Another interesting "Singularity" read....

[Zodiac82]

^^^^yeh I used to play around 9ish or so when my uncle taught me and then pick it back up in middle school 13-14....I wasnt a prodigy or anything but I was pretty decent....I used to love the expressions on ppls faces when ud beat them in 4 moves...maybe 5 cant really remember

-Release the Kracken!!!-

[--->>405<<---]

I don't like playing unless I can come up with the mate, or force you to resign. My games can last an hour or longer, depending on how slow the other bloke is. Nothing worse imo, than to hastily make a move and then after touching the piece, realizing there was a much better move if only I had stopped and thought it through......

btw, I usually like to record my games, and then analyze later for a better understanding of the game. I had a notebook with all my tourney games in it, there were quite a few.

so basically ur saying u dont like playing unless u win!!!

playing online the puter saves all ur games and u can analyze them later. there are also programs to assist with ur analysis..

[Times Roman]

so basically ur saying u dont like playing unless u win!!!

playing online the puter saves all ur games and u can analyze them later. there are also programs to assist with ur analysis..

what I'm saying is that with bullet chess "aka speed chess" (back in my day) there was a third way to win, and that's when the other blokes time ran out on the clock. had nothing to do with superior analytical skills or mastery of the game. I don't like that option. I feel sufficient time should be allowed for the formulation of the best move available. This can take time, something you don't get when the clock is ticking

Speed chess changes the game from "best possible move" to "least amount of fukkups"

when you only get a few seconds per move, the move you pick is always less than ideal, every time, except maybe in the beginning when the opening moves can be scripted somewhat

why is it when the best players get together, games take a long time?