Titled Tuesday is LIVE with IM Danny Rensch on Twitch and ChessTV! Open to ALL MEMBERS! Click here to watch!
Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Common <1300 Profound Insights


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #121

    Yereslov

    mendez1996 wrote:

    dont argue with Yereslov, just another >1300 scrub who thinks he's so bvdass becuase he occasionaly draws a 1500's lol kids a joke

    "Occasionaly"?

    I have gone to the club the five past weeks. Result: Two wins (1500's), One draw (1670), one loss (1900+), and another loss this week (1650).

    Barely the result of luck. And what does my rating have to do with the argument? Argue against the argument itself. Attacking me based on my rating is by definition a logical fallacy.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #122

    Yereslov

    SmyslovFan wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    Kudos to GambitE! 

    You have created a thread that not only mocks trolls, but attracts them too! 

    How am I trolling? Do explain. You overuse the word without actually getting the meaning.

    Yet somehow, you knew that I was referring to you. Cool, eh?

    I'm not exactly sure how that implies anything. "Troll" is a commonly used word on the internet.

    You seem to think that the logical implication is that I am a troll simply because I assume that you mean me.

    Can you not sense what's wrong with that type of argument?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #123

    Irontiger

    Yereslov wrote:

    1. You are a tad too weak to reach the endgame against Anand.

    2. It was an ad hominem. It is illogical to assume that my rating is an indication of my knowledge or strength. In an argument you do not attack your opponents status, but his arguments themselves (as they are). I suggest you take a critical thinking class.

    3. That was not the obvious continuation, and I never implied it. 

    4. There is a contradiction. In fact, some players get a higher rating when they play worse. In reality, ratings tend to be inaccurate, unless the difference is at least 500-1000 points.

    1. If you were better at chess, you would know any decent player can get to a endgame if it is his only objective. Yes, the endgame will be lost, but he won't be checkmated with more than half the pieces on the board. You would also know that more than half of the real games (ie when you try to win, not to last the longest possible) between players >2000 are decided in the endgame.

    2. Oh, another avatar of "rating do not measure strength". I suggest you take a chess class (see 4. too).

    3. Pardon us for having brains. (How that, I just implied you have none ? I never wrote it !)

    4."Ratings tend to be inaccurate [and meaningless under a 500 point difference]" : yet, somehow, they are used by FIDE and other federations for access list to tournaments etc., and somehow, they manage to get paired players of similar strength even when the width of a rating category is 200. Strange, huh ? Probably it's just a big lucky streak that lasted for fifty years. How happy I am that this streak continued in all tournaments I participated in !

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #124

    _36darshan--

    GambitExtraordinaire wrote:


    Dear Chess.com Forums

    I am a >1300 player and I have a profound insight into the game of chess that I absolutely must share with the world! I copyrighted it though because it's MINE.

    In advance, I would like to completely disagree with all higher rated players who don't praise my finding. I would also like to insult their mothers.

    My insight is one of the following!


    The rules annoy me and need to be changed I have invented the best opening EVER I have discovered that chess is too easy/difficult and the rules need to be changed to fix this
    I have discovered a universal one-stop method of winning chess Chess is too different frin other games like World of War Craft, and thus the rules need to be changed I have a very impressive game to show everybody that should shed some light on the beautiful complexities of Chess. Ignore the queen my oponent dropped on move 6. The players on chess.com don't behave properly and the rules of chess etiquette should be changed The well known and respected [insert name here] opening played by hundreds of GMs for decades and decades is flawed! It's so bad! I beat it with this strategy! Ignore the mate my opponent missed on move 7
    CARLSEN IS TEH BEST and on a side note, I've been thinking this for a while but... The rules need to be changed.

     

    What are your thoughts? Remember, unless you praise my findings as holy baby jesus, you are dead to me. DEAD TO ME.

     


    I would also like to insult their mothers.

    LOL!


Back to Top

Post your reply: