The aim is not to win, but to play the perfect game. If I make a blunder, I've failed to do that, so there's no point in continuing.
False. Talking about the aim implies there is objectivity in the concept of aim of playing chess. More correctly, YOUR aim is to play the perfect game. No one else really cares whether they play perfectly, generaly speaking, though.
Resigning a game shows respect and honor to your opponent. I looked at Enderman’s rating. He does not deserve respect, lol! Play a game with me, Enderman? 😊
In your opinion, at what rating level would you trust your opponent to follow through with the win, in let's say R&K vs. K?
The aim is not to win, but to play the perfect game. If I make a blunder, I've failed to do that, so there's no point in continuing.
False. Talking about the aim implies there is objectivity in the concept of aim of playing chess. More correctly, YOUR aim is to play the perfect game. No one else really cares whether they play perfectly, generaly speaking, though.
Wrong. I'm talking about my aim. What your aim might be is of no interest to me whatsoever.
I strongly disagree. I will admit that most of my moves are probably poor, but I never make a move that is without some rationale, albeit that rationale may be misguided. Thus every game to me, win or lose, is a lesson in itself.
OK, we at least share the trait of playing mostly poor moves. But you said you never make move that is without some rationale. In your game against Knightvanvorst, what was the rationale for moving the pawn to f3? You resigned a couple moves later. Why did you choose that move over other moves?
Well, obviously because taking the pawn on e3 would have resulted in Qxe3+. The wrong move as it turned out, but the game was probably already lost.
What's wrong with the queen taking e3 check? I cant see that game anymore but from what I remember you had other options besides moving the pawn up. You could have moved the bishop to f3 protecting the pawn in front of the king and further attacking his central pawn.
The point is that this exact same thing happens to me in every single game of chess I've ever played. You might have thought taking his pawn was a bad move (or not moving it at all) but it might have been the best choice. Sometimes what we consider bad moves, someone better understands is a good move. Like my example I gave earlier. I didn't use a computer or anything to look at your game, but from what I saw it wasn't losing at all, until that move. I would rather have had your position in that game even though almost every move up until that point was an accident.
For lower level folks like myself, I do not mind it so much because it gives the the opportunity to earn the win outright. You can treat it as a learning exercise to improve your end game skills.
And sometimes they're hoping against hope that the winning side will make a tremendous blunder. It has happened but not really that often.
In Daily games; the timing of wins and losses is part of ratings management. If I don't resign a lost position, there's a purpose. I will eventually, it just has to be at the proper time.
I strongly disagree. I will admit that most of my moves are probably poor, but I never make a move that is without some rationale, albeit that rationale may be misguided. Thus every game to me, win or lose, is a lesson in itself.
OK, we at least share the trait of playing mostly poor moves. But you said you never make move that is without some rationale. In your game against Knightvanvorst, what was the rationale for moving the pawn to f3? You resigned a couple moves later. Why did you choose that move over other moves?
Well, obviously because taking the pawn on e3 would have resulted in Qxe3+. The wrong move as it turned out, but the game was probably already lost.
What's wrong with the queen taking e3 check? I cant see that game anymore but from what I remember you had other options besides moving the pawn up. You could have moved the bishop to f3 protecting the pawn in front of the king and further attacking his central pawn.
The point is that this exact same thing happens to me in every single game of chess I've ever played. You might have thought taking his pawn was a bad move (or not moving it at all) but it might have been the best choice. Sometimes what we consider bad moves, someone better understands is a good move. Like my example I gave earlier. I didn't use a computer or anything to look at your game, but from what I saw it wasn't losing at all, until that move. I would rather have had your position in that game even though almost every move up until that point was an accident.
I admit it was a shit move. how about stop giving me a hard time about it.
To Enderman:
My comment (#1883): "The more that a player like Enderman complains, the more I will play on in a lost position."
Oh, you consider that a personal attack? Originally I did not mean it as such, but now I am glad you took it that way. You deserve it, lol!
Care to play a 14 day per move game with me? Muahaha!!
Better, than a 60 minute game, if I got into a winning position you'd go AFK and come back 1 minute before your time runs out. At least in a daily game the amount of time I waste isn't equal to the amount of time that you waste.
Enderman1323 wrote:
LadyMisil wrote:
To Enderman:
My comment (#1883): "The more that a player like Enderman complains, the more I will play on in a lost position."
Oh, you consider that a personal attack? Originally I did not mean it as such, but now I am glad you took it that way. You deserve it, lol!
Care to play a 14 day per move game with me? Muahaha!!
Better, than a 60 minute game, if I got into a winning position you'd go AFK and come back 1 minute before your time runs out. At least in a daily game the amount of time I waste isn't equal to the amount of time that you waste.
Enderman, actually, I wouldn’t take forever if you got a winning position. It would take forever for you to get a winning position against me.
There are only one kind of lost positions: those with one king in checkmate.
AMEN JOGOREAL
There are only one kind of lost positions: those with one king in checkmate.
Amen.
Dear Mr. or Ms, OPTIMISSED you can run a group all you want I am so impressed by the bullshit degree you hold. you are only bragging. who gives a rats ass about your 3yr degree. Go educate the week minded who are lost in the REAL world, I am sure they hang on your every word, your so darn smart
Optimissed wrote:
Good Heavens, I run a philosophy group on Facebook and it's a bit quiet and boring at the moment ...... would either of you two like to come and entertain the natives with endless discourses on fallacies? I don't have the time and in any case, getting involved in arguments about fallacies rarely clarifies anything and if the word "fallacy" was ever uttered during my three-year philosophy degree then maybe I wasn't there on that day, but you would be most welcome to educate us ...
My reply: No thank you, Opti, but you’re welcome to copy and paste our entire conversation and discuss it in your philosophy group to all of your hearts’ content. You have my blessing.
Dear Mr. or Ms, OPTIMISSED you can run a group all you want I am so impressed by the bullshit degree you hold. you are only bragging. who gives a rats ass about your 3yr degree. Go educate the week minