Imperfect, I actually dig you, you make me laugh and I mean it!
Suicidal opponents
Imperfect, I actually dig you, you make me laugh and I mean it!
My gift to you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCLTdalqlpw
Off for now
...only lost game all year at 3 in the morning...
In this case "all year" means two days.
@ Imperfect_Luck:
OK, I get that a lot of this is mean spirited, so let's try and go more constructive here. Post ONE game where there were moves that support your conclusions. Point out the moves where you felt your opponent was absent purpose, and let's discuss this in open forum. Strength in chess is relative. I suck at this game, and accept the uphill climb ahead of me. Let's stop the attacks, you included, (you criticize others for belittling you, yet you have to admit, you're the one belittling your opponents by saying they're suicidal and are playing beneath you).
Forget all that stuff, post the game, and talk about the game, nothing else.
...only lost game all year at 3 in the morning...
In this case "all year" means two days.
Lol!
OK, I get that a lot of this is mean spirited, so let's try and go more constructive here. Post ONE game where there were moves that support your conclusions. Point out the moves where you felt your opponent was absent purpose, and let's discuss this in open forum.
Dude, we've tried that. We've tried to help him. He repeatedly refuses to posts games. He says he did that already. I guess maybe he posted one or two, and apparently he has nothing more. If he posted games and said, "I don't understand this right here..." Then people would help him, but instead he wants to pretend that everyone is hostile.
How on earth can you criticize anyone about anything intelligent when your spelling and grammar is so horrendous?
How on earth can you criticize anyone about anything intelligent when your spelling and grammar is so horrendous?
Having friends and family with iphones, I've gotten used to improper spelling and grammar
Doesnt the iPhone have an autocorrect thingy?
Indeed it does, but many times it takes things out of context and fills in the wrong word.
I attempted to do this yesterday but messed up the diagram:
In an effort to possibly reason with Mr Luck, how about posting diagrams and asking him what he thinks the best move might be?
E.g. Imperfect_Luck - what would you play as Black here?
I think this might be the way to break through. He doesn't understand the idea of trading for positional gain - let's face it all he really wants to do is mate on f2/f7 - but from his games it's clear he understands (or at least accepts) the idea of trading for subsequent material gain!
The above example might be quite good for testing the water I think. But what if the material wasn't gained for 3 or more moves after a 'suicidal trade'? Would that help him begin to understand?
Im currious if im the only one who feels this way;
Most of my games, i seem to play suicidal opponents. Opponents who have the option to move out of attach, yet chose instead to trade pecies.
I find this spitful cowardly and pointless WHY?
Well since as long as i can rememebr ive always considered suicide the act of desperate deledued ppl and only desperately deldued people GLORIFY it as anything else. eg. 9/11.
Infact i will go as far to say suicide/mindless trade is the most retarded plan humanly possible in any context. any game. its jsut common sence to me yet it seems the amout of times i encoutner this is endless.
Im not talking about sacraficing a pecie to gain an advantage eg. sacraficing a knight to kill ur opponents queen im talking about equal trade. knight for knight knight for bishop bishp for knight rook for rook queen for queen.
I sit there looking at the score board thinking this is exactly why they added a score board to this game, to make its utter pointlessness (point*) more apparent, yet i encoutner this so often.
Infact each time i log on it makes me view a high rated game. and all i see is suicide. pointless spitful ppl mindlessly trading pecies literally every time. untill they're both down to i duno 2 pecies and 5 pawns each.
Why are these ppl being admired, promoted and displayed as somone ur suposed to gain experience from watching?
I have been playing chess for some time now for fun, no tournaments or i duno compotitions with trophys or cash or what not. simply fun. and i noticed soon after making my account i was not a fan of 5 min games. Why?
I found my opponents most of the time were suicidal, they didnt care where they moved or why, infact it was more like i was playing time than them. i was put into a rediculus sittuation. instead of trying to think up a plan to capture or annialiate my opponent i found i was thinking up a plan to stop them kill themselves. now i dont find that fun and i dont belive with each peace having its own unique ways of movement this was how the game was ment to be played.
Yet as i said earlier each time i log on im viewing high rated ppl (who probly farmed these 5 min or less suicidal games.
Honestly ive probly resigned more games than ive played due to this, i find no fun in playign a spitful suicidal cowardly opponent in any game.
ITs not only here either ive noticed tutorials promoting mindless trade, ppl ranting on and on about stratergies asthough its actually stratergy and when it gets down to it its suicide missions. I dont understand how this has become the norm (because it looks that way to me)
So yes im currious am i only in thinking this way?
If further explanation is needed i will give but yeah.
I've only played 10 minute games on this site, save one correspondence game I'm playing now, so I can't comment on five minute or less games.
However, I find the characterization of "suicidal opponents", opponents who trade down and simplify the game quickly, as a huge paradigm shift when compared to chess over a hundred years ago.
The first chess champion of the world, Wilhelm Steinitz, was initially considered a coward for his conservative play, his tendency to avoid the "swashbuckling" chess that dominated up to the late 19th century.
Yet now one might remark that this daring, bold, slash-and-trade chess is actually cowardly. I don't agree, and I find the fastest games to be largely quick footed with short-range tactical blows, and possibly more depending on the level of skill of the player.
I think weaker players are more likely to trade tit for tat than stronger players. As the strength progresses, the frequency of imbalances on the board increase.
Also, suicide implies death when ultimately, the goal of chess is not to preserve one piece or another, but primarily to protect the king and secondarily do so in a timely manner.
As time decreases, the importance of the second objective increases, and simplification might be the only way to reduce the chance of blunders, lest one might find conservative play, non-threatening, non-trading, positional play, be the more suicidal style of play considering aggressive trading's apparent dominance.
E.g. Imperfect_Luck - what would you play as Black here?
Tricky one, but the suicide can probably be justified because black can't capture the knight.
I see, OP, that your issue is not only with players who simplify per se, but the promotion of non-strategic speed chess over slower, strategic games on chess.com. It appears that the highest rated players play that quick style of chess. It's a shame if the site promotes a single style of chess, but with nearly 10,000 players on at any time and thousands of games going on at any time, your preferred games should be available.
I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for (as you're still here and intned to be.... right? Just enjoy more of what you enjoy and pay less mind to less of what you don't.
I attempted to do this yesterday but messed up the diagram:
In an effort to possibly reason with Mr Luck, how about posting diagrams and asking him what he thinks the best move might be?
E.g. Imperfect_Luck - what would you play as Black here?
I think this might be the way to break through. He doesn't understand the idea of trading for positional gain - let's face it all he really wants to do is mate on f2/f7 - but from his games it's clear he understands (or at least accepts) the idea of trading for subsequent material gain!
The above example might be quite good for testing the water I think. But what if the material wasn't gained for 3 or more moves after a 'suicidal trade'? Would that help him begin to understand?
I don't think this is the best example. Better to find one from tactics trainer. The 2nd best move is also winning and it doesn't involve trade (Rd8). (Although it's obviously positionally and tactically inferior.)
'msut' heh here it comes mada mada
LOL!
????????