Just watch.

Olcmarcus

Under starters orders as white it’s 1. e4 hoping for 2. Nc3 and a pawn structure as such:

With black:

Against 1. e4 it’s 1. …a6

Against 1. d4 it’s 1. …b5 (intending to transpose to the above)

Against 1. c4 it’s 1. …e6 (possibly going for a Queen’s gambit declined Tartakower or aiming for a Dutch defence with a similar pawn structure as above.)

It’s more than enough to be getting on with. Theory is of no interest. I learn from myself only.

@a6crush

For a 1. …a6 start, that’s some swift victory.

The St. George’s Defence.

I played this on a speedy skytrain but how fast does it get with The St. George’s Defence? Watch and find out but understand I am not posting out of pride, I am posting out of amusement.

A decent opponent outplayed me and then I blundered but I did not lose for it was I who checkmated him, commentary is provided. I confess I am quite proud of this, especially since I saw his mating threat late on and won the game by averting it.

Olcmarcus

All you need to do is the watch the video on how I win this game, it won’t take long. Commentary is provided. I solemnly swear I played purely on instinct and never gave my moves any real thought.

Olcmarcus

Some little on-line pipsqueak beheld my St.George’s Defence and tried to mate me in the opening! Okay it’s suspicious from the outset, The St.George’s Defence that is. But it’s highly transpositional, and so making use of the spatial advantage granted is not as simple as it may seem. You are welcome to see how I got my game together in the middlegame and took him to pieces, played on a skytrain too I might add. Some sound middlegame play here by myself, none of it required any real thought.

https://lichess.org/JrrvYmu9MGbt

Enjoy.

Mark.J.McCready

Should we both warp and strictly adhere to Collingwood’s concept of what history is, we could argue that Bedfordshire was the stopover point of a Grandmaster smuggling ring during the cold war. With strict adherence to Collingwood, the claim is unchallengeable and irrefutable if and only if intentionality lies at the very heart of discourse thus of history too.

Ok so I have no evidence of the above claim concerning a smuggling ring in operation and neither has anyone else but that’s not the point. It’s unfactual but history, for Collingwood, is about establishing why people wanted the things they did, in particular what they had in mind. Since the governments played with their cards close to their chests always to resort to ‘the facts’ as Ranke would is rather pointless as you can never unearth them all anyway. A pertinent point is if we warp into the equation a dose of drunken deductive reasoning we could argue pre-conceived notions of my country’s strength in yesteryear doubled up as pretext for positional play left without discourse until now. Again its factuality or lack thereof remains inconsequential but also partially explaining why no Soviet or American Grandmaster showed their face in the Bedfordshire league despite its ‘locality’. Whether what found counts as identity-conferring is, perhaps, rather fanciful if not overtly playful academia. (Note to self@ Mark, if you recall you wrote an essay about Collingwood’s devotee Dray during your MA, and there was nothing fanciful or playful about that if you remember those long April days.)

Is it 2.30am already? Hmmm, abandon academic musing and conjecture for a game of blitz on-line then bed methinks… .

R.G.Collingwood. An academic whose works you really do need to read in order to understand him.

Olcmarcus

I am at present giving The Catalan a good look. It’s right for me but perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew there. Nonetheless I read the following:

A good book for club players.

In written chess theory, every once in a while you get that jaw hits floor feeling. Or in my case both eyebrows raised fully, then remained fully raised for some time they did. A sentence began with a phrase that related to a concept rather above and beyond my own head. I have attached the page, see if you can guess what the four word phrase is, shouldn’t be too hard…think it took about an hour for the eyebrows to return to their resting places.

Some concepts just too above my level

Mark

I feel as though I’ve been drugged and duped. Snatched from the off-line world and dragged into a murky on-line underworld courtesy of a dark descent full of twists and turns, the last of which knocked me unconscious.

Only if you fancy a game drop me a note. I had to join both https://lichess.org/ and https://www.chess.com/ and go under the username Olcmarcus in both…as you may know Olc is Gaelic for evil. But evil at chess I am not, just out of practice and tactically poorer than ever because concentration levels are at an all-time low.

If you want to play, you’ll probably win. I’m brilliant at blundering, I really am. Despite impressions gained by this site I genuinely am only a strong club player at best, and usually your average club player. Yes I’ve beaten an FM, yes I’ve drawn with an IM, yes I put up a solid defence for long enough against a GM rated 2620 once, but that aside -nothing.

Because quite a lot of people seem to like my site, I thought I’d reach out and we’d play. The choice is, of course, yours.

Marcus McCreadus