As I read more and more posts about games played, I'm seeing the phrase "Here's a game I shouldn't have won..." a lot.

Why do a lot of chess players (yes, yes...myself included!!!) assume that all must go perfectly well for a game to be considered a decent win?  I would rather see a player overcome a bad situation than just trounce the other side!  (Don't get me wrong-there's a lot to learn from a sound beating...)

I'm just curious how many of my fellow chess enthusiasts are that hard on themselves as far as being there own critic?  

I guess obviously if I've blundered badly and it ended up costing me the game, then that sucks and it's pretty easy to get a little upset with myself. But if I just got outplayed, and lost a hard battle, then I dont get too down about it. I usually have had fun playing the game.

i always feel as if either the guy is way better than me or way worse. its hard to find a GOOD game. i hardly ever feel that ive had a "decent game".. they are just hard to come by, won or lost.  

If I feel that I didn't play as well as I could have, I'm really hard on myself.  Well,  for about 10 minutes, then I forget about it.  If I lost a hard-fought game, I'm fine with it, especially if that person is above me (in rating). 

excalibur8 wrote: cmh0114 wrote: If I feel that I didn't play as well as I could have, I'm really hard on myself.  Well,  for about 10 minutes, then I forget about it.  If I lost a hard-fought game, I'm fine with it, especially if that person is above me (in rating). 

---

Don't let that worry you, a high rating is nice and you feel better, but if you enjoy the game - what the hell else matters.

---

 WINNING!!!!!

It isn't low self esteem that has people pointing out games they shouldn't have won. I think many times they are games won because the opponent blundered while being ahead; There was hardly any skill involved to create the blunder.

Sunshiny wrote: It isn't low self esteem that has people pointing out games they shouldn't have won. I think many times they are games won because the opponent blundered while being ahead; There was hardly any skill involved to create the blunder.

---

Exactly.

But you often see people say something like "I didn't deserve to win." Really? Who did deserve to win, the guy who blundered away his advantage? Winning at chess isn't about getting an advantage, it's about checkmate. You don't "deserve to win" just because you get an advantage, you deserve to win if you can convert your advantage to checkmate. If you blunder before then, you don't deserve anything.

Sunshiny wrote: It isn't low self esteem that has people pointing out games they shouldn't have won. I think many times they are games won because the opponent blundered while being ahead; There was hardly any skill involved to create the blunder.

---

 First, I appreciate everyone's comments...

This quote from Sunshiny I believe is an example of how computer chess may have taken its toll on the human side of playing.

 

Blunders are part of the game...or any game!  A good strategy is recognizing these mistakes and taking advantage of them!  Since computers don't make too many errors, we assume that the point of chess is more one-sided, and that our tactics and ours alone will win the game.

 This is why chess.com is valuable.  There is probably a whole host of players who may never have played against another living being!

Loomis> Who did deserve to win, the guy who blundered away his advantage?

 

Sometimes, I feel neither player deserves the win.

Loomis wrote: But you often see people say something like "I didn't deserve to win." Really? Who did deserve to win, the guy who blundered away his advantage? Winning at chess isn't about getting an advantage, it's about checkmate. You don't "deserve to win" just because you get an advantage, you deserve to win if you can convert your advantage to checkmate. If you blunder before then, you don't deserve anything.

---

Excellent point... to get the point, no matter how far ahead you are, you can't blunder an advantage and if you do, you certainly didn't deserve to win... I've been in a lot of games where I or my opponent have gotten an advantage and stopped thinking and just coasted along, only to get burned.  Keeping focus until the final move is an essential skill in chess, like tactics or strategy and losing a won game can be just as instructive. 

When i lose, it's only because i felt sorry for my opponent, and let them win to boost their self-esteem, there are a lot of players out there who have benefited from my charitable deeds, when its impossible for them to win, ie i'm near checkmating them, i tend to timeout instead

I get quite frustrated with myself when I make a mistake that gives my opponent such a significant advantage that there is all but no way to recover (e.g. lose the Queen because of poor planning).  But ther's no point in holding on to that disappointment since hopefully it teaches me something going forward.  

On the other side, I take no pleasure in winning a game because my opponent made a serious blunder that allowed me to take the advantage.

beer wrote:

On the other side, I take no pleasure in winning a game because my opponent made a serious blunder that allowed me to take the advantage.

---

 Yeah, I prefer my opponent to make small strategic errors so that I can demonstrate my genius in exploiting them. How else will my greatness as a chess player be recognized?

likesforests wrote:

Loomis> Who did deserve to win, the guy who blundered away his advantage?

 

Sometimes, I feel neither player deserves the win.

---

 Here is another hypothetical for you. Let's say Player A makes an unsound sacrifice. Player B plays very well the next 6-10 moves maintaining an advantage until finally missing a combination in the complications allowing Player A to win.

 

Anyone deserving of the win there? 

Loomis wrote: But you often see people say something like "I didn't deserve to win." Really? Who did deserve to win, the guy who blundered away his advantage? Winning at chess isn't about getting an advantage, it's about checkmate. You don't "deserve to win" just because you get an advantage, you deserve to win if you can convert your advantage to checkmate. If you blunder before then, you don't deserve anything.

---

 spot on loomis :o)

Loomis> Anyone deserving of the win there? 

 

That's tricky. GMs sometimes play openings that they know to be unsound, if they believe their opponent won't be able to refute them over the board. Heck, Tal's sacrifices weren't always sound. Yes, Player A deserves to win if Player B can't see through the subterfuge and Player A has the technique to convert.

But, when both sides make obvious blunders, I don't feel either side "deserves" to win. For example, I remember a game where two GMs overlooked a mate-in-two!

Bottom line is that if I think I played good and won, then I will be satisfied with the win.

Anything else falls short.

I think when people say they did not "deserve" a win, there basicly saying that they think they played bad, thats all.

That seems nice until I realize that I play poorly in every single game. The only exception here is when my opponent makes mistakes so clear that I know for sure how to exploit them. We've already seen people who say that there is no satisfaction in winning this way.

I am notoriously hard on myself when it comes to chess.  I try to remember that I'm only just starting out and that mistakes will be made.  That doesn't always work however.