Why are you writing chess articles when clearly you're an extremely weak beginner and know nothing at all about the game. You totally misunderstood what Kasparov said. There is no simple recipe for "when to attack the king". Chess is a complex game which requires concrete analysis and play.
You then mention some mindless "64% win rate" at lichess which is completely meaningless in the absence of knowing the level of your opponents. I used to perform simultaneous exhibitions at Chapter's bookstore. At the last one I played 27 games (12 at a time) and won 26 with one draw. That's something that is more impressive than a guy like you could even have wet dreams about, yet for me it's nothing and pales in comparison to winning a single game against a strong titled opponent, as the players participating in my simul are mostly weak beginners like you.
Thank you for your comment. I'm glad even strong and real (albeit anonymous) chess players read my Substack.
Perhaps they could read the articles more carefully, because nowhere I write that this is the only way to evaluate the appropriateness of attacking the king. I even write "of course, you have to consider the real problems on the board". I also write that if the conditions are met, "then you MUST look for ways to attack the king". Not that you must attack.
Thanks for appreciating my "weekly chess diary". As I'm sure you know as an experienced chess player, when you register on Lichess you get a provisional rating, which also says nothing at all. And according to it you are +- seeded against your opponents.
It is quite possible that with FIDE ELO of approximately 1720 I fall short of your qualities, but that does not prevent me from enjoying chess and liking to write about it.
I wish you good luck against strong and weak opponents and may you enjoy the game.
Rc7 looks like a useful move!
Yes but how does white win after Qd6? Nxe5 keeps up the pressure.
Why are you writing chess articles when clearly you're an extremely weak beginner and know nothing at all about the game. You totally misunderstood what Kasparov said. There is no simple recipe for "when to attack the king". Chess is a complex game which requires concrete analysis and play.
You then mention some mindless "64% win rate" at lichess which is completely meaningless in the absence of knowing the level of your opponents. I used to perform simultaneous exhibitions at Chapter's bookstore. At the last one I played 27 games (12 at a time) and won 26 with one draw. That's something that is more impressive than a guy like you could even have wet dreams about, yet for me it's nothing and pales in comparison to winning a single game against a strong titled opponent, as the players participating in my simul are mostly weak beginners like you.
Thank you for your comment. I'm glad even strong and real (albeit anonymous) chess players read my Substack.
Perhaps they could read the articles more carefully, because nowhere I write that this is the only way to evaluate the appropriateness of attacking the king. I even write "of course, you have to consider the real problems on the board". I also write that if the conditions are met, "then you MUST look for ways to attack the king". Not that you must attack.
Thanks for appreciating my "weekly chess diary". As I'm sure you know as an experienced chess player, when you register on Lichess you get a provisional rating, which also says nothing at all. And according to it you are +- seeded against your opponents.
It is quite possible that with FIDE ELO of approximately 1720 I fall short of your qualities, but that does not prevent me from enjoying chess and liking to write about it.
I wish you good luck against strong and weak opponents and may you enjoy the game.
Goodbye!