|
On January 10 2012 08:45 RevTiberius wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I64bH.jpg) For a long time I’ve been wanting to write something about chess and SC2, and here we go. I’m not very good at SC2, but a fairly good chess player, and I find the frequent comparisons between chess and SC2 here on the strategy forums utterly misguided. In the following sections I will explain why. The following is neither complete nor necessarily coherent. It is, however, a compelling argument why chess and SC2 are two very different games and shouldn’t be compared lightly. First a little bit about myself. I’m a top 8 platinum player who only plays SC2 casually and spends most of his time on BattleNet managing Team Revoki rather than developing his own SC2 skills. At the same time however, I’m a 2300 ELO chess player and I do play regularly over the board as well as online. Ownership/Economics: SC2 is owned by Blizzard. Blizzard’s main objective is to make money. All other considerations are subordinate to the profitability of the Starcraft franchise. At the same time, Blizzard has total control over SC2. The company controls access to BN and can change rules and balancing of the game whenever it chooses. Chess, on the other hand, is more or less in the public domain and not controlled by a single entity. The World Chess Federation does exist, but it is a non-profit organization, purely administrative, and does not nearly exercise as much control over chess as Blizzard does over SC2. Rules/Patches: In SC2, patches occur frequently and change the dynamics quite a bit. As discussed in the previous section, these patches occur solely at Blizzard’s discretion, and the company’s reasoning for them is never entirely public. Chess on the other hand has not undergone any major rule changes in many decades if not centuries with the exception of adjustments around time control and the conditions under which a draw can be agreed upon. But the basic mechanics of the game have been untouched for a very long time. Cheese: In SC2, cheese is based on the fact that the two players do not have good vision of each other, especially early on. Which is why sometimes canon rushes, 6-pools and other cheese is successful. In chess, however, you always have perfect vision of your opponent’s actions. Even if you don’t always understand what he’s doing, at least you always know what he is up to. Therefore, cheese does not exist in chess. And if you consider how many SC2 games – especially in the lower leagues – are decided by successful or unsuccessful cheese, it becomes clear that the nonexistence of cheese in chess makes for quite different game dynamics. Strategy: My main point is that chess and SC2 are two very different games indeed. Sometimes here in the forums I see comparisons being drawn between chess and SC2 strategy, but to me these comparisons never really make much sense. SC2 – for better or for worse – is a game where you can get very far as long as you have proper mechanics. As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league, i.e. top 0.2% of the entire SC2 community. Yes, strategy, and knowledge about timings, counters, game sense, etc. also matter, especially at pro gamer level, but not nearly as much as pure mechanics. Chess on the other hand is ENTIRELY different. Leaving aside blitz and bullet chess (two variants I am especially fond of :D), mechanics play no part at all. A game of chess is based primarily on the players’ knowledge of chess strategy and their ability to calculate variations, both of which are purely intellectual skills. Experience: Because SC2 is based so much on mechanics rather than intellectual skill and experience, it can be learned relatively quickly as long as the player has good reflexes. Some of the pro gamers in the SC2 circuit have been playing RTS games for a relatively short period of time. Chess, on the other hand, is much harder to learn and much much harder to develop to highest levels. Even prodigies need at the very least 10 years of instruction, training and experience before they stand a chance vs. the world’s best players. Thus, it is not surprising that currently there is a significant number of leading chess grandmasters – including the current world champion and his predecessors – age 30 and above. Thus, and this is my conclusion, be weary of any man who keeps a big farm (Brick Top reference) and any SC2 player who tries to make a point using chess comparisons… PS: I’m also active on several chess servers, and if any of you would like a game (blitz or bullet preferred) drop me a line!
I have a hard time taking your comparison seriously since, by your own admission, you only play one of the games at a high level. I think you should put this write-up on the back burner until your skill in Starcraft match your skill level in Chess.
|
Playing SC2 with any degree of skill takes intelligence. Your post comparing SC2 and Chess is invalid.
The mechanics of chess are not movement-based (your hands, etc) but with your memory of games, etc. The strategy, and so forth. The mechanics of SC2 require you to have good hand-eye coordination and hand speed. Different mechanics. No need to insult SC2 players' intelligence because you aren't as good at it as many, while you're clearly pretty good at Chess.
|
On January 10 2012 14:33 Hossinaut wrote:
Playing SC2 with any degree of skill takes intelligence. Your post comparing SC2 and Chess is invalid.
The mechanics of chess are not movement-based (your hands, etc) but with your memory of games, etc. The strategy, and so forth. The mechanics of SC2 require you to have good hand-eye coordination and hand speed. Different mechanics. No need to insult SC2 players' intelligence because you aren't as good at it as many, while you're clearly pretty good at Chess.
My post was not meant as an insult of SC2 players. After all, I am one myself. And a lot of what I was saying has nothing to do with my own skill level at SC2. Most of the original comments were general in nature and do not require me to be an SC2 grandmaster.
And you misunderstood my original point. I am saying that comparisons between chess and SC2 ARE invalid. And yet, I find them quite frequently in the strategy section of TL, for example. I'm merely saying that from my point of view as a very strong chess player, these comparisons do not make sense.
|
As Incontrol would say, "YOU DONE GOOFED!" For you not to understand why some people here get upset when you say something critical of SC2 on their main platform SC2 forum is mind boggling. Especially when you're biased against SC2 like you were. No offense but I think you should manage a chess team rather than a SC2 one since you seem to know far more about that game. My guess tells me though that just like Blizzard that you so graciously pointed out, you know where the money lies. Perhaps you should refrain from making so many outlandish statements such as, "As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league" would be a better image for you if you are here for the long haul. The post may not have been meant as an insult but it was. I think the best response would be to apologize rather than justify.
I think I shall create a blog as well. Managing the Managers, by Soren.
|
On January 10 2012 17:18 Sorenlol wrote:
As Incontrol would say, "YOU DONE GOOFED!" For you not to understand why some people here get upset when you say something critical of SC2 on their main platform SC2 forum is mind boggling. Especially when you're biased against SC2 like you were. No offense but I think you should manage a chess team rather than a SC2 one since you seem to know far more about that game. My guess tells me though that just like Blizzard that you so graciously pointed out, you know where the money lies. Perhaps you should refrain from making so many outlandish statements such as, "As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league" would be a better image for you if you are here for the long haul. The post may not have been meant as an insult but it was. I think the best response would be to apologize rather than justify.
I think I shall create a blog as well. Managing the Managers, by Soren.
This will be my final response on this matter.
I'm afraid I don't know what I should apologize for. Only some of the responses to my post included personal attacks against me. I was merely making a point. And it doesn't help that some people seem to take any opportunity they can get to get butthurt.
My observation that mechanics alone is enough to take you to master league is based on many such claims by master league players and GMs.
Blizzard is a company like any other. They want to make money. The fact that they make a product all of us here enjoy does not make it a "better" company as some of you seem to imply.
And - quite obviously - my views on chess and SC2 have nothing to do with my ability to manage a team. I hear no complaints from my players. But making such ridiculous claims such as me being better off managing a chess team makes it a lot easier for me to disregard your entire "argument" if there ever was one.
Seriously guys, even if you disagree with me, what's all this name calling?
|
On January 10 2012 17:44 RevTiberius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 17:18 Sorenlol wrote:
As Incontrol would say, "YOU DONE GOOFED!" For you not to understand why some people here get upset when you say something critical of SC2 on their main platform SC2 forum is mind boggling. Especially when you're biased against SC2 like you were. No offense but I think you should manage a chess team rather than a SC2 one since you seem to know far more about that game. My guess tells me though that just like Blizzard that you so graciously pointed out, you know where the money lies. Perhaps you should refrain from making so many outlandish statements such as, "As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league" would be a better image for you if you are here for the long haul. The post may not have been meant as an insult but it was. I think the best response would be to apologize rather than justify.
I think I shall create a blog as well. Managing the Managers, by Soren.
This will be my final response on this matter. I'm afraid I don't know what I should apologize for. Only some of the responses to my post included personal attacks against me. I was merely making a point. And it doesn't help that some people seem to take any opportunity they can get to get butthurt. My observation that mechanics alone is enough to take you to master league is based on many such claims by master league players and GMs. Blizzard is a company like any other. They want to make money. The fact that they make a product all of us here enjoy does not make it a "better" company as some of you seem to imply. And - quite obviously - my views on chess and SC2 have nothing to do with my ability to manage a team. I hear no complaints from my players. But making such ridiculous claims such as me being better off managing a chess team makes it a lot easier for me to disregard your entire "argument" if there ever was one. Seriously guys, even if you disagree with me, what's all this name calling?
Don't end with a question if this your final response.
If you don't know what you should apologize for then there really is no point. No one is attacking you. If anyone is getting "butt hurt" it seems like it's you.
Your observation is someone elses observation.
No one's implying that Blizzard isn't like any other company in regard to making money. For you to say that's the only thing they care about though is where the consensus think is silly.
I think being a good manager would be to respect the players and the game. Alongside of course those awesome daily duties of paperwork handling and such. I just couldn't have you as my manager if I knew you thought of me as someone who just pushes keys on a keyboard quickly.If I ever had an argument it would be that I don't think it was a ridiculous claim of mine that you would be an awesome chess manager. You seem to have all the necessary tools I've outlined in that game.
No one's calling you bigfoot, smalltoe or even Megan Fox's thumb toes. We are just stating our opinions which we are aloud to do, especially in a forum. I wouldn't get so upset about that. Best of luck with the managing and player road you are on. It's time I get back to my rigorous practice session of button smashing, quick keyboard moves.
|
On January 10 2012 19:39 Sorenlol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 17:44 RevTiberius wrote:On January 10 2012 17:18 Sorenlol wrote:
As Incontrol would say, "YOU DONE GOOFED!" For you not to understand why some people here get upset when you say something critical of SC2 on their main platform SC2 forum is mind boggling. Especially when you're biased against SC2 like you were. No offense but I think you should manage a chess team rather than a SC2 one since you seem to know far more about that game. My guess tells me though that just like Blizzard that you so graciously pointed out, you know where the money lies. Perhaps you should refrain from making so many outlandish statements such as, "As long as a player can push the keys on his keyboard quickly, he is guaranteed to make master league" would be a better image for you if you are here for the long haul. The post may not have been meant as an insult but it was. I think the best response would be to apologize rather than justify.
I think I shall create a blog as well. Managing the Managers, by Soren.
This will be my final response on this matter. I'm afraid I don't know what I should apologize for. Only some of the responses to my post included personal attacks against me. I was merely making a point. And it doesn't help that some people seem to take any opportunity they can get to get butthurt. My observation that mechanics alone is enough to take you to master league is based on many such claims by master league players and GMs. Blizzard is a company like any other. They want to make money. The fact that they make a product all of us here enjoy does not make it a "better" company as some of you seem to imply. And - quite obviously - my views on chess and SC2 have nothing to do with my ability to manage a team. I hear no complaints from my players. But making such ridiculous claims such as me being better off managing a chess team makes it a lot easier for me to disregard your entire "argument" if there ever was one. Seriously guys, even if you disagree with me, what's all this name calling? Don't end with a question if this your final response. If you don't know what you should apologize for then there really is no point. No one is attacking you. If anyone is getting "butt hurt" it seems like it's you. Your observation is someone elses observation. No one's implying that Blizzard isn't like any other company in regard to making money. For you to say that's the only thing they care about though is where the consensus think is silly. I think being a good manager would be to respect the players and the game. Alongside of course those awesome daily duties of paperwork handling and such. I just couldn't have you as my manager if I knew you thought of me as someone who just pushes keys on a keyboard quickly.If I ever had an argument it would be that I don't think it was a ridiculous claim of mine that you would be an awesome chess manager. You seem to have all the necessary tools I've outlined in that game. No one's calling you bigfoot, smalltoe or even Megan Fox's thumb toes. We are just stating our opinions which we are aloud to do, especially in a forum. I wouldn't get so upset about that. Best of luck with the managing and player road you are on. It's time I get back to my rigorous practice session of button smashing, quick keyboard moves.
You are deliberately misrepresenting my original post. As such, there is no point arguing with you.
|
|
|
Mechanics are more than pressing buttons quickly on the keyboard.
This is where you don't understand and where you overstep your bounds.
|
Ok this is a question I have been struggling with for a long time:
Are team games good or bad for my 1v1 skills?
I think the answer is not easy, there are good arguments for both sides, and I change my mind on this about twice a year…
PROs (team games are good):
Team games still allow me to work on my mechanics. I still have to make SCVs, execute a build order effectively, keep an eye on the mini map, micro my units, manage my base/economy, APM etc.
I also find team games a lot more relaxing and – due to Skype – a lot more social than simply laddering 1v1 on my own. I need and greatly enjoy team games in order to “recover” from nerve wrecking 1v1s.
And sometimes when I play with allies who are much better than myself, I actually learn something about build orders or micro or stuff like that.
CONs (team games are bad):
On the other hand, team games confront me with maps and match ups and army compositions that I never encounter in 1v1. Even though it is still practice for my mechanics, I still think sometimes that I’m getting sidetracked.
When I look only at how I play, I seem to be a little more focused in 1v1s. In team games, maybe because there is so much more going on at the same time, I find it much harder to focus on what I should be doing. Sometimes it seems to me I play team games too much like I was observing the game, not participating in it. And that is just a bad habit that I shouldn’t allow to continue.
And as much as I enjoy talking to my allies on Skype, it is a distraction that's not there when I play 1v1.
Also, my time for SC2 is limited, and the more I play team games the less time I have to play 1v1.
These are some of my thoughts around the pros and cons of team games. Am I missing something important? I would appreciate any suggestions about how to get the most out of team games for 1v1 game.
So I guess my conclusion so far is this: 1v1s are much more important for me on my quest to become a better player, but team games are more fun.
|
On January 14 2012 09:47 RevTiberius wrote:
Ok this is a question I have been struggling with for a long time:
Are team games good or bad for my 1v1 skills?
I think the answer is not easy, there are good arguments for both sides, and I change my mind on this about twice a year…
PROs (team games are good):
Team games still allow me to work on my mechanics. I still have to make SCVs, execute a build order effectively, keep an eye on the mini map, micro my units, manage my base/economy, APM etc.
I also find team games a lot more relaxing and – due to Skype – a lot more social than simply laddering 1v1 on my own. I need and greatly enjoy team games in order to “recover” from nerve wrecking 1v1s.
And sometimes when I play with allies who are much better than myself, I actually learn something about build orders or micro or stuff like that.
CONs (team games are bad):
On the other hand, team games confront me with maps and match ups and army compositions that I never encounter in 1v1. Even though it is still practice for my mechanics, I still think sometimes that I’m getting sidetracked.
When I look only at how I play, I seem to be a little more focused in 1v1s. In team games, maybe because there is so much more going on at the same time, I find it much harder to focus on what I should be doing. Sometimes it seems to me I play team games too much like I was observing the game, not participating in it. And that is just a bad habit that I shouldn’t allow to continue.
And as much as I enjoy talking to my allies on Skype, it is a distraction that's not there when I play 1v1.
Also, my time for SC2 is limited, and the more I play team games the less time I have to play 1v1.
These are some of my thoughts around the pros and cons of team games. Am I missing something important? I would appreciate any suggestions about how to get the most out of team games for 1v1 game.
So I guess my conclusion so far is this: 1v1s are much more important for me on my quest to become a better player, but team games are more fun.
Honestly, team games are too lax and unrealistic to gain much from. You can be extremely unskilled and have a great partner who you lean on during team games which wrongfully may teach you responses in 1v1. Team games also bring about overconfidence (when winning) and may lead yourself into not enjoying 1v1s as much as 2v2s which will end up with a scenario that's something like this: 2 guys call each other up to play 2v2s and both 6pool and laugh when they win. If you want to improve, stick to 1v1s. How often do you see players who have 200+ games in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 and still in bronze/silver/gold. All the time. But hey, if you just play this game for teh lols, knock yourself out with team games 
|
On January 14 2012 09:47 RevTiberius wrote:
Ok this is a question I have been struggling with for a long time:
Are team games good or bad for my 1v1 skills?
I think the answer is not easy, there are good arguments for both sides, and I change my mind on this about twice a year…
PROs (team games are good):
Team games still allow me to work on my mechanics. I still have to make SCVs, execute a build order effectively, keep an eye on the mini map, micro my units, manage my base/economy, APM etc.
I also find team games a lot more relaxing and – due to Skype – a lot more social than simply laddering 1v1 on my own. I need and greatly enjoy team games in order to “recover” from nerve wrecking 1v1s.
And sometimes when I play with allies who are much better than myself, I actually learn something about build orders or micro or stuff like that.
CONs (team games are bad):
On the other hand, team games confront me with maps and match ups and army compositions that I never encounter in 1v1. Even though it is still practice for my mechanics, I still think sometimes that I’m getting sidetracked.
When I look only at how I play, I seem to be a little more focused in 1v1s. In team games, maybe because there is so much more going on at the same time, I find it much harder to focus on what I should be doing. Sometimes it seems to me I play team games too much like I was observing the game, not participating in it. And that is just a bad habit that I shouldn’t allow to continue.
And as much as I enjoy talking to my allies on Skype, it is a distraction that's not there when I play 1v1.
Also, my time for SC2 is limited, and the more I play team games the less time I have to play 1v1.
These are some of my thoughts around the pros and cons of team games. Am I missing something important? I would appreciate any suggestions about how to get the most out of team games for 1v1 game.
So I guess my conclusion so far is this: 1v1s are much more important for me on my quest to become a better player, but team games are more fun.
There's a lot you're not going to learn from team games. But mechanics are something that you can learn easily in team games. To work on mechanics, I initially just played against the A.I., which I found out quickly was a horrible decision. On the other hand, while you can't get a good feel for most timings/unit compositions that you would need in 1v1, you can learn a lot about how your race plays out. For instance, I was a plat zerg who wanted to see if I wanted to switch to terran, and to see how the differences in how producing and managing structures/expos worked I played 3v3s, which allowed me to start off on a much more solid foot than if I had just started 1v1ing against other plats as terran.
|
On January 14 2012 09:47 RevTiberius wrote:
Ok this is a question I have been struggling with for a long time:
Are team games good or bad for my 1v1 skills?
I think the answer is not easy, there are good arguments for both sides, and I change my mind on this about twice a year…
PROs (team games are good):
Team games still allow me to work on my mechanics. I still have to make SCVs, execute a build order effectively, keep an eye on the mini map, micro my units, manage my base/economy, APM etc.
I also find team games a lot more relaxing and – due to Skype – a lot more social than simply laddering 1v1 on my own. I need and greatly enjoy team games in order to “recover” from nerve wrecking 1v1s.
And sometimes when I play with allies who are much better than myself, I actually learn something about build orders or micro or stuff like that.
CONs (team games are bad):
On the other hand, team games confront me with maps and match ups and army compositions that I never encounter in 1v1. Even though it is still practice for my mechanics, I still think sometimes that I’m getting sidetracked.
When I look only at how I play, I seem to be a little more focused in 1v1s. In team games, maybe because there is so much more going on at the same time, I find it much harder to focus on what I should be doing. Sometimes it seems to me I play team games too much like I was observing the game, not participating in it. And that is just a bad habit that I shouldn’t allow to continue.
And as much as I enjoy talking to my allies on Skype, it is a distraction that's not there when I play 1v1.
Also, my time for SC2 is limited, and the more I play team games the less time I have to play 1v1.
These are some of my thoughts around the pros and cons of team games. Am I missing something important? I would appreciate any suggestions about how to get the most out of team games for 1v1 game.
So I guess my conclusion so far is this: 1v1s are much more important for me on my quest to become a better player, but team games are more fun.
I agree with the conclusion, i mainly play team games with my mates for fun (we dont cheese :O) they dont help with with much tatictes due, most build orders just not working in 1v1 or vice versa. but one thing i have noticed is that it greatly improves your map awarness if you want to get good. as with 1v1 both you and the other guy can only do so much, but in 2v2 or 3v3 you some time have to face drops and harrashment going from mainly diffrent directions. plus you also have to keep a eye on your allies to see what tech they are going and when to expand. so this can improve some core game mechanices alot faster than playing 1v1 as you just dont get pushed much in these areas till later on.
dimon 2v2, plat 1v1 player
(sorry for all grammar and speeling mistakes)
|
Thanks for the feedback guys. I appreciate it. I'll follow up with another post on this topic sooner or later!
|
After a long break - Christmas and New Years - I'll finally resume my quest for Diamond shortly. I'm wondering whether my 4 week hiatus could be a chance to break with some bad old habits and incorporate some of the learnings that I have chronicled here in this blog into my game.
In other news, I find it a bit irritating how pompous some SC2 personalities have become and how much they always try to put themselves in the limelight. This is a blog so I will state my opinion here clearly: I never liked Husky's casting and all the fake excitement. But lately I completely stopped watching him because he seems too obsessed with turning himself into some sort of celebrity.
The issue at hand here: I don't like the idea of combining one's opposition to SOPA (a very serious issue indeed) with a cry for more fame on IMDB...
I took the following screen shot from Husky's Facebook page. I am TiberiusVcK there. I was glad to see that quite a few people seemed to agree with my point of view.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nFw1X.jpg)
|
On January 10 2012 14:33 Hossinaut wrote:
Playing SC2 with any degree of skill takes intelligence. Your post comparing SC2 and Chess is invalid.
The mechanics of chess are not movement-based (your hands, etc) but with your memory of games, etc. The strategy, and so forth. The mechanics of SC2 require you to have good hand-eye coordination and hand speed. Different mechanics. No need to insult SC2 players' intelligence because you aren't as good at it as many, while you're clearly pretty good at Chess.
Memory and thinking are not mechanics.
I never liked Husky, ever since I watched some of his casts in Brood War.
|
Yeah Husky is not a not a good caster at all. He doesn't analyze enough and basically just tells you what's already obvious anyway. I also don't like his fake excitement.
In my opinion Day9 is better because it's easier to take something away from his casts that helps me become a better player, but I find his overall style too goofy. When I watch SC2 streams, I don't want comedy, I want simple and straightforward (almost "boring") SC2 commentary and analysis.
I also don't want to hear what their political views are, how the weather is, what they had for breakfast, or which movie they saw last night... In any given SC2 game there is so much to comment on that even a caster who's focused 100% on the game is bound to miss something here and there. Dragging in irrelevant stuff from the caster's personal life is not only very narcissistic, but makes this a lot worse. I like the casters I mentioned in the first post of this thread because they abstain from such irritating behaviour.
In other news, in addition to my earlier remarks on chess I want to add that I play on chess.com from time to time. Feel free to add me there to play some games together.
I don't like chess.com too much, and I usually play on Chessbase, but I am currently not active enough so I don't want to spend the money on an account there. Chess.com is not a very good site, but at least it's free.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KVdT8.jpg)
|
I had an account on ICC for many a year. Then I went inactive for a while, and it got deleted. How tragic. :-/
|
How useful is 1v1 practice with people who are much better than myself? That’s a question I often ask myself. As part of Team Revoki I have fairly good access to a wide variety of excellent practice partners. Most players on the team are either high master league players or GMs. And when I don’t feel like laddering I sometimes play practice matches with my teammates.
And while I’m very grateful to have such great players available, I’m never really sure whether such games really help me:
First of all of course I lose almost 100% of these games, unless I cheese or something else unexpected happens. Losing almost every game would not be a problem in itself (of course a high platinum player does not normally beat GMs), however I lose these games mainly because my practice partners have far superior mechanics, and because they use different builds to what I am used to in platinum league. And I’m not sure how much I can learn from losses that were caused mainly by a huge difference in APM
On the other hand, however, I seem to be more focused when I play someone whom I know to be better than myself. For some reason my APM is a little higher and I try a little harder.
I’m a pretty strong chess player, and it’s the same when I play chess. I play my best games when I’m playing someone who is better than me, but not so much better that I don’t stand a chance. Similarly, I seem to play my best SC2 games in practice matches vs. diamond players. But considering that there’s quite a skill gap between diamond league players and my team mates at the upper end of master league, it seems that beating my teammates is too ambitious a goal considering my current skill level.
So yeah. Basically I still haven’t made up my mind about the initial question. I’ll keep on playing my team mates for fun when I don’t feel like laddering or have no bonus pool left. For example, we have a weekly KOTH that I’ll start participating in so I’ll keep playing games with far better players under competitive conditions.
But I suspect that I get the most useful learnings from games against players approximately at my level. My teammates are probably best utilized by helping me analyze replays.
As always, comments by my readers are highly appreciated.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fb5ip.jpg)
|
On January 22 2012 17:36 GolemMadness wrote:
I had an account on ICC for many a year. Then I went inactive for a while, and it got deleted. How tragic. :-/
Ah ICC... I used to play on Chessbase because I've been using their software for many years. But currently I'm only playing on Chess.com because it's free and I am not active enough to play on any of the commercial sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
