20328 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Typically at bullet chess I either win by a checkmate, or I lose on time. Often, when losing on time, I have the better position. I almost never win on time.
In other words, I really, really suck at bullet.
But it is silly to complain for the following reason: your opponent always has the argument "well, maybe if you had moved quicker, like me, your position wouldn't be so good."
And in my case its true. If I moved at the pace neccesary to win on time, I would be dropping pieces like a drunken monkey.
Satorichess: I have taught aikido and jujutsu since 1990 and trained my whole life. You have to be able to have calm mind and good center irregardless of your opponent's tactics. Whether they are civil and of good cheer or whether the are bitter, petty, and obviously trying to cheat. The point of playing chess or budo is to be able to face any opponent and keep your head no matter who or what you face.
I used to take Aikijujutsu many years ago. The moment I read "center" in your post, the memories came flooding back. My Sensei was a sweet old man, but he had a very low opinion of Aikido. He would call it the "cosmic oatmeal cookie" spinoff of Aikijujutsu. He was real big on the samurai warrior thing, and had a museum-quality collection of authentic and very old katanas.
Chess is a street fight
I was kibitzing a bullet game last night and the NM lost on time to an untitled player in a drawn endgame... the NM's comment after his opponent quickly left was... "What The Fudge was that? No respect!"
Clearly it matters to some.
I don't see where anyone claims it doesn't matter to some. If the NM meant winning on time in a bullet game is disrespectful then he's delusional.
The NM was down on time and offered a draw in a clearly a drawn endgame, but his opponent declined and won on time. Pretty sure his WTFudge comment was due to the decline of the draw - but I could be wrong.
Actually I trained in Yoshinkan Aikido, Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, and Hombu Aikido. Plus a little judo, shotokan and American boxing to fill in gaps. I agree that Hombu is kinda fruity dance stuff- but as you say aikijujutsu and yoshinkan are nothing to mess around with. I used to really be into the whole bushido thing when I was a teen. Then I realized it made as much sense for me to be a "real" samurai as it did for a modern japanese teen to be a real "civil war confederate calvaryman." So then I turned to using martial arts as a way to make friends, stay in shape, and protect myself rather than be Mississippi Musashi. ;)
But I find chess to use the exact same part of my mind as martial arts do.
Nice compliment of styles there!
I studied under the Yama Kei school that started in Washington.
I lost on Sunday in a dead drawn position when my opponent wouldn't take a draw. I don't begrude him for it. I had less time on the clock & he was up a pawn. Granted it was opposite bishops but there was a lot of room for tactical error & I feel into one & lost.
The clock is part of the game. If my opponent doesn't want to resign or take a draw that's his choice. In the case of not resigning it's good practice to practice winning a won game, if he won't take a draw, well I have to be careful & hope to survive to punish him & perhaps even devlop winning chances.
In online chess I usually resign if I'd dead lost & accept draws in drawn positions as I view it as practice but with $50 on the line in a Quad I'm certainly not going to be so amicable.
great example; if you can handicap your opponent time wise early good. If you find yourself in a drawish position later in that game there is no shame in making delibrately mindbending moves to work the clock. That's chess. It's the patzers that are down sufficient material, or have clearly hopleless endgames and still feel the need to fight on. Especially annoying when they tried an off opening and got beat for it then won't let it go... This is chess, not life. That chinese guy in the courtroom who jumps up and graps the flagpole subsequently kicking 12 peoples asses and flee'ing is simply not going to happen, in chess.
If you have tactics or are just down a piece and pawn Im not saying by any means to resign it's those rare games where all is clearly lost personally I could do without the 24 move excersise. By most standards im a rank ametuer, and mostly I don't begrudge someone for making close the game with mate or a move or two away from it. I can however think of a few games where personally I feel resigning was the only correct move.
Like I said, if a guy won't resign it's good practice to try to finish him off as efficiently as possible.
I definitely agree with you. What I find interesting in this discussion is not to have the right answer. I do not think there is a right answer to this issue, I rather I think there maybe several answers.
One of the things which is interesting in chess is the psychological aspect of the game and the reactions that this generates.
It is said that the great Stanley Kubrick would use chess to learn more about who he was dealing with. But he certainly did not play online at his times :-).
I would like to point out that playing online and OTT are two completely different phenomena. Many of the attitudes and ways of doing / playing online that happens during a game, do not happen if you have the chance to look into the eyes of your opponent,... why?
I think it is useful to reflect a bit 'on these things today that we live in an age of virtual reality to better understand what it can offer and what it might take us away, from a human standpoint. Finally I want to mention (with much displeasure) Lance Armstrong as an example that everyone knows. To desire to win at any cost sometimes may not be the right solution isn't it?
"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battle" Siddarta the Buddah
Of course you could add that chess is played at different levels of understanding, dynamics and competition. I remember (I quote from memory) a beautiful phrase in an interview with WGM Natalia Pogonina quoting Bobby Fischer in which she said: "I do not play to humiliate anyone, when you have reached an interesting position in a game that is all" Certainly a very zen statement indeed, but to me personally, this represent the spirit of chess that I love most
jbskaggs Thanks I think we share the same "vision" but I also like to thanks everyone for his/her contribution for taking part in this discussion
Shin Shin Toitsu, for a short period. The emphasis on ki was not appealing at first, but in time I grew to appreciate it.
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by akafett a few minutes ago
by Rsava 2 minutes ago
Fritz on Mac/IOS
by RogerOT 3 minutes ago
Frustration with Blitz
by Username333 3 minutes ago
by rishabhr2002 3 minutes ago
Which Anti-Sicilian to choose?
by SmyslovFan 7 minutes ago
11/25/2015 - Cat And Mouse
by cat10703 7 minutes ago
beginner learning: How much do the details matter?
by hicetnunc 9 minutes ago
want to get insulted for free ?
by robbie_1969 14 minutes ago
by Fiveofswords 15 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!