while I'm not going to dive too deep into this the first mistake i saw in your game was your opening.
you played 3.f5 which there is no point in that move I recommend 3.bf5
while I'm not going to dive too deep into this the first mistake i saw in your game was your opening.
you played 3.f5 which there is no point in that move I recommend 3.bf5
Yeah and Noodles was kind enough to point that out during gameplay. He's a good ol guy. Maybe "consistently" overstates matters. Thanks!
p.s. if you're bored, please check out my likely loss to walterz. Might take a few days to finish as we're half a world away.
if you want to study it better here is a video that helped me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmbU97iftC8&t=11s
He says it's a "breakdown of the theory" but he never stops to explain the rationale of each line. Great in any case. Usually I play videos 1.25x. You have to play Gotham at .75 speed.
Is there a way to set up analysis such that robot conditionally plays a set of lines like this -- are you familiar with the gameplay Conditional Moves feature? Sometimes I'll practice with robot and just resign if he doesn't play a line I want to memorize, waiting for it to present moves I want to learn to defend. Thanks -- keep the advice a-comin if you have time. Walterz picked me apart
you can set it up in the analysis with custom position and play against computer
you will always make the first move btw.
I've risen from 750 - 1100 abruptly, consistently beating or holding my own against higher-rated players. Right now I'm getting my arse kicked by a much lower-rated player.
I assume variance among beginners is high while master play is more predictable: players generally finish based on ranking with little variation, like tennis players. Beginner chess is more like golf. Is there evidence to back this up?
In my defense, I backtracked moves and still don't know where I went wrong. Can't wait to see report, it won't be pretty.