Hey Ravendon, here's a game I played recently. I know you're already one of the smartest chess players around, but it was a game where I was down several points by move 7. My opponent started telling me I should resign, or 'walk' much like you did in our game... I came back and showed him a thing or two about why it's more important to think about the game while you're playing instead of heckling your opponent.
All you do is cheat yourself and your opponent of an enjoyable game when you start in about who should resign and when they should do it.
Please remember that chess is a game. It's very intuitive, but it's still a game. If you want to come over and start talking smack while we're playing Yahtzee you're just going to get laughed at.
I know that some people make their livelihoods playing chess, and I mean no disrespect to them when I say that chess is a game. Tons of people make money off games. The point is that there is no reason to get all up in arms about a few moves, expecially when you're up. It doesn't take much and the tables can turn pretty drastically!!
Have fun playing chess. Don't talk smack.
Don't tell people to resign.
Never resign!
I resign from resigning!!
By the way, what do you think of this game?
How come my opening left me so vulnerable? Is it just because I'm green behind the ears, as the say?
(hey trent, maybe you shouldn't display the identity of the guy that you beat...that's not so classy. you can change it to just "anonymous" or something...)
and although i do resign from time to time, i understand your viewpoint, and support your right to play all the way to the end.
(i was down eleven points a few months ago, but managed to come back for a 'W.' felt pretty good!)
It was Bd7 that was the problem. You could just play Nd7, block the check, and keep your b7 pawn defended. The only other question I would have is, on move 18, why not just take his knight with your queen? Other than that, very nice game, way to show the smack-talker.
there is nothing unclassy about showing the identity of the person you played and beat. A game becomes public information after it is played unless both players want to hide it away in secrecy. especially when the guy was being such a jerk- even less entitlement to special favors.
Obviously they tell you to resign to annoy you, seems like it worked well?
6... Nd7 instead of Bd7 was stronger, as it prevents Qb7. However, on the move before, had you played 5... Nc6 instead of dxe5 it would have prevented that line altogether.
You also allowed white to take the initiative and center of the board within the first 4 moves. 4... Nf6 would have fought for the center and avoided the mate on f7. However, then e4-e5 is a threat, and your dxe5 move would have made more sense, with the continuation being Bb5+ Nd7.
Sorry Trentski, but I'm not that good, so I advise you to take the advice of someone whose advice is more valuable, probably a better player.
I'm sorry about the lack of anonymity... I didn't notice that it even had names until I was previewing it, and I didn't want to risk having to retype all of my snide comments...
Of course, if I had had to retype them, I probably would have been a little classier about all the things I said.
But, really, come on.. Does anyone like playing someone who talks smack? Isn't chess a game that you can play to get away from all that?
There's nothing wrong with posting a game that displays your opponents name, GMs do it, NMs do it, tournaments, clubs, etc. I hate it when someone talks smack but telling an opponent to resign is just rude afterall the tables can turn very quickly.
I'm afraid I won't even look through this game. The 3d perspective is just too busy and makes it too much hard work to find out what is going on. Sorry.
I just lost a game in which I outranked my opponent by several hundred points and I was up a knight going into the endgame. Very easily a win for me. Simple rook mates a king trapped behind 3 unadvanced pawns on the 2nd rank. Very rookie mistake and I have no idea how I managed to overlook it. You never know...
What lack of anonymity? (almost) everyone uses a nickname on here - enough anonymity if you ask me. You can choose for yourself if you want to display your real name or not.If someone would start telling me to resign at every move, I would consider taking as much time as possible to move and to drag the game out as long as possible.
I agree on the anonymity issue. It's there, if you want it. If not, then be prepared to take responsibility for your behavior. There's no shame in committing a blunder or losing a game, but trash-talking your opponent deserves the light of day.
As for people telling you to resign, can't you simply disable chat?
I see what you're saying about taking the knight with my queen on move 18..
I guess I'd have to respond with this: it's one of my big faults. When I get put in check, I always think I need to move my king, and if the king can't take the piece, then I just have to move it or put something in the way.
I have gotten better, I'd like to say, even though it doesn't show here... But, I guess I was alright with trading queens, or something.
Thanks for bringing that up, I bet next time I'd take the knight with my queen! Of course, next time I'll probably block with my knight on move 7 or whatever too!
2... e6 and B is better.
In all honesty, I think you sunk to at least his level, if not lower, with the comments you made.
Oh, and I personally resign if I drop a piece without compensation.
Honestly, I think it's kind of insulting to not post the name of your opponent. It's kind of like being NN or Amateur then...like my play wasn't worthy of having a name. And after all, the Game of the Century isn't known as Opponent-Fischer 1956; and the (real) game of the century isn't called Anonymous-Fischer 1963-64 US Champs. It takes two players to make a helluva game.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.