LCU blog discontinued

Sparks · 08-06-2013 9:59pm

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Wrong.

Others disagree it would seem: http://leinsterchess.com/blog/2013/05/lowering-standards/

Perhaps both topics could be discussed on www.irishchesscogitations.com

But we don't have 25 years experience in Irish Chess, don't want to give out our phone numbers and aren't rated over 1900, so why would anyone there do anything but pour on the scorn?

reunion · 09-06-2013 1:29am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Wrong. The overall trend in terms of both rated games and ICU member numbers is upwards. What Cork missed out in terms of numbers this year Bunratty more than made up for although with the alleged assault/cheating incident only Cork is remembered. Perhaps both topics could be discussed on www.irishchesscogitations.com

or both topics could be discussed here by everyone and not a select few that meet a rating criteria and are over a certain age.

The ICU membership is static with the average rating decreasing. Bunratty has a large following and it certainly seems to have increased in size. The active player base could still be the same size, with more tournaments located all around the country. We are probably just seeing more smaller tournaments located around the country.

TBH the biggest problem (in my view anyway) is that you typically see the same people at each different tournament around the country. That ends up making it harder for a new player(s) to break into an established group.

A huge problem is finding something to do in between rounds if you don't know anyone there.

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 2:37am

Sparks wrote: »

Others disagree it would seem: http://leinsterchess.com/blog/2013/05/lowering-standards/

But we don't have 25 years experience in Irish Chess, don't want to give out our phone numbers and aren't rated over 1900, so why would anyone there do anything but pour on the scorn?

That thread is about rating deflation, nothing to do with player numbers. As to your second point there are no such restrictions on www.irishchesscogitations.com from what I can see.

Sparks · 09-06-2013 2:55am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

That thread is about rating deflation, nothing to do with player numbers.

Really? Badly written so:

I did argue long and hard that the annoying trend of waiving rating requirements which was creeping in to Irish chess like bindweed in a flower garden was going to result in falling numbers attending tournaments and a lowering of standards but the majority didn’t agree with me. I for one just don’t bother with many tournaments I used to always attend and I am clearly not the only one who has been driven away. Sad to see that my prediction is coming true.

brilliantboy · 09-06-2013 3:06am

This thread has all gone a bit silly and far too cynical

My own preference would be to use this forum to discuss all matters of Irish chess rather than hiding away and erecting a barrier, unintentional or otherwise, to newcomers. The surge in activity here the last few days has been refreshing, and I don't see why it can't continue.
The issue of anonymity is a non-issue in my opinion. Take this thread as an example; everyone has been willing to make clear who they are
(and should anyone wish to know who is behind this mystery door they can just PM, but will be sorely disappointed

),
and competent moderation will ensure that anyone wishing to remain anonymous won't be doing so only to stir the pot.

I do however appreciate the service Col Dal is providing in setting up a dedicated Irish chess forum, and should it continue to exist I'll be reading it regularly, and contributing if I have anything to say (as I did very occasionally on the LCU blog). I may not agree with everything that appears there, but then discussion would be a far less useful tool if everyone was already in agreement about everything.

brilliantboy · 09-06-2013 3:10am

Sparks wrote: »

Really? Badly written so:

The author of that post is complaining about falling numbers among higher rated players and a general "lowering of standards" in Irish chess :rolleyes:

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 3:37am

Sparks wrote: »

Really? Badly written so:

Peter's comment was that there was falling attendance in the top level sections. If you'd understood the thread you'd know that it went on to say that rating deflation was likely the reason. I admire your enthusiasm and don't mind filling in the blanks for you but can we do it over on the proper forum? www.irishchesscogitations.com

Sparks · 09-06-2013 3:50am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Peter's comment was that there was falling attendance in the top level sections. If you'd understood the thread you'd know that it went on to say that rating deflation was likely the reason. I admire your enthusiasm and don't mind filling in the blanks for you

Excellent.
Can you then tell me how it's mathematically possible to see rating deflation without a reduction in the overall number of players in the pool? Because I was under the impression that if the pool increased, the total number of available points went up and you got rating inflation (which is what the rest of the chess world is pondering when trying to compare everyone from capablanca to carlson) and that it wasn't actually possible to see rating deflation unless players left the pool.

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 4:10am

Sparks wrote: »

Excellent.
Can you then tell me how it's mathematically possible to see rating deflation without a reduction on in the overall number of players in the pool? Because I was under the impression that if the pool increased, the total number of available points went up and you got rating inflation (which is what the rest of the chess world is pondering when trying to compare everyone from capablanca to carlson) and that it wasn't actually possible to see rating deflation unless players left the pool.

Ten players die average rating 2000. Twelve players enter, average rating 1200. Overall average rating falls. If the adjusters,such as bonus points, do not have their intended effect you get deflation. It not rocket science.

Sparks · 09-06-2013 4:34am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Ten players die average rating 2000. Twelve players enter, average rating 1200. Overall average rating falls. If the adjusters,such as bonus points, do not have their intended effect you get deflation. It not rocket science.

No, it's statistics, and your scenario is off:

When you set a starting point at 1000 what you are essentially saying is that the average player = 1000 pts. With a closed group of initial players (beta testers?) this is true, within that group average = 1000. But if the game is something you improve at with time then your closed group average player becomes highly skilled compared to someone who hasn't played.

Now when you assign a 1000 to a new player you are saying new average players = existing highly skilled average player. This is not true, they are likely to be much less skilled that your original closed group. So the new player loses points and your highly skilled players gain => inflation.

But we're seeing deflation, so we're losing more players than we're gaining. The math doesn't work otherwise unless you're doing something screwy.

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 4:49am

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's statistics, and your scenario is off:

But we're seeing deflation, so we're losing more players than we're gaining. The math doesn't work otherwise unless you're doing something screwy.

Setup a thread on the Irish chess blog, www.irishchesscogitations.com to have this properly explained to you. My scenario was intended to be simplistic to help you get it, there are people posting there who can give you a detailed explanation.

Zugszwang · 09-06-2013 9:43am

If a player joins the system at 1000 and leaves at 700, they cause inflation. If they leave at 2400, they cause deflation.

Inflation/deflation is a side issue. Chess would seem to be on the decline in Ireland, Bunratty numbers notwithstanding. This sort of discussion sure doesn't help matters.

@Sparks, don't vent your frustration at those who have "25 years experience in Irish Chess, don't want to give out our phone numbers and are rated over 1900" -- you're really arguing with one or two people on this board who don't represent anything in Irish chess, other than themselves. Hope you get back to club chess; the expansion of the ICU membership can start here

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 9:52am

Zugszwang wrote: »

Chess would seem to be on the decline in Ireland, Bunratty numbers notwithstanding.

:eek:

http://www.icu.ie/icu/subscribed.php

Lists paid up members of the ICU. Season 2012/2013 is not yet finished.
2011/2012 - 906 members
2010/2011 - 880 members
2009/2010 - 819 members
2008/2009 - 767 members

How is this decline? The increase under Jonathan O'Connor's chairmanship has been consistently strong.

Zugszwang · 09-06-2013 10:14am

Fair enough, but in the nineties there were well over 4,000 people on the ICU rating list (key question is of course how many were paid up?). I may have rose-tinted spectacles on, I admit. Anyway, you're right to focus on the positives so perhaps you might try to encourage Sparks and others to get active and get registered again?

Sparks · 09-06-2013 10:33am

906 ICU members (down from 4000 or so?)

Meanwhile, Chess.com has 1040-odd Irish members, RedHotPawn.com has 3326, some 500 more on Gameknot... all places that make it their business to welcome new members, remove barriers to entry, and encourage people along; there's a lesson in there somewhere and a trend.

Sparks · 09-06-2013 10:41am

Zugszwang wrote: »

@Sparks, don't vent your frustration at those who have "25 years experience in Irish Chess, don't want to give out our phone numbers and are rated over 1900" -- you're really arguing with one or two people on this board who don't represent anything in Irish chess, other than themselves. Hope you get back to club chess; the expansion of the ICU membership can start here

I got back to it a month ago after a twenty-year gap, mainly thanks to Mark Orr and cdeb; and if all goes well, we might see the new club at work join up to the ICU in a couple of months. But any of the lads in the work club would take one look at some of the things the "more experienced" people posted in here and wash their hands of the whole thing and just keep playing online.

reunion · 09-06-2013 10:48am

Sparks wrote: »

906 ICU members (down from 4000 or so?)

Meanwhile, Chess.com has 1040-odd Irish members, RedHotPawn.com has 3326, some 500 more on Gameknot... all places that make it their business to welcome new members, remove barriers to entry, and encourage people along; there's a lesson in there somewhere and a trend.

Sparks I do think you might be taking some of this a little personally but just my opinion.

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Setup a thread on the Irish chess blog, www.irishchesscogitations.com to have this properly explained to you. My scenario was intended to be simplistic to help you get it, there are people posting there who can give you a detailed explanation.

Can you stop advertising that forum? All your posts have become btw have you seen this. We get it, someone set up another forum somewhere else on the internet. That also isn't rocket science. Also what you said implies that no one here could explain rating deflation. Why would we join another forum if you can't explain it here?

The impression of the other forum so far is, if you don't join us, you don't know what your talking about when it comes to Irish chess. Not a good impression so far; not one that would make me want to join.

The restrictions for posting is an active topic on that forum. Either its open to everyone (making those threads a waste of everyone's time) or it isn't (and it truely is selective). I do like discussion and topics can be talked about but that forum needs a bit of purpose. Currently I don't know who it is aimed for. Casual player, different clubs, master players, game analysis? All I know it might be possible that you could talk about Irish chess.

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 11:00am

Zugszwang wrote: »

Fair enough, but in the nineties there were well over 4,000 people on the ICU rating list (key question is of course how many were paid up?). I may have rose-tinted spectacles on, I admit. Anyway, you're right to focus on the positives so perhaps you might try to encourage Sparks and others to get active and get registered again?

I think Sparks should play chess, I just disagree with his assertion that chess should be discussed on here. Is the logic that I should agree with him just to be nice?

I wish there was 4,000 people active in the 90's but don't think there was. Some of the great events are sorely missed though, the City of Dublin and Ballyfermot events in the Mansion House were great as was the Rathmines tournament in Terence.

Rev Hellfire · 09-06-2013 11:37am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I think Sparks should play chess, I just disagree with his assertion that chess should be discussed on here.

Discussing chess on the chess forum, crazy I tell you

Nothing stopping people discussing chess on both forums, there's nothing to say it has to be exclusive. Can both happily co-exist.

reunion · 09-06-2013 11:47am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I think Sparks should play chess, I just disagree with his assertion that chess should be discussed on here. Is the logic that I should agree with him just to be nice?

I'd rather everyone talked about Irish Chess. If their preference is here, fine if it's somewhere else, that's fine too. Wherever they feel most comfortable to discuss chess.

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I wish there was 4,000 people active in the 90's but don't think there was. Some of the great events are sorely missed though, the City of Dublin and Ballyfermot events in the Mansion House were great as was the Rathmines tournament in Terence.

Chess can be as good as it used to be, however we do need to start actively recruiting and encouraging more people to play. I do still think in between rounds at tournaments can get boring if you are there on your own. That probably should be addressed

cdeb · 09-06-2013 11:57am

I think the 4000 is probably out in fairness. I've got the January 1998 rating list in front of me here; one of the first I was on. There's about 375 on the list. I do remember back then that there would be a lot who hadn't paid their subs till quite late in the year (the rule that you have to be paid-up or your team in the leagues gets docked points has done wonders in that regard)

Of the Irish on gameknot anyway, I tend to ask whenever I play one. Some I know, some are casual players with either no time to play competitions or no interest to pursue the game further, and more are American-Irish or expats. So the 520 can come down a bit.

There was a tournament on here where redhotpawn was used as the medium. I know the winner (about 1600 strength), so it wasn't a particularly strong field. Are there players in that competition still on here who don't play competitively?

reunion wrote: »

Chess can be as good as it used to be, however we do need to start actively recruiting and encouraging more people to play. I do still think in between rounds at tournaments can get boring if you are there on your own. That probably should be addressed

How would you address this? People need time off between the rounds, and there isn't a huge amount of time (I had about 30 minutes between rounds in Bunratty this year after playing a 120+ move game with increments!) At Gonzaga, Baburin often gives a lecture or analyses games, but in Bunratty and Kilkenny, he plays (always good for the competition), so that's not an option. Joining a club is always a good way of meeting new people and knowing more at the tournaments; ditto the informal blitzes after Bunratty and Kilkenny. But I'm not sure you could add more events to the weekend.

Col Dal · 09-06-2013 8:53pm

reunion wrote: »

Can you stop advertising that forum? All your posts have become btw have you seen this. We get it, someone set up another forum somewhere else on the internet. That also isn't rocket science. Also what you said implies that no one here could explain rating deflation. Why would we join another forum if you can't explain it here?

I think by now your manifest prejudice and bias is clear to see and sad to witness. Thanks for the kind words of encouragement anyway.

It is indeed not rocket science yet nobody else took up the baton and the fact that someone with such a background and experience of chess has tried to do something at all, is doubtless something that apparently intimidates you to such an extent that you jump to wild and untrue conclusions or impressions, far from reality. So far from thinking there might be added value in having my involvement in starting such a project which just might add extra value to this project. You do your best to more or less poo poo it and or undermine it.

That is of course your absolute right on here as it would be back over on www.irishchesscogitations.com - yes that pesky website dedicated to giving chess players and enthusiasts a tool with which to exchange news,views etc etc but which is of no interest to you. Fair enough, you are not keen on this development.

reunion wrote: »

The impression of the other forum so far is, if you don't join us, you don't know what your talking about when it comes to Irish chess. Not a good impression so far; not one that would make me want to join.

Suffice to say that there is no basis in reality for such an impression as I have openly said that the website will find it's value and usefulness based on the members and not the admin and or instigator of the project.

You really should check out http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/topic.php?id=4 It just might dispel the misconceptions you have, or then again perhaps it makes no difference given the ample evidence of your own bias and prejudices, of which again I must say you are of course entitled to.

Hopefully at some stage you will give it a try on http://www.irishchesscogitations.com and for example the thread on the Irish ch http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/topic.php?id=2 has already shown itself to be at least some use in viewing the list of players,

Not to mention the very positive development that sees a player come forward and offer players over 2240 Fide rating a 100 Euro appearance fee.
Details about which can be seen at http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/topic.php?id=6 for details, or is all this just shameless advertising of www.irishchesscogitations which you so deplore?

It helps to have a sense of humor about these things, don't you agree?

Rev Hellfire · 09-06-2013 9:38pm

Let's not go overboard on the SEO backlinks now :P

I'll be honest there's a fine line to be walked between linking to site for informative reasons and outright spamming, let's try not to cross it and we can all be friends.

Sparks · 09-06-2013 10:09pm

Speaking of SEO, does this not strike anyone as a hell of a resource for a sport to be throwing away, especially for a vice-chairman of that sport's NGB?

First place in google search results; ten years of established operation, experienced volunteer manpower already sourced; up to two million viewers a month to appeal to; and experience in handling defamation and other legal minefields (at a time when the elephant in the room in chess in Ireland is cheating, something which we pointed out earlier in Taylor has serious defamation risks when discussing).

Versus a new site that cost money and took effort to set up; gives someone a whole new set of legal liabilities and workloads; doesn't and won't show up in the google search results for a while (and right now doesn't show up in the first ten pages of that google search); and doesn't have the same capacity and capabilities as the existing service.

You know, engineers get taught not to reinvent the wheel because it wastes resources and you almost never actually need a bespoke solution (even though everyone always assumes that they're that one-in-a-million exception to the rule). I'm not seeing any logical sense at all in setting up a new forum.

Col Dal · 09-06-2013 10:59pm

Sparks wrote: »

Speaking of SEO, does this not strike anyone as a hell of a resource for a sport to be throwing away, especially for a vice-chairman of that sport's NGB?

First place in google search results; ten years of established operation, experienced volunteer manpower already sourced; up to two million viewers a month to appeal to; and experience in handling defamation and other legal minefields (at a time when the elephant in the room in chess in Ireland is cheating, something which we pointed out earlier in Taylor has serious defamation risks when discussing).

Versus a new site that cost money and took effort to set up; gives someone a whole new set of legal liabilities and workloads; doesn't and won't show up in the google search results for a while (and right now doesn't show up in the first ten pages of that google search); and doesn't have the same capacity and capabilities as the existing service.

You know, engineers get taught not to reinvent the wheel because it wastes resources and you almost never actually need a bespoke solution (even though everyone always assumes that they're that one-in-a-million exception to the rule). I'm not seeing any logical sense at all in setting up a new forum.

It's early days. Google results will all change over time.

The website was set up by me in a personal capacity. Has nothing to do with the ICU or me being the Vice Chairman of the ICU. The fact of my being the Vice C plus any number of other factors relating to my experience as a chess player and chess enthusiast should only give good context and added value to the project.

It is a reality. Get used to it!

It will sink or swim on its own merits and boards.ie will still be here regardless.

As I have already said, all that is going on in this thread seems to be talk about talk about more talk, but for those involved with and active within chess, plus those who would like to engage with Irish chess through any topic they like then they now have the option of an actual dedicated chess site with the added bonus of the admin being a very well known and prominent figure within the Irish game for over 30 years.

That is not a boast, but merely to underscore that there is substance to my involvement in such a project, and while I will be striving to make the website work for and be of the members, I am sure the odd post by me may offer something of added value sometimes.

I certainly would never dream of using this site [EBOARDS.IE] in the context of much of anything to do with chess. I only do so now to draw attention to the project I have started and to give people an alternative that fits in with the chess community we have.

We will have to respectfully agree to disagree about the merits of having an actual stand alone chess website, as opposed to what is on offer here. Just don't think this forum is at all suitable for the Irish chess community. By a mile in fact. Which is not to deny that it has lots to offer in many ways and in many areas of interest.

My last word in here [I keep saying that but still felt the need to correct certain perceptions] and I have not given a link to that pesky website of which I am involved with now? That should insure I don't get banned in here for spamming I trust.

See you over on, you know where = IRISHCHESSCOGITATIONS dot com

Everyone is welcome.

I am thinking of starting a thread on the Ruy Lopez exchange variation sometime soon, or is that too elitist of me? Maybe too Chess centric?

What do you think of the exchange Lopez yourself Sparks?

Col Dal · 09-06-2013 11:08pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Let's not go overboard on the SEO backlinks now :P

I'll be honest there's a fine line to be walked between linking to site for informative reasons and outright spamming, let's try not to cross it and we can all be friends.

Point taken and understood.

Sparks · 09-06-2013 11:15pm

Col Dal wrote: »

It's early days. Google results will all change over time.

Over quite a long period of time though, and meanwhile, there's that number one slot right there and available...

The website was set up by me in a personal capacity. Has nothing to do with the ICU or me being the Vice Chairman of the ICU.

But does that part of you that does the vice chairman job not think "Hm. My job is to promote the sport, here's this resource, why not use it instead of using a very limited amount of manhours and effort to reinvent the wheel?"

all that is going on in this thread seems to be talk about talk

Correct; this is the thread discussing the end of the LCU blog, which was talking; so the whole point of just this thread was to talk about talk. The two thousand other posts on more than two hundred other threads are not about talking about talk, they're about chess.

That is not a boast, but merely to underscore that there is substance to my involvement in such a project, and while I will be striving to make the website work for and be of the members, I am sure the odd post by me may offer something of added value sometimes.

I'll happily grant you that you can contribute an ICU viewpoint (though I'd run that past the ICU committee if I was you and wanted a quieter life) and that of a high-rated player; but frankly, from the point of view of the sport in general, I think that's not worth quite so much as I think you think it is.

And on an ICU theme, one of the goals of the ICU was stated as being official recognition as a sport by the ISC - and having dealt with them once or twice before, I think I can safely say that they place as high a premium on participation levels as they do on achievements by the high performance side of the sport, if not a higher one. You want ISC recognition? You probably want to give a lot more emphasis to the lower levels of the pyramid than you're doing.

What do you think of the exchange Lopez yourself Sparks?

The Lopez in general is too sharp for my tastes. I don't have enormous amounts of time to memorise opening theory (and it's not generally recommended at my level anyway) so I stick with the english, the caro-kann and the slav.

Ciaran · 10-06-2013 12:03am

Sparks wrote: »

When you set a starting point at 1000 what you are essentially saying is that the average player = 1000 pts. With a closed group of initial players (beta testers?) this is true, within that group average = 1000. But if the game is something you improve at with time then your closed group average player becomes highly skilled compared to someone who hasn't played.

Now when you assign a 1000 to a new player you are saying new average players = existing highly skilled average player. This is not true, they are likely to be much less skilled that your original closed group. So the new player loses points and your highly skilled players gain => inflation.

Seeing as no one has explained this:
New players aren't assigned a rating like that, they get a provisional rating based on their results in their first 20 games. In your example, the new player would likely lose most of their games against these 1000 rated players and get a rating in the 600s and the other players would gain very few points from beating them. So you'd have something like a group of players with an average rating just over 1000 and one player with a rating of 650 or something.

Now the new player improves and get his rating up to around 1000, gaining 350 points from the other players in the process, much more than they gained from him at the start. Now the original group of players have an average rating of less than 1000 without the players getting any worse. That's how ratings deflate.

But we're seeing deflation, so we're losing more players than we're gaining. The math doesn't work otherwise unless you're doing something screwy.

I'm not convinced we are seeing deflation. John Delaney posted a graph on the thread on the LCU blog which looked (though with plenty of noise) like there was a drop in average rating between 2002 and 2004 and remained roughly stable since then.

Col Dal · 10-06-2013 1:36am

Sparks wrote: »

Over quite a long period of time though, and meanwhile, there's that number one slot right there and available...

Lets see shall we!

Needless to say I simply don't agree with your assertion and could care less about what you think is good for Irish chess. Yes, it is actually of no interest to me whatsoever. Just as I would hope my views on Go, Poker or Snakes and Ladders would not be well regarded or received by anybody within those communities.

Sparks wrote: »

But does that part of you that does the vice chairman job not think "Hm. My job is to promote the sport, here's this resource, why not use it instead of using a very limited amount of manhours and effort to reinvent the wheel?"

Sorry but this is borderline idiocy, and I know your not an idiot. I don't agree with your views clearly and you can go reinvent Irish chess if you like to try.

As for my being being Vice C? It is not a job in any way shape or form. Again you are showing how ill informed and frankly clueless you are about about chess matters and frankly you are indeed a fish out of water.

What part of

"The website was set up by me in a personal capacity. Has nothing to do with the ICU or me being the Vice Chairman of the ICU. "

did you not understand?

Sparks wrote: »

I'll happily grant you that you can contribute an ICU viewpoint (though I'd run that past the ICU committee if I was you and wanted a quieter life)

Are you for real? You are in no position to grant me anything when it comes to chess matters or anything to do with chess, and once again you show that you know and understand next to nothing about Irish chess, and have some neck to presume to make such an ill informed and silly comment.

What part of

"The website was set up by me in a personal capacity. Has nothing to do with the ICU or me being the Vice Chairman of the ICU. "

did you not understand?

I contribute as an individual and far from needing or wanting your advice on anything to do with chess you have only confirmed beyond any doubt how bad it would be for people to waste their time engaging on any chess topic with someone so manifestly uninformed.

Sparks wrote: »

and that of a high-rated player; but frankly, from the point of view of the sport in general, I think that's not worth quite so much as I think you think it is.

Again you descend into farce and display yet again more ignorance. I think I am a bit more than just a high rated player, which in any case is an odd way to frame things. I doubt you even know that I am the current Irish Champion too! or much else of my history within Irish chess.

Simple question to you would be, have you played in a single tournament or even league ICU rated game in the past 20 Years? Well if you have not then you should be very circumspect in anything you say about Irish chess.

Sparks wrote: »

And on an ICU theme, one of the goals of the ICU was stated as being official recognition as a sport by the ISC - and having dealt with them once or twice before, I think I can safely say that they place as high a premium on participation levels as they do on achievements by the high performance side of the sport, if not a higher one. You want ISC recognition? You probably want to give a lot more emphasis to the lower levels of the pyramid than you're doing.

Yet again. What part of

"The website was set up by me in a personal capacity. Has nothing to do with the ICU or me being the Vice Chairman of the ICU. "

did you not understand?

Sparks wrote: »

The Lopez in general is too sharp for my tastes. I don't have enormous amounts of time to memorise opening theory (and it's not generally recommended at my level anyway) so I stick with the english, the caro-kann and the slav.

Lastly to underscore the fact that you indeed are a very very marginal chess player [And there is nothing wrong with that, so long as you are aware of it and don't pretend to know much of anything about chess or our living chess community.

I asked you a very specific chess question:

What do you think of the exchange Lopez yourself

Your answer only confirmed that in chess terms you are barely literate. In point of fact the Ruy Lopez in general is not at all considered a sharp variation, much more positional, though it is so vast that there are many sharp variations contained within it that are indeed sharp. It is however not know as a sharp variation.

But worse still I specified the EXCHANGE Lopez which is known to be in general even less sharp by some measure, and often revolves around getting an advantage in an endgame. In fact it is usually Black who strives to keep the game sharp, but sure if you put that into a google search maybe you could come with an answer for anything?

I suspect you are a great blogger/forum warrior but as regards chess matters, Id say your opinion is of so little value as to be next to worthless and thus the less said by you about chess the better for you and chess.

Likewise I am sure the very same could be said of myself about any number of subjects. I would however never presume to start offering the sort of frankly absurd opinions you have on say Tennis, Go, Poker etc etc I know others would only know very quickly how ill informed I would be, and how counter productive it would be of me to try offer such worthless views.

It only remains for me to leave you with the last word in here and rue the day I wasted so much time on a forum thread that is only of any interest and use by virtue of a previous dedicated chess blog being abandoned and then linked to this page.

Your still welcome over on irishchesscogitations.com anytime but just be prepared to face even more critical comments than mine from others if you start spouting off the type of ill-informed nonsense you have engaged with here.

As a chess tip I would suggest you lose the English and play E4 main lines for a while. And likewise lose the Slav and Caro Kann and try the QGD and the Sicilian, French and or E5 for a while. Don't worry about memory and try just playing and gain expereince with as many different types of position as you can.

Sparks · 10-06-2013 1:49am

Colm, if that's the sort of thing we could look forward to in your site, why would anyone bother going there?

I mean, do you really think that that post is the kind of thing anyone in a sport's NGB should ever be spouting? Do you think that you've just acted as a good ambassador to the sport? Do you think you've just encouraged anyone to take part in the sport or do you think you've just put people off?

LCU blog discontinued

Comments