play chess against computer

Play Chess Against Computer

Classify and you will discover!
Quirky name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
thugette_babe 42 ( +1 | -1 )
The Romance Era Letz talk about the most exciting part in chess history! (well at least I think it is lol) What exactly happened during this time that got so many players addicted to chess? And exactly what is the kings/queens gambit. And how does it affect chess play? And is it smart to accept the gambit?
For me, these questionz are unanswered, but I'm hoping y'all can help me! Thankz so much!
~*Thugette_Babe*~
myway316 81 ( +1 | -1 )
The Romantic Era... ...was approx 1850-1890. It was an age of pretty unsophisticated games,where attack was all,defense was sneered at,and pawns were considered to be obstacles to the pieces gettng out quickly. Gambits,especially the King's Gambit(1.e4 e5 2.f4) were the openings of choice. It was the age of Morphy,Anderssen,Lowenthal,Blackburne,attacking geniuses and tactical wizards,able to give tremendous material odds to much weaker opponents,and pull off beautiful,tho mostly unsound "brilliancies". The King's Gambit:White sacrifices his f-pawn in order to open lines quickly,looking for a fast checkmate before Black can defend. The best answer for Black is 2...exf4(the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it). The Queens Gambit(1.d4 d5 2.c4 is not really a gambit,as Black,should he take on c4 cannot hope to keep the extra pawn,nor should he try to do so.)
tulkos 0 ( +1 | -1 )
Kings gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4
thugette_babe 15 ( +1 | -1 )
The Romance Era I see, but they must have left too much to chance. What if an attack went wrong? What exactly came after the romance era?
More: Chess
myway316 69 ( +1 | -1 )
After Romance,Steinitz Steinitz was the great "lawgiver" of chess, putting down the positional ideas and concepts that are part of every players thinking patterns. He basically killed all the old King-side gambits by showing players that there was nothing wrong in defense,and the best way to handle such gambits was to accept the pawn(s),but return them ASAP,in order to complete development and make white lose time recovering the material,by which time Black should have his forces set in full order. Steinitz' most important dictum is one I've played most of my career by:"An improperly prepared attack must always fail against correct defense."
bluebabygirl 113 ( +1 | -1 )
to thugette _babe dont pay to much attention to people downgrading the play or so called unsound play of these great masters of romance era . because given 50 to 100 years of examination many so called brilliances of today's greats kasp, karp, kramnik,anand , leko etc. , will be regarded as wrong or unsound !! many modern brillliances are proven unsound rather quickly now days after examination by computers . so its easy to say of past greats games after so many years examination that they were unsound - well I say be that as it may - they were played at the board to win at that moment judging the abilities of the oppponent . Remember TAL quite often played such chess too!!!!!!!!!!! and he was hailed as brilliant . only weeks ,months or years later to be proven unsound too ! SO I say lets have less perfection and more so called unsoun=d brilliances !! Some players play their opponent ,,not the board !while they left much to chance they also LEFT MUCH TO LOVE--namely their games!!!!!!!! yours bluebabygirl p.s. a very good subject you posted !!!!!!!!!!!
More: Chess
myway316 58 ( +1 | -1 )
Sorry to disagree with you,BBG... ...but most of those masterpieces created in the 19th century were unsound. They mostly came off against much weaker players,who would not, or could not defend themselves. They were taught to believe that defense was cowardly,that when you were attacked,you didn't defend,you counter-attacked,and who ever got there first with the mate won. Much as I like and admire Morphy and Anderssen let's be honest:it's easy to create fabulous looking combo's and mating attacks against weakies who can barely comprehend Scholar's Mate.
drgandalf 76 ( +1 | -1 )
bluebabygirl Before I consider the wisdom of a posting here on GK, I check out the poster's rating, games played, and maybe even a past game played.

I usually rely on the copmments of those 200-400 points higher than my rating. The rest is fun to read, but I don't take those comments as authoritative.

Certain positions by Morphy, Steinitz, Anderssen, et al, are still taught by chess teachers and chess authors today, not because of historical interest, but rather because they are the most profound examples of various themes.

It is because of these past giants that modern GMs play so well. They anticipate the master strategies and tactics of their opponents, BECAUSE BOTH PLAYERS HAVE LEARNT WELL THE LESSONS OF THE EARLIER MASTERS.
bluebabygirl 47 ( +1 | -1 )
to myway316 you said they played against WEAK players thats why they could make such combinations etc and brilliancies . well i seem to recall that MORPHY PLAYED ANDERSSON . AND THESE Two WERE weak ?????????????????????? ANY ANSWER TO THAT . they were 2 absolutely brilliant players that played each other some very brilliant games . am i wrong ?? to drgandalf you make a very true and good point . yours bluebabygirl
thugette_babe 16 ( +1 | -1 )
To bluebabygirl You have great knowledge of chess! I am still try to learn more about the players! I have heard of many but only remember the truly great few.
bluebabygirl 48 ( +1 | -1 )
to thugette_babe i consider a study of the players as important as the study of games and variations etc. Chess has a very very rich history . and while searching about these great players going over their great games you can pick up much needed chess knowledge . i highly recommend it as a learning tool and its great fun too .!! of course in my case it was easy because my dad has a huge collection of chess books and chesss history is also his favorite thing too. yours bluebabygirl
myway316 67 ( +1 | -1 )
BBG:re Morphy and Anderssen If you study their games against each other,you'll see that Morphy was a much more complete player,who understood the principles of proper development before attempting an attack. He also knew how to defend himself,so Anderssen wasn't going to blitz him like he did so many weak players with flashy,but still basically unsound tactics. Anderssen,for all his greatness,was still a one-dimensional player. However he,like Morphy, had another advantage that few of their peers understood:they were both excellant endgame players,a phase of the game that was almost non-existant in that era of what I call "caveman" chess.
buddy2 49 ( +1 | -1 )
myway's cave man I wouldn't denigrate great players like Anderssen, Labourdonnais, Lange, et al as playing "caveman chess." First of all, "cavemen" were very bright or they wouldn't survive. Secondly, these old masters have something to teach all of us about converting time and space into a tactical win. Play through the Anderssen-Morphy match if you want to learn what chess is all about--before databases, computers, or weak annotators. Few draws, fighting chess all the way!
peppe_l 188 ( +1 | -1 )
The main reason For the amount of draws is the fact that current top players are far superior compared to Morphy & Anderssen in defending against piece attacks, drawing slightly inferior endgames etc. Not to forget the fact that a player who refuses to grab poisoned pawns isnt considered coward anymore. It is true "safety first" playing style is more popular nowadays, but thats mainly because straight-forward "sac a pawn or two, develop your pieces quickly and attack" strategy no longer brings victories against other top players. Also it is true currect top players are more willing to agree for early draws, but that is very much due superior endgame skills of currect top players. Many positions that were unclear back then are clearly drawn nowadays.

Of course I am not trying to denigrate Morphy and Anderssen, they were best players of the time and that is good enough. Each generation knows what the previous one knew plus everything they manage to invent themselves. For example Morphy learned from Anderssen plus added his own ideas, Steinitz learned from Morphy plus added his own ideas...and so on.

IMO historic games can be even more useful to study than current games because the mistakes were more evident. Also quite often the better player managed to win by following one single plan. In current games between Grandmasters most often plans change constantly and the reasons behind win or loss are much harder for an ordinary patzer (like me!) to understand. Yes the opponents in famous Opera game of Morphy were propably C or D class players by todays standards, but maybe that is one of the reasons why many players (me included!) consider it one of the most instructive and most enjoyable games ever.
badjessie 28 ( +1 | -1 )
the romance era is gone these new players too scared to risk thier rating playing that way . that was played by oldtime players that saw this game as more than a game, they saw it as art. the old players back then really knew how to paint too. later
bluebabygirl 49 ( +1 | -1 )
to badjessie you said oldtime players back then saw chess as art - they really knew how to paint . I absolutely agree with you there . not only did they know how to paint but they knew when to splash on the colors !!!! players of this era have been getting a bad rap by some modern day players , that fail to see that the knowledge they use to judge with,,, they most likely gained from these old time great masters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!yours bluebabygirl