Anybody can play like morphy in bullet. But even in the game with the NM you were losing.
I PLAY LIKE PAUL MORPHY!
Sort:
Anybody can play like morphy in bullet. But even in the game with the NM you were losing.
Jesusrios361 wrote:
Anybody can play like morphy in bullet. But even in the game with the NM you were losing.
I believe the verdict of history is that I won, as a cursory perusal of the last few moves of the said game should suffice to show you.
Najdorfian wrote:
You have loses against 1400's, and you claim you can beat grandmasters?
You might want to see a shrink.
Even grandmasters, on occasion, lose to more ignoble opponents. Happened to capablanca, steinitz, even kasparov, why oughtnt it happen to me?
Main point though is...I did beat a GM here, thrice in fact, and ive linked yall to the games. Feel free to dust off any elemnt of doubt to my claim off yourself by actually viewing the games in Q.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Try harder if you're trying to be a good troll.
Win over a GM with a closed account.
This seems to be bullet. Bullet isn't chess imo, even if the pieces move according to the chess rules.
jackfast wrote:
Guy's don't feed the troll. He is probably going to say something stupid like "By Paul Morphy, I meant me because of my username"
@Paul_Morphy
You didn't play like the real Paul Morphy. You would blunder pawns out of the opening. You would blunder pieces with your opponent. You would luckily makes slightly less blunders than your opponent. Plus the NM lost on time when he had a huge advantage. And what do you mean by Grandmaster. The Xiaotian117 guy was only a 1800 and played like a 1500. And getting lucky in 1 minute games doesn't count. Get a tactics trainer rating of at least 1800+ and you will realize the stupid mistakes that you made. You are still SO far off of playing like the real Paul Morphy who lived in the 1800s
Couple of things...one, the xaotian dude had a GM next to his name when I played him, so obviously he was a real GM.
Stupid mistakes? More like glittering tactics a little out of the grasp of your chess IQ, such as it is, perhaps.
I thought Morphy took hours to make a move, not seconds.
makhnoukh wrote:
You got your tail whooped against the NM (lucky time win) and then you never beat a GM, it was his avatar that said GM...If I put that on my avatar it doesn't mean I'm a stinking GM. Once again, YOU ARE POINTLESS.
According to the FIDE handbook, if you put GM in your avatar, they will recognize you as such.
I think www.iwantattention.com is asking for your presence!
[COMMENT DELETED]
....And I play like Garry kasparov ....I win
meh..
I bet you are Morphy aren't you?
We can end this nonsense right now. Put your first game into a strong engine, like Stockfish, and you're horribly losing by move 14. Not to mention you're playing BULLET chess against an NM (and a low rated one at that), not a long, calculated game. He was under heavy time pressure and still managed to beat you into a pulp. If this had been a longer game I bet the victory for the NM would've been even more decisive. Go take your trollin' else where. We don't need your kind here.... and on the odd chance you're not trollling, then I suggest you see a therapist because you have egomaniacal, narcissistic tendencies.
If, his idea was to troll, he has been a successful one.
He is getting all the attention he baited for, even if it is criticism...
Cmon guys, you're being trolled...
jackfast wrote:
Crossedvariation wrote:
We can end this nonsense right now. Put your first game into a strong engine, like Stockfish, and you're horribly losing by move 14. Not to mention you're playing BULLET chess against an NM (and a low rated one at that), not a long, calculated game. He was under heavy time pressure and still managed to beat you into a pulp. If this had been a longer game I bet the victory for the NM would've been even more decisive. Go take your trollin' else where. We don't need your kind here.... and on the odd chance you're not trollling, then I suggest you see a therapist because you have egomaniacal, narcissistic tendencies.
This is exactly what all of us here are thinking.
an NM, mon cher ami, is still an NM. I.e somebody who's managed to break past the seething mass of talent in todays tournaments to make it to the top few. NM= at least 2000= a helluva lot of experience= hardlyin a position to have his play criticised by you.
Ive smacked Grandmasters around in my day. Even here, on chess.com, my peices turn into a sort of wild collage, buzzing hither and thither to rearrange themselves into the dazzling combinations I come up with.
Manys the player who approached the borard with a smile at my fairly unnassuming rating, only to find himself in the midst, moments later, of a snowstorm of frenzied moves streaked with tactics and strewn with positionaliuty only the laskers and capablancas of our time could begin to comprehend.
Dont take my word for it, just check out some of these jewels de chezz.
1. Me vs a NM (1-0)
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1208874189
An NM, for heavens sake, and I trounced him. In style, too. Ten moves in and he was being led down the Broad Road of defeat that so often is the portion of my opponents to walk.
But if you that was cute check out...
my HATRICK WIN OVER
A GRANDMASTER
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1189254486
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1189261299
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1189256079