Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Closed


  • 21 months ago · Quote · #41

    red-lady

    Estragon wrote:

    Perhaps some prospective opponents are dissuaded not by rating but by annoying personality traits?

    In chess, to be accepted as a diva you must either be very strong or an attractive female. Ofer 2.

    I saw that E Cool

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #42

    learningthemoves

    Harry_Soho67 wrote:
    wbilfc wrote:

    I cant understand why learningthemoves seems to come under attack everytime he creates a thread...most of the time the topics are genuinely open for debate and he expresses his opinion....isn't that what the forums are for?

    Learningzemoves is a good mensch, oy!  People that don't like him are just jealous!

    You sir, seem to have the gift of discernment and are a credit to this community. 

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #43

    learningthemoves

    @zborg: Actually it's not a lame thread and it does provide the public a service annoucing a way to save time and needless aggravation due to rampant member mismanagement of personal rating system settings.

    The only thing lame are those who whine and dissent rather than sincerely attempt to add something meaningful.

    But if it saves just one member time and frustration, then it's worth the flack striving to do good invariably arouses from the relative minority of naysayers.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #44

    Scottrf

    learningthemoves wrote:

    @zborg: Actually it's not a lame thread

    Subjective.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #45

    red-lady

    You are impatient Wink

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #46

    learningthemoves

    (Thanks Red-Lady. Had a few errands to run.)

    Okay, Billy, if I'm not mistaken, the second number represents the "increment" of time added in seconds for you after each move.

    For example, you make your move and then 2 seconds are added to your time in the 5 (minutes)| 2 (seconds) time format.

    When there are extra seconds added after the move, it's called "increments" (in my opinion lol).

    @Whaleeyeman: Thanks man. I can see you're wise to the ways of the world and a credit to this community.

    @Samiam: An enjoyable listen. Thanks for the share.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #47

    DippinChicken

    <Oblique insult directed at learningthemoves regarding his low rating and comparing to high rated players who do not feel the need to make posts of this nature>

    <Additional comment referencing the massive number of snide and snarky comments from other players being an indication of OPs lack of tact and hostile manner in his post>

    <Final comment using idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" to illustrate irony>

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #48

    Doggy_Style

    _yiquan_ wrote:

    ...and I've once again stumbled into the chess.com twilight zone.

    We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical.



  • 21 months ago · Quote · #49

    learningthemoves

    DippinChicken wrote:

    learningthemovesregarding his low rating and comparing to high rated players who do not feel the need to make posts of this nature>

     

    How juvenile. Ratings are relative and you're accusing higher rated players of not contributing posts with a helpful nature which simply isn't the case. There are plenty of players of much higher ratings who contribute value. But since you brought it up, my rating has fluctuated as high as 1889 currently on another site and has been as high as 1709 here and when I first started playing a few months ago was around 800.

    Once again, some crock pops out of the woodwork to post something irrelevant.

    Have you adusted your ratings setting? That's what the topic is if hadn't managed to figure it out on your own. If you did manage to figure it out on your own, then it means you have deliberately chosen to break the rules by posting something that wasn't relevant, nice or helpful. So either it way it goes, your actions have you joined with those who have opposed the one in the right.

    Just to save you the trouble...it's not witty, clever or cute or anything positive to come against me. Just reveals your ignorance.

     

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #50

    DippinChicken

    learningthemoves wrote:

     

    to come against me. Just reveals your ignorance.

    Pot... kettle... black

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #51

    learningthemoves

    DippinChicken wrote:
    learningthemoves wrote:

     

    to come against me. Just reveals your ignorance.

    Pot... kettle... black

    Relevant...helpful...nice.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #52

    alanford

    As far as i know, there are cosequences if you abort  games too often, for whatever the reason is.
    It happened to me once - i got a message on the screen, when i aborted due to too low player rating in live chess game.
    Then i adjusted the rating settings.I did not even think the option exists.
    If someone aborts me , i dont care.
    Playing chess is for everyone.Have a good games.Laughing

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #53

    TornadoTee

    @learningthemoves

    The issue is real, but it's not that big of a deal because you could be doing something else while waiting in the queue.

    Also, the fact that you actively reply to trolls and engage in meaningless arguments suggests that you need to calm down and learn better communication skills. Smart people don't get into these arguments in the first place.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #54

    learningthemoves

    TornadoTee wrote:

    @learningthemoves

    The issue is real, but it's not that big of a deal because you could be doing something else while waiting in the queue.

    Also, the fact that you actively reply to trolls and engage in meaningless arguments suggests that you need to calm down and learn better communication skills. Smart people don't get into these arguments in the first place.

    You're exactly right. Thanks! Wink

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #55

    varelse1

    Just because you're not paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not after you!!!!

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #56

    bigpoison

    Doggy_Style wrote:
    learningthemoves wrote:

    I'm all for discussion and relevant, polite and helpful comments.

    And not the kind of "helpful" where it's like, "Maybe it would help you if you weren't an idiot" or some other excuse to troll.

    The plague of commenters who can't offer anything affirming, courteous, helpful or otherwise intelligent seem to have what they think is intelligence confused with just being a jerk.

    In my experience, jerks aren't intelligent. It takes true intelligence to make a genuine difference in someone's life with kindness.

     

    I already tried kindness with you, didn't work. You reap what you sow, Sunshine.

    Won't be water, be fire next time:

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #57

    electricpawn

    zborg wrote:

    Set your OPEN SEEK at -150 on the lower side.  You will (typically) get lots of opponents near the bottom of this 150 range, or whatever range you set.

    In the -150 case, you'll need to win roughly 2 (or more) games out of 3 to advance your rating, because the typical rating gain will be +5 when you win, or -11 when your opponent wins.

    It doesn't matter much what you set for the upside of your rating range.  The bulk of responses to your Open Seek will typically come from the lower side.

    If you add a 5 second bonus to your time controls, be prepared to wait longer to get an opponent.

    In my experience, if you want to play slower than Game in 15/5, be prepared to wait a fair amount of time in order to secure an opponent from your Open Seek.

    Or just "go blind" playing Bullet Chess.

    Opponents for Bullet are everywhere, and quite willing.  

    Yes, this really is a lame thread, with the OP pretending it's somehow a public service announcement.  He should know better.

    This is a good post. It offers useful statistics and a well reasoned opinion.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #58

    electricpawn

    Fantastic song, bp! Here's another one.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #59

    learningthemoves

    The songs are good, but I disagree with the notion that zborg made a good post. And it's not just because he falsely accused me of 'pretending to offer a public service announcement' or the thread being lame. I'll give him portions of the thread were lame...due to his participation with the false accusations.

    I also disagree with setting the ratings to beat up on lower rated players to gain only 5 or 6 points with a win and lose 10-15 for a loss, needing to win the 2 of 3 as a good strategy.

    I think it's better to play stronger opponents even if the rating suffers temporarily to improve your overall chess strength. The benefits of the 10-15 points gained and only 5 or 6 points lost, means you only have to win one of three to maintain your rating and you get the benefit of playing with stronger players too.

    But, it's good to get a good cross section of the different strategies so people can pick the one that works best for them.


Back to Top

Post your reply: