct or probably have spawned into complete incorrectness from something which was inherently correct once upon a time. Another move that most people would not discover in otb play normally is in the benoni knights tour variation: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. Nd2 Bg7 8. Nc4 O-O 9. Bf4 Na6. Not only has the white knight move 3 times in quick succession but the Na6 aiming the knight at B4 and rook e4 dipping the pawn would take something to see this from scratch!

Gavin Strachan wrote: Another move that most people would not discover in otb play normally is in the benoni knights tour variation: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. Nd2 Bg7 8. Nc4 O-O 9. Bf4 Na6. Not only has the white knight move 3 times in quick succession but the Na6 aiming the knight at B4 and rook e4 dipping the pawn would take something to see this from scratch!

It's all very logical if you know your classic Niemzowitsch games, specifically the one against Marshall. I also think he wrote about it in "My System". The Na6 idea is also logical because white will try to hold the Knight on the c4 square by playing a4. This leaves a hole on b4 targeted by the Knight. It's just a couple of early middle game ideas which often come up in Benoni and Kings Indian positions.

matt_ward wrote:Doess playing to much online chess effect your game?

No, but it plays havoc with your spelling.

Sorry guys about the grammatical mistake with "to", and "too" and David that was a typo apologises about that.

Why are people so pedantic about grammatical mistakes, is this not a chess forum rather than a English lesson?

However another common mistake is when the words effect and affect should be used. Back on the topic in hand I think playing online chess really only helps your time management that's about it.

Matt.

I tihnk taht spllenig is oevrarted. It is a wlel kownn fcat taht the hmaun bairn can wrok a sneencte as lnog as the fsrit and lsat lttres are in the rhgit pacle.

matt_ward wrote: Why are people so pedantic about grammatical mistakes, is this not a chess forum rather than a English lesson?

It is, but incorrect English distracts from the content of the text and focuses attention on the mistakes; it becomes slightly harder to process the message as a result. (David Pardoe's ellipsis-filled communications are always a chore to read for this reason, which is a shame, because he has some good points buried in them.)

Or to put it another way:

Coco Chanel wrote: When a woman is poorly dressed, you notice the clothes; when a woman is impeccably dressed, you notice the woman.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

matt_ward wrote: Why are people so pedantic about grammatical mistakes, is this not a chess forum rather than a English lesson?

It is, but incorrect English distracts from the content of the text and focuses attention on the mistakes; it becomes slightly harder to process the message as a result. (David Pardoe's ellipsis-filled communications are always a chore to read for this reason, which is a shame, because he has some good points buried in them.)

Or to put it another way:

Coco Chanel wrote: When a woman is poorly dressed, you notice the clothes; when a woman is impeccably dressed, you notice the woman.

Nice quotes. Yes it is pedantic, though I am going through a glut of being pedantic with my 3yr old daughter who has managed to pick up dropping letters from words when she talks (par'ee, dir'ee, eigh'een) which she has managed to pick up from the local nursery she goes to run by well intentioned girls who did not have the calibre into get to uni let alone 6th form college.

Bad English is distracting. Affect for affections - love it

Gavin Strachan wrote:well intentioned girls who did not have the calibre into get to uni let alone 6th form college.

Don't think that example really works Jack but yes I get the message.

Matt.