Javier

This is the discussion topic for article: Contacting the moderating team & reporting posts

This is the discussion topic for article: Viewing active topics and new posts

This is the discussion topic for article: Your Personal Messenger

This is the discussion topic for article: Your Control Panel (My Controls)

This is the discussion topic for article: Logging in and out

This is the discussion topic for article: Email Notification of new messages

I'm currently adding new links to the links section of this site. I've created a new section called "Country specific", for I didn't know where else to put all the Australian Links that I know about. My intention is to create links for other english speaking countries: US, UK, etc. but first things first. Anyway, one of the Australian Links that I've come across is the one from the Hakoah Chess Club in Sydney, where I played for many years. I even defended their first team on board 1 for several years in the Sydney Grade Matches. I was going to add a link to their site on my lists, but then I read this in their page: "...Australia's only professional and qualified Chess Coaching Business" I decided that NEVER will I add a link to my site that lies to people in such a way and tries to misslead them for their own benefit. I had never even heard of their business (modesty aside, I work in the field and sydney is my second home) and there are several professional and very well qualified chess coaching businesses in Australia. I understand that we live in a competitive world, but LIES will lead you nowhere. Not on this site, anyway.

I just had a quick look at your games on the game viewer and it seems to me that You got a good game out of the opening in the first one. I thought Ne2 was premature and you should have centralized your rooks first (prophilaxis, prevent ...d5!). The way you played it, your opponent was able to react n the center with ...d5, and exchanging on d5 made things difficult for you and there were several weaknesses in your position. ...Ng4 was in the air, even a move before your opponent played it. (23...Ng4!?.) After losing the exchange there's nothing you can do, it's completely lost. The reason why Crafty thinks 11...exd is because the way you played it, white has Qc6!, which seems to win a Pawn for no compensation. Bb5?? is a huge blunder and white's completely lost after that, but you made several innacurate moves (for example, you let white grab the c-file, why? activity!) and lost a pawn or 2 afterwards and white had some survival chances. Then you made some more errors and lost your d pawn and then it seemd to me that you didn't have a plan and white kept on pushing his a pawn and you ended up losing your rook. The Pawn ending was drawn but your opponent made some more mistakes, e6?? does look losing indeed. Too many errors by both sides in these games. Preventing blunders in your games is one of your priorities, I'd say. That depends on many things really: your availability, your goals, how much you really want to achieve those goals and how much you're willing to work, how soon you want to achieve those goals, etc. etc.

This is the discussion topic for article: Recovering lost or forgotten passwords

I have modified your post so that the games can be viewed on-line.

Excellent! that's indeed the correct answer.

You can't always learn something from every puzzle that you solve! This puzzle in particular is quite useful in helping to develop your imagination and I think it can also help to improve your calculation, but that's about it... Oh, and it feels great when you do solve it!

This is the discussion topic for article: How to log a lesson on ICC

This is the discussion topic for article: Community blog

This is the discussion topic for article: Calendar

This is the discussion topic for article: Download manager

This is the discussion topic for article: Topic options

This is the discussion topic for article: Member list

I'm glad you liked it, Luke!

This is the discussion topic for article: Cookies and cookie usage

Good post, Likeforests. I do not agree that it can be told whether someone's good or bad at pattern recognition just by answering one position, but I do agree that the diagram that you have attached is a very good example of pattern recognition. It's difficult to give a complete assessment of Mudchess' problem without seeing any of his games an how he blundered in those games. (it's a bit like giving a medical diagnose based on some symthoms alone). But I definitely don't think blunders can be explained in terms of ability. If I runner kept on falling down at every 100 m, 200m, 800m, 1000m, etc. but never fell down when running a marathon, I wouldn't be speaking in terms of "ability", I'd be thinking: why is he falling down in those races, what exactly is the reason?

Please note that in order to be able to vote, you must be registered and logged in. This quiz was released on October 7th, 2006. Click here to take the quiz now! If you've taken this quiz, please vote for it here. Suggestions welcome!

This is the discussion topic for article: Adding a diagram to a post

This is an extract of an article just published in chessbase. "There's still hope" There has been no official announcement yet, but our sources in Elista tell us that there will be no game played today. After the announcement by FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov (below) that the toilet issue has been decided in Kramnik's favour, and that the Appeals Committee has resigned, the issue remains how to resume the match. As negotiations continue the problem remains: will the fifth game be played or will Kramnik be forfeited. The latter option has become unlikely with the concessions made to Kramnik's demands, and especially with the resignation of the Appeals Committee, which is a tacit admission of having taken a false decision. On the other hand Kramnik's failure to appeare at the board when the game was started on Friday at 15:22h constitutes a technical breach that can be penalised. It is unlikely that Kramnik will agree to forfeit a game after the organisers have admitted that his demands, presented before game five, were correct, and have taken measures to fulfil them. Kramnik also has the full backing of his federation. The same applies to Veselin Topalov: the Bulgarian Chess Federation has formally backed his position, and from outside sources we hear that the Bulgarian President has personally urged Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov to stick by his guns. On the other hand Veselin Topalov has stated that he wants the match to continue: “At the moment I only know that there won’t be a game today. All the negotiations on my part are being led by my personal manager Silvio Danailov,” he said. Asked about his mood Topalov replied: “Absolutely normal. I am preparing for the next game. I strongly hope the match would continue. There won’t be any hindrances on my part”. So there is still hope...

Yes, I understand what you mean. But from my perspective, "blundering" in otb games and not doing it on correspondence games is mainy due to the fact that you have lots and lots of time when you play correspondence. But what is the issue here? the issue is that you blunder more often than players of your potential strength, and why does this happen? 99% of the time it is due to tactical ability. Perhaps if you set up some positions providing some examples we can deepen into the subject. (use our WIKI to learn how to add diagrams and games to a post) ( Use our WIKI to learn how to add diagrams and games to a post) Cheers!