Well, you think it does not make you a better player. But you think that only.you could as well think that you do not become a better athlete by regular training and learning proper jumping/running/swimming/else technique.

Enjoying chess, you said. Well, you most liekly get spanked time and again, and can hold your ground only against very weak players - is that what "enjoying it" is about? A piano-player cannot enjoy playing the piano, if he cannot reliably find the rights notes on the keyboard. Telling from my own example (I'm a terrible swimmer), swimming is no joy but a pain if you do not have proper swimming technique. And - sorry to sound a bit rude - without a certain ammount of knowledge about what you are doing in chess, you neither play nor can truly enjoy chess - you just move pieces on a board and kill some time (no personal offence meant.) I mean, you necessarily miss all the hidden beauty in it, becasue you lack the skill to discover it. 30+ years ago, I played chess like you do, and did not know much about "theory" - why do you think am I beyond that now, although I had ten years of interruption?

Theory does not make you a better player, you say. You are on a wrong path there, Letum - every chess player knowing the game and every member of a chess club will tell you that. You could as well claim that learning to read does not raise your competence to read a book. ;)

My move: Bf1-Be2

Come on guys, I'm trying to think in here... :DL

F2-F4
(QueenBishiop2-QueenBishiop3)


No, no, you misunderstand.
I don't think that the way I do things makes me a better player.

Enjoyment has nothing to do with winning or even being somewhat competent.
To use the old cliche; "its the taking part that counts".

I have lost, many chess games, but never have I been left with the feeling that I lost
something other than the game as a result of taking part.

Damn, I just broke that sandbag! :D

Sorry, that is unclear to me... do you mean c7-c5, or c7-c6? I presume you want to move the pawn on C.

Even if you refuse opening theory, you could benefit from using the modern notation. And I'm sure all the opening books will make much more sense then. :D

cheers Porphy

Gaahh! QB2-QB3 is so much easier than having to turn the board around and....nevermind...

C7-C5

The few books I do own all use my notation system, not this new European system. My library is old, however, and I have few books from after the 1950's.

Algebraic, short algebraic or figurine notation (that replaces capital letters for figures with symbols) now is mandatory in all official chess tournaments. The old English notation additionally is banned/forbidden from tournaments hosted by FIDE. Only some of the Anglosaxon chess publishers used the old English notation until the early 80s of the last century, then almost completely switched over to the modern system. The very influential Russian chess school never used English notation anyway. The algebraic notation today is the globally accepted standard.

Don't let him confuse you, Porphy, he tried the same with me last year! :O: :DL

Turn the board around... what are you doing over there? And you actually own chess books. Even if they are old I would guess they contain some kind of chess theory... Hmm. :hmmm: Never mind, just teasing.

I also enjoy games without all the burden of analysis, but that would be blitz games for me. Longer games will be more involved by the very nature of chess. I can't really see why analysis of openings is alienating from the game. It's not much different from analysing the game one actually play. It's basically the same thing, except with opening knowledge you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. Also you would still take part of the game just the way you say you like, but on another level, which just might be even more pleasant and interesting.

But I certainly won't try to stop anyone enjoying chess the way they want! Myself, I have enjoyed a beer or two while thinking about my next move. Certainly not recommended if winning is the most important thing. :DL

And Skybird, that sandbag needs another good working by now... :cool:

My move: 7. 0-0

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. d4 e6 6. Be2 c5 7. O-O


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...Untitled-4.jpg

B8-C6
Knight to Queen Bishop's 3rd

My move: 8. d4-d5

E6xD5

9. cxd5

F6 x your pawn on D row

10. c4xd5

??
You don't have anything in C4.

Edit: Ops, confusion. Will take a look at that.

True, I was repeating my earlier move somehow... Sorry about that. 1-1 in confused notation :)

My move: 10. Be2-Bc4

This is what it should be like :)

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. d4 e6 6. Be2 c5 7. O-O Nc6 8.
d5 exd5 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Bc4

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/PvsL.jpg