Dog Shit Chess 

Who cant agree with playing for fun? and its a great point. I think you so far putting to much value in these guess the elo kind of computer analysis. I have not investigated how they can evaluate the elo level of each game. But it seems very superfisial to me. How can they valuate that accurately? when some games they say you play like 900 elo and the next game you play like 2000. And even the elo changes related to the elo input from the player. I think they have this for entertainement. Its not a very valuable or usefull tool. But i guess its fun for many people. The thing is that computer evaluation is ofc a very very valuable tool to see your mistakes.. and most of them we can understand and after the comp show us them. We see, ahh why i did not see that.. or at least we see that there was a tactict that we could have spottet. While other times. The computer show crazy lines or sacrifices that its not easy to understand why that is even good even when you look at the computer line... in other words, some of the lines are computer lines that we on our level cant fully understand. So how does the computer it self understand, that when we dont see a line that it thinks its better, how does the computer understand that this is a computer line that is diffucult for humans? I dont know, perhaps they have some analysis of how many moves is it for us that we winn back material or something. I dont know. When you look at the puzzles in chess com page the elo is somethime quite off. i guess these puzzles are probably not 100% computer generated. There are probably somebody that checks them before they go live. I dont know. But basicaly the computer analysis is very important tool for analyse our games. basicaly for spotting tactics and possitional errors we have done. Additionaly the nature of the game will aslo infulence grately. Like you say here. when there is a game with a crazy gambit, the lines tend to get very complicated. And the accurasy is often considered very low even for better players unless they know the oppening very well and play a main line far into the game. While if one is playing a calm positional or strategic opening like capablanca did. Where you in every possition have many moves that are considered equal by computer. Then you will get a very high accurazy. Capablanka is considered one of the player in history that played with the highest accurasy. But the main reason is that he was a very strategical and possitional player. So he played mostly these lines where computer thinks "all" moves are ok/good/equal. I think when you do eval you should focus more on the moves it self or the plans that the comp are somehow suggesting. ass you say, chess is for fun, analysis is for learning chess. the best tool ever to learn or improve in chess is to learn from our own mistakes.. so post analysis of our own games might be more important than anything else.. At least it is one of the most omportant. .but ofc yes. we are playing for fun so lets not let analyis take the fun away :) I my self can get t oserious sometime. Tomorrow i play a near 2000 fide rated player over the board.. Hard stuff :P Fide rating is not the same as our rating in online chess.. its harder to get fide rating. My online rating is higher than the one on fide.

That was fun Ben and if we were bothered about the fish we would be playing something boring like the Petroff defence. A good win in the end mate.

The fish gets cheeky sometimes mate haha

I watch games and think "he should have moved here because it captures both bishops at once and forks the queen and the rook" or whatever. I'm less than half your rating, but I saw some of those moves you should have made, including attacking the knight and threatening mate. But when it's me out there, pawns actually defect to my opponent because I'm so sht.

If you want to have some fun with gambit I’ll recommend Busch Gass gambit. The thing with Rousseau gambit is that d3 c3 kinds of taking away all the fun (even tho it’s not the best move) and you could get hit with gambits yourself before you get to play yours. With the Busch Gass gambit you can always force the game to be very sharp even if your opponent plays c3. If you decide to play it however, do know in advance that the fish will hates you and thinks you’re an idiot for playing it. It also have a lot of variation which makes it harder to learn than the Rousseau but think of that as a trade of for not having to deal with Ponziani, Scotch or Ruy Lopez since you are bringing them out of book on move 2.

I think it was Bobby Fischer who said 'Chess is a draw unless you play shit'