frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Any Chess Fans Here

2



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ZeusAres42

    By far the most annoying thing about playing online are the people who cheat. I've just played a game where I was absolutely crushing someone, and somehow lost. When I checked the analysis board after the game I was at a plus 20 advantage after move 15, then there was a mate in 8 moves after move 16. I missed the mate, but still had an advantage of almost plus 19. Then, for the next 15 moves, my opponent made the top move choice according to Stockfish each and every time. I can't even report them because it was an unrated game. What kind of sad, insecure twonk cheats in unrated games? 

    Cheating is unforgivable, but even more so when the game is unrated, because there isn't any gain. You're literally just doing it out of spite.
    ZeusAres42
  • @Nomenclature

    You’re not debating here you are advertising for players................


    JulesKorngold
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2668 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    I still think Fischer would have beaten Kasparov if they were around competing at the same time. It was just Fischer's unstoppable attitude!





  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    That sounds good I may go premium in the near future when I start playing again , I got chess saturation recently but playing to much so I'm on a break 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42


    Oh, I also really like playing arrogant cocky people

    Same here it's a lot of fun

    . I keep silent throughout until the end when I have the checkmate. Oh, that reminds me. I once beat a guy 10 times and he got really mad. But I think what really made him mad was when I said "I'm drunk to"

    Ha ,Ha love it. I play in a pub now and then and various annoying individuals usually stand around and nod sagely or tut , tut at every move played ,one guy gave a rather loud tut, tut at a move I played and when the game finished ( draw) starting telling me about a slip up I made , I challenged him to a game but he said " I'm actually leaving " I said " oh well it's saved you a savage beating " he immediately challenged me to a game the same place and time a week later.I accepted.

    The pub owner couldn't stop laughing and said " Dee that guy is an IM " my mates said " you cannot chicken out now" , so the following week he duly arrived I played white and opened with the Ruy Lopez which I'm well versed in ,the opening went along fairly predictable lines until his phone rang and he said " emergency, I have to go " I  gloated and crowed and said  " you really do like the good old phone ruse , don't you  "? he left in a fury.

    I of course beamed smugly away for the rest of the night




  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Lot of resignations tonight.




  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Does anybody else analyse their games after playing? It's amazing sometimes what you miss.

    I've just played a really cagey game which was neck and neck until my opponent threw their queen away and immediately resigned (we've all been there), but when I analysed the game I realised that if I'd played a different move on move 21, I could have forced the queen capture.



    So I played Rd1 here, because I was anticipating a discovered attack against the knight on d7 if my opponent forced the pawn trade (22. dxe4, dxe4). My opponent didn't see that the rook is protected by the light-squared bishop so took it with the queen.

    However, the engine shows that, instead of playing Rd1, if I'd have played Bd1, I could have trapped the queen. That one move would have immediately given me a plus six advantage.
    John_C_87
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Wanted to quickly show you guys this. How about this for a nice little fork?


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    That guy tried to open with a scholar's mate, too.

    Never, ever try to scholar's mate anybody who has been playing chess for longer than a year.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Fellas, I just played one of the most accurate games I've ever played. I've had two games today against strong players and won them both. I'm white.




  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    See if you can spot any of the traps I set up. My opponent didn't fall for them, but I had so many active pieces attacking the king I was able to force a checkmate.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    I really feel like I'm beginning to get the hang of this Vienna opening (i.e. e4, Nc3, f4). I've been using it for a few weeks now.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Great stuff Nom.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Thanks Dee. I had about 10 games yesterday and two of them were really good. Damn, I love this game. 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    It's a truly satisfying game nothing I think comes close. Have you ever tried the Stonewall opening ? I love it as it leads to tremendous play and totally destroys those who are unfamiliar with it .......

    For those who want to keep opening theory to the minimum, you are unlikely to find a better chess opening than the Stonewall Attack.

