The chess.com 5 stages of grief:
1. OMG I'm so dumb there's no way I blundered that I'm so stupid
2. I was better than him for the first part of the game so that means I'm still a better player, right...
3. I was just going easy on him...
4. ChEaTeR
5. Acceptance
Denial- Denies Sicilian is good
Anger- argument where scrumptious gets outnumbered
Depression- poor scrumptious, says only Gothams messenger 😔
Acceptance- chill for a bit
Bargaining- challenges people to daily games
poor scrumptious, says only Gothams messenger 😔
RIP, Fs in the chat for Scrumpty Dumpty
F
🕯🕯🕯
ok jokes aside sampson is just weirdly good, managed to turn the game from losing for white to 1-0 in 10 moves, almost bot-like
he also played like a bot in the second game and he was literally never worse, he also made a few odd moves which I found bot-like
88% accuracy at that length of a game is a huge red flag tho
ok jokes aside sampson is just weirdly good, managed to turn the game from losing for white to 1-0 in 10 moves, almost bot-like
he also played like a bot in the second game and he was literally never worse, he also made a few odd moves which I found bot-like
88% accuracy at that length of a game is a huge red flag tho
BRO I BLUNDERED MY ROOK 💀💀💀💀
Accuracy rating for one game isn't a good indication of cheating. Even if it's 99%. Sometimes the best moves might be easy to find.
It would have to be something like 98%+ average across several games to be suspicious.
ok jokes aside sampson is just weirdly good, managed to turn the game from losing for white to 1-0 in 10 moves, almost bot-like
he also played like a bot in the second game and he was literally never worse, he also made a few odd moves which I found bot-like
88% accuracy at that length of a game is a huge red flag tho
BRO I BLUNDERED MY ROOK 💀💀💀💀
probably a sacrifice smh
It's not reasonable to accuse someone of cheating just because you lost.
It's not reasonable to accuse someone of cheating just because you lost.
you’d be surprised at how many people do it but ok
ok jokes aside sampson is just weirdly good, managed to turn the game from losing for white to 1-0 in 10 moves, almost bot-like
he also played like a bot in the second game and he was literally never worse, he also made a few odd moves which I found bot-like
88% accuracy at that length of a game is a huge red flag tho
LMAO just cause he knows what a pin is doesn't mean he's stockfish
you guys are cheaters smh
yk I actually didn't play well against you in the 2nd game; I missed the knight sac first before the trade, a3, but it's time to learn how not to spam Gotham's system. Cuz guess what? I came and beat you (btw I'm 1900 not 1300 I timeout a lot in daily)
Because you’re over twice my rating and you could beat me with 1. a3.
But GMs have beaten other GMs of similar rating using the Sicilian, many many many times over.
you guys are cheaters smh
yk I actually didn't play well against you in the 2nd game; I missed the knight sac first before the trade, a3, but it's time to learn how not to spam Gotham's system. Cuz guess what? I came and beat you (btw I'm 1900 not 1300 I timeout a lot in daily)
Because you’re over twice my rating and you could beat me with 1. a3.
I wasn't referring to how I beat you; merely the cheating accusation
The cheating accusation was directed towards Sampson
The Sicilian was obviously playable enough to beat you with.
Btw just a friendly tip no harm intended; I'm happy to help anyone: play 3. nd2 or 3.nc3 or 3. e5 in the french, not 3.bd3. Bd3 looks and is weird
Gotham recommended it as an interesting sideline
he plays 3.Bd3 because him and many other gotham fans have the ¨must throw off my oppoment¨ mindset so ingraved in their head to the point where they arent even playing chess anymore
ive played over 1000 games in the sicilian and these types of people are still confusing me with moves ive never seen in my life being played
You think he's cheating bc 88%?
I've played two games with over 90% and I'm a 585
Some interesting chess facts that players may not know:
- The French defense was known earlier, but didn't truly become famous until it appeared in an 1834 correspondence match between London and Paris ... as a surprising first move to steer the game away from then-popular e4 e5 Romantic gambit chess.
- The Caro-Kann was also known earlier, but didn't truly become famous until Capablanca began playing it in the first quarter of the 20th century - overshadowing the fact that Nimzowitsch (whom many consider to be the "father" of hypermodern chess) had been playing it for years earlier, and far more frequently.
- The 19th century Romantics considered the Sicilian defense to be passive and timid, and argued that the Sicilian player avoids placing pawns in the center because he's afraid of a fight. Even the great Paul Morphy agreed with this viewpoint.
Some interesting chess facts that players may not know:
- The French defense was known earlier, but didn't truly become famous until it appeared in an 1834 correspondence match between London and Paris ... as a surprising first move to steer the game away from then-popular e4 e5 Romantic gambit chess.
- The Caro-Kann was also known earlier, but didn't truly become famous until Capablanca began playing it in the first quarter of the 20th century - overshadowing the fact that Nimzowitsch (whom many consider to be the "father" of hypermodern chess) had been playing it for years earlier, and far more frequently.
- The 19th century Romantics considered the Sicilian defense to be passive and timid, and argued that the Sicilian player avoids placing pawns in the center because he's afraid of a fight. Even the great Paul Morphy agreed with this viewpoint.
the last one is incredibly ironic considering now the Sicilian is seen as incredibly dynamic and e5 is seen as drawish
he’s going through the stages of grief