Logical fallacies that are common to find in a chess community that have become popular beliefs
Prologue
One day, an unnamed chess prodigy tried to debunk a famous chess guru's logical fallacies that are very common to find in a chess community and have metamorphosed into popular beliefs and enforcement. Because the guru's fallacies were the reason why many people loathed the prodigy after he became the victim of a false positive. His image was ruined in front of his friends.
He sent him a mail.
Fallacy No. 1 by Chess Guru :
"If you are excellent at chess, why did you decide to be an anonymous player? If you became a real titled player, with that strength you would win many tournaments and championships and gain much profit from it. The fact you decided to be an anonymous instead is so unreal... and suspicious too."
Unnamed Prodigy's Response :
"What a terrible logic! You are basically saying anyone good at chess must be a titled player, otherwise they are a liar. Just how small is this world to you? How shallow minded you are.
There are a lot of people who don't want to be famous. They prefer to gain profit from other fields. There are a lot of strong men who are excellent at martial arts but are not interested to be UFC fighters. There are a lot of strong men who are able to lift heavy weight but are not interested to be power lifters. There are a lot of people who don't want to reveal their true identity because they have privacy. They simply don't want to be famous!
There are people who take their interest only to some extent where they can do it only for fun and they want to avoid getting much pressure and stress they would get if they took it as serious as participating in a world class tournament. Especially if many people would put hope in them. Being a famous athlete/sportsman/player, like it or not, you don't only play for yourself. Realize or not, you try your best not to disappoint some people's expectation in you. It would become heavy burden. And they don't think they would be ready for it. Or rather, they would hate it.
And you don't get that much stress and pressure by staying an anonymous player on online chess. You play when you wanna play. Nobody expects you to achieve something. Nobody is disappointed when you fail. You don't need to behave yourself and have manners just to be a role model for your fans. You are free to leave or come back playing chess without considering anyone else's feeling."
Fallacy No. 2 by Chess Guru :
"You've got very high accuracies in many games. But in other games, your accuracies are so low! your true strength must be those games with low accuracies. You even made blunders during opening. Contrary to some of your other games where you were quick to spot your opponents' mistakes in midgame and played good responses."
Unnamed Prodigy's Response :
"This is really insulting. You only believe my true strength is my games with low accuracies. All are my true strength!
There is nothing strange if you get 90-99% accuracy one day, tomorrow, and the day after... but a week later your accuracy dropped to 50-60%, and a month later 10-20%. It can happen to anyone in any set of time control. Significant rise and fall in rating and accuracy is not something anyone should be overthinking of. Especially among non-titled players.
It is not impossible (and it is not rare) if an amateur gets very high accuracies and makes 5-10 consecutive strong moves per game in many of their blitz and bullet games. Especially if they play against low rated players who play far from good and since many blitz and bullet players only rely on speed and ignore skill, it is understandable why some amateurs can crush them easy.
It is so wrong to always compare non-titled players' games to masters'/titled players' games to determine whether someone really plays like their rating or not. Although the chance is lower, many amateurs and non-titled players may find strong moves faster than masters do. MotoGP riders do not always drive better than other motorcycle riders in all streets. And it is nothing strange if one day, their performance drops and they only get low or very low accuracies.
99% today.
30% tomorrow.
Manage to checkmate your opponent in bullet and make several strong moves today.
Make a blunder that make you in a clearly losing position in opening tomorrow.
So what???
One day, you are quick to spot your opponent's mistake in midgame and find the best way to respond to that. Another day, you don't even realize you have made a mistake in opening despite taking much time to think.
For heaven's sake.... stop being a fake hero and a busybody who is obsessed with someone else's accuracies and always has his fingers itchy until he hits the report button."
Fallacy No. 3 by Chess Guru :
"It is impossible to get a very high accuracy in speed chess especially bullet."
Unnamed Prodigy's Response :
"It may be partially true you don't need to be a chess genius who makes perfect moves to win bullet or blitz games as long as you can play fast you have big chance to win on time.
However, there are some players who keep learning to be tactical even in speed chess like blitz and bullet. many of them are even still amateurs. they keep falling and rising, falling again, rising again, and so forth. One day they get high accuracies, another day they get low accuracies.. but never give up.
If you think you have big chance to win against stronger opponents just because you can play chess fast without making strong moves, then what if you happen to meet another fast player who is also tactical?????
Can you guess what will happen????
EXACTLY!!!!
You will get crushed like a cockroach being stomped!!!! Tactical fast players, including the amateurish ones, have big chance to win to you easy with high accuracies. And you have noone to blame but yourself.
Also, read my response to logical fallacy no. 2 and read the explanation about why its not impossible for an amateur to get very high accuracies and makes 5-10 consecutive strong moves per game in many of their blitz and bullet games. And why it shouldn't be surprise if one day, they play much worse.
All are Fair and Square.
If you don't think bullet requires skill and only rely on speed, who's fault is it if your opponents, despite being amateurs, crush you easy while you play terrible?
YOU HAVE NOBODY TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!"
Fallacy No. 4 by Chess Guru :
"Ya know, even Grandmasters don't play like you do nor they have made very high accuracies that much often. Especially in that set of time control."
Unnamed Prodigy's Response :
"So what? Tell those Grandmasters to play better or play with low rated players! Don't encourage anonymous players to be sandbaggers! Don't keep making whatever they say and how they play as "reference point". Unless they keep improving. The world standard of being an excellent chess player always escalates. Don't emasculate excellent anonymous players for the sake of lame Grandmasters. If they are lazy to learn or they can't be better, then its their own problem.
Upgrade your skill or fall behind. Your title does not make you smarter! It only affects how people perceive and conclude your words. Having title may help you to make others believe in your words. Their opinion on your words may be different if you don't have title. But the title itself does not make you stronger. Anyone may surpass you without title.
Tell Valentino Rossi to drive his motorcycle more carefully if he has failed to avoid an obstacle instead of telling an unnamed motorcycle rider to crash an obstacle.
If a Grandmaster plays worse or makes more mistakes or makes mistakes more often than you do then its a sign that that GM is :
(1) Sandbagging
(2) Is on his/her bad day, or
(3) He/She needs to play lower rated games against low rated players because he/she has gone worse. Its not the amateurs who are too good. Its the professionals who are too lame for their level."
Fallacy No. 5 by Chess Guru :
"Your ratings (rapid, blitz, bullet) are over 2000 yet you fail to name openings correctly."
Unnamed Prodigy's Response :
"This is so far the worst fallacy among all. Knowing openings' names does not show your strength. Its just names. You don't need to know all names of martial art techniques to be good at fighting, do you??? You only need to know how to do them, and be used to doing them in real combat. You don't need to have a black belt to be good at fighting. Knowing openings' names only help you communicate with other chess players because it bothers you so much if you mention the notations instead."
Fallacy No. 6 by Chess Guru :
"Your ratings (rapid, blitz, bullet) are over 2000 yet you don't execute your endgame nicely."
Unnamed Prodigy's Response :
"Ohh come on, old man. There are reasons why you can win many games and gain high ratings when you are not even good at endgame. You might happen to meet players who play so bad that you can defeat them without having to reach endgame. Or you reach endgame but your opponents play worse than you.
Likewise, someone who is bad at ground fight and submission may win many MMA matches because they manage to knock their opponents out before they grab each other. so no need to struggle with ground fight and submission."
Fallacy No. 7 by Chess Guru :
"Your bullet rating is much higher than your blitz and rapid."
Unnamed Prodigy's Response :
"Oh my God, my Goddess, my angels, my demons...you even pay attention to this small little thing? This is not your business. If you ever find someone like that, does it already make you think they are a criminal???
It is your right to focus on any chess you like. Maybe you just prefer bullet. Maybe you just want to focus on bullet first. This isn't something anyone else should take into consideration when judging someone else...you are so pathetic."
Epilogue
After reading the mail, the chess guru grinned because he knew this youngster's reasoning wouldn't bring him anywhere. Who was he, a peasant with significant ups and downs in performance, to criticize a big empire with millions of nobles and slaves?
This is a confidential system. You can't just criticize it when you don't even have a single reference to legit studies and experts' quotes.
You may call them logical fallacies but we call them logical considerations.
Nothing will change. That is why some words in some paragraphs in this story excluding quotes were not written in Simple Past Tense.