    • This chess opening is a system-based opening where the white pieces generally go to the same squares no matter what Black plays.
    • White usually places pawns on c3, d4, e3, and f4. The light-squared bishop goes to d3, and the knights get developed to d2 and f3 or h3.
    • Developing the knight on h3 allows Nf2 to support the g4 pawn advance. Another option is to bring the knight into the game with Nf4 after the f5 advance.
    • The Stonewall Attack is ideally suited to players who include the Stonewall Variation of the Dutch Defense in their repertoire.
    • In this chess opening, there are really only two mainlines you need to know how to face with white – 5…e6 and 5…Bg4.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Hi Dee. Nope, I've never tried that one.  I'm just looking it up at the moment. 

    I do sometimes put my knights on d2 and f3 though. It's a much better defensive setup than c3 and f3. The only issue is that the knight on d2 can imprison your own bishop if you're not careful. I usually play that setup more with black than white.

    I went through a stage last year where I was playing the Hungarian opening, albeit with mixed results. I've found my play has improved since I stopped fianchettoing the bishops. 

    I do sometimes still play the Ruy Lopez, but the trouble is that it's such a well-known opening that it becomes more of a memory test than anything. I like defending against it more than attacking with it. 

    I've tried the English opening also, usually followed by Nc3, then d5. Mainly because I noticed Kasparov liked that opening. 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Have a look at how hard I had to work for this victory, Dee. I thought I was completely lost here, but somehow I managed to fight back. My opponent had to resign after I forced the queen trade, because his king was too far away to catch my passed pawn. Very tough game.




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5966 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    I do not think that Fischer would stand a chance against prime-time Kasparov. The truth is, chess has changed significantly since Fischer's times: openings and strategies have been polished and thoroughly analyzed with engines, many new endgames have been solved, and the "meta" has become much more robust.

    Fischer could get away with initiating reckless attacks due to how flawed his opponents' understanding of the position was, but nowadays such a strategy is doomed to fail against a strong grandmaster. Kasparov in 2004 still could get away with some things that nowadays no one can, but the room for "having fun" had significally narrowed even by then. 

    As such, I believe that the Fischer of 70-s would get rolled over by the Kasparov of 2000-s. Of course, if we are instead talking about the hypothetical case where Kasparov and Fischer both grow up at the same period of time and learn from the same material, then it is much less unclear - but then, at least, the play style of one of them will be unrecognizable, and we will not be talking about the same player(s).
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2668 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    MayCaesar said:
    @ZeusAres42

    I do not think that Fischer would stand a chance against prime-time Kasparov. The truth is, chess has changed significantly since Fischer's times: openings and strategies have been polished and thoroughly analyzed with engines, many new endgames have been solved, and the "meta" has become much more robust.

    Fischer could get away with initiating reckless attacks due to how flawed his opponents' understanding of the position was, but nowadays such a strategy is doomed to fail against a strong grandmaster. Kasparov in 2004 still could get away with some things that nowadays no one can, but the room for "having fun" had significally narrowed even by then. 

    As such, I believe that the Fischer of 70-s would get rolled over by the Kasparov of 2000-s. Of course, if we are instead talking about the hypothetical case where Kasparov and Fischer both grow up at the same period of time and learn from the same material, then it is much less unclear - but then, at least, the play style of one of them will be unrecognizable, and we will not be talking about the same player(s).


    The truth is now that there are AI's that almost no GM can beat and if not already there will soon be one that no GM will ever be able to beat. Nonetheless, if Fischer and Kasparov were around the same time I still think Fischer would have more of an edge over Kasparov. Fischer would have evolved, and let us also not forget that Kasparov built a lot off of Fischer's work. Then there is the case that Fischer also did something in chess that Kasparov didn't do or any other chess GM in history had been seen before with Spasky.

    Then there was Fischer's mentality; he wouldn't stop until he made sure he won, but just once or twice but multiple times against his opponent.

    On another note, it's rather strange that he just stopped playing and disappeared when he became the champ. The guy did have some unfortunate mental health issues. It was also bad that he was being pushed to win just so the USA could prove intellectual superiority over Russia during the cold war.



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    Nonetheless, if Fischer and Kasparov were around the same time I still think Fischer would have more of an edge over Kasparov.

    The entire game of chess evolved after (and largely because of) Fischer, so the competition Kasparov faced was much stronger than the competition Fischer faced. Kasparov was objectively a better player, and he was playing competitively for much longer. Fischer only won one world championship. 

    With that said, it's unfair to compare players from different eras because Fischer didn't have the resources or the accumulative knowledge which became available to future players and Kasparov never had to play before the game had reached its current level. These types of questions are interesting to contemplate, but essentially pointless. It's like asking if Mike Tyson in his prime would have beaten Mohammed Ali. Almost certainly he would, for the same reasons (i.e. because the sport had moved on and the bar was higher), but that takes nothing away from the achievements of Ali, who was the best of his era.

    John_C_87
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    That's the sort of game I like a good fight fight right to the end
    Nomenclature
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    I've read many times that Bobby Fischers presence at the board terrified opponents as he exuded  menace and danger such was his intense  will to win.

    It's also been noted that no other player worked so hard at Chess and Fischers whole life was chess, his descent into madness I think was the result of the unbearable pressure put on him by the America media driven by politicians and those in power who used him in a game of us and them.

    If Kasparov , Carlsen, Nepomniachtchi etc,etc only had access to the  latest chess literature of the 70's I think fischer would have beaten the 3 of them.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    That's the sort of game I like a good fight fight right to the end

    Me too Dee. It feels like an achievement if you manage to win. 

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Well, this is officially my worst night ever. I've lost four in a row. The first because I missed a winning move, the second because I left my queen hanging, and the last two because I was playing someone much better.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Actually, I just ran an analysis on that last game, and my opponent played the top Stockfish move 15 times in a row. Either I was playing Magnus Carlson or he was cheating.

    The third game I was outclassed fair and square. He caught me in a brilliant trap to end the game. I thought I had a clear checkmate.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Redemption!


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Well played Nom.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Thanks Dee. I was kicking myself for missing that winning move in my first game and carried the anger over into the next three games. Took a break and went back to it.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    I know that feeling , it's amazing what you miss when you look at the analysis of your games on Lichess.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    it's amazing what you miss when you look at the analysis of your games on Lichess.

    You can say that again Dee. Truly amazing. 

    The worst thing though was that I didn't even need the engine analysis on this occasion. I saw the move the same moment I clicked the mouse to make another move. If I'd have just hesitated half a second longer I'd have found it. 

    Dee
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Check this out for a game. I swear, this person is probably the single most annoying chess player I've ever been paired up against. I made a massive blunder on move 10 by letting his queen swoop in along the diagonal and check my king. I dropped from a plus 5 advantage to a minus 10 disadvantage in the space of one move. But the truly maddening thing is that he wouldn't give me any time to recover. He just kept continuously checking my king on every move. It was driving me mad.

    In the end I managed to exchange enough pieces off the board to slow him down, and then he fell for a nice trap to end the game, taking a poisoned pawn which cost him his queen. He resigned a couple of moves later.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    A nice steady dismantling...

    Opponent left the game rather than resigning like a gentleman.  Mate in one.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Lol. Second time today my opponent has fallen for this trap.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    I'm 13-0 today. Not bad. Not bad at all.
    Dee
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    The Vienna versus the Sicilian:-


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: This is why you should never resign when playing chess.

    This is why you should never resign when playing chess. 

    This guy is a better player than I am. He was slowly picking me apart. Then he made just one mistake and I mated him.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Here's Another Example ...

    Exact same thing. My opponent outplayed me the entire game, slowly chipping away at my material. Then he got complacent and realised he was either going to lose a rook or get checkmated, so he resigned.




  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Promoting Dem Queens

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: QUEEN SACRIFICE!

    Can't believe I pulled this off. I saw mate if I sacrificed my queen. 

    I'm a little bit annoyed that my opponent resigned rather than let me finish the mate, but after Kg7, Rh7 is checkmate.

    If he'd have left the queen alone he could have avoided the mate with Kf8. 




  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    I'm learning to play the Stafford Gambit as black at the moment and omfg is this thing the nuclear bomb of openings. Provided your opponent starts with the standard e4 followed by Nf3, you can potentially use it. Check this blitz game out. Over in 15 moves.


  • you know you need sleep when you try and checkmate your own king  
    Nomenclature



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    I wanted to share this game with you fine folks. This is why you should always try to grab control of the centre as early as possible.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Winning in 14 moves against a reasonable player.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @ZeusAres42
    Awesome! Perhaps you and I can play Chess at some point? 

    He won't ever play you because @MayCaesar is a jealous, delusional braggard who comes here to pretend he's ten times smarter than he actually is. Read through a few of his posts and you'll quickly find his language dripping with intellectual desperation.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    After making a silly early blunder which cost me a pawn, I finished with a nice little rook sacrifice. 

    I have no idea what I was thinking in this opening. It was a total mess.


  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 695 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Sacrificing a piece and actually having it work out in your favor looks like a great feeling. Wish I was that good. :(
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Luigi7255
    Sacrificing a piece and actually having it work out in your favor looks like a great feeling. Wish I was that good

    I'm quite an experienced player, Luigi. Like anything else in life, the more you do it the better you get. Even so, chess is quite a long ladder and there are plenty of occasions where I cross paths with a superior player and get crushed. My biggest weakness is playing under time pressure. I prefer playing without any clock, but in competitive games I usually need 30 minutes to stand a good chance of winning. 

    In the above example, you can see I have what is called a battery. That is, my queen and bishop are occupying the same diagonal. I saw the checkmate on h2 and so did my opponent, which is why he tried to block it with his knight. What he didn't anticipate is that I could simply sacrifice my rook, which wasn't involved in the attack, in order to remove the defending piece. 

    In actual fact, he didn't have to take the rook at all. Doing so is what enabled me to checkmate him. He could have simply moved his pawn from g2 to g3 to block the incoming queen, although this would have only prolonged the inevitable. Not only would he then be at a material disadvantage, but I have four attacking pieces strangling his king, whereas he has no defenders outside of pawns because his queen and rook are on the wrong side of his king. The engine analysis has me at a massive advantage after rook takes f3. I'd have to make very serious blunders if he hoped to get back into the game.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Lol. 

    9 moves guys.


  • @ZeusAres42
    Awesome! Perhaps you and I can play Chess at some point? 

    He won't ever play you because @MayCaesar is a jealous, delusional braggard who comes here to pretend he's ten times smarter than he actually is. Read through a few of his posts and you'll quickly find his language dripping with intellectual desperation.



    I tend to take self-promotion with a pinch of salt. When some random person on the internet constantly cites themselves as being a scientific authority and how that somehow makes their arguments more credible given almost any scientific subject that sends alarm bells ringing.

    This behavior reminds me of Deepak Chorpa. But at least we know that Deepak Chopra does hold more credibility than some random which can be easily verified. Deepack once said to Sam Harris and Michael Shermer that he was more knowledgeable because he had a PhD in more science subjects, and this was a debate about God! (hilarious);)

    Your citation to being an authority is actually a fallacy (argumentum verecundiam). But rather than appealing to another authority you proclaim yourself as the authority and then appeal to that. It really is not different than saying "My Uncle is a scientist and he is a very smart guy. Therefore he is right that vaccines are bad for you, and you don't know what you are talking about."

    You and I could quite easily use the same thing "I am a scientist and have read loads of papers for many years about how unicorns do actually live in my anus. Unless you have read these papers about these unicorns and understand that skill set involved you really don't know what you are talking about!"
    Nomenclature



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    I tend to take self-promotion with a pinch of salt. When some random person on the internet constantly cites themselves as being a scientific authority and how that somehow makes their arguments more credible given almost any scientific subject that sends alarm bells ringing.

    100 percent agree with you my friend.

    You and I could quite easily use the same thing "I am a scientist and have read loads of papers for many years about how unicorns do actually live in my anus. Unless you have read these papers about these unicorns and understand that skill set involved you really don't know what you are talking about!"

    Exactly. The internet is chockablock full of self-declared experts. Actual experts don't need to tell you they are experts because it is apparent in their arguments themselves. They are also generally smart enough to understand the fallacy of appealing to themselves as a form of authority. 

    ZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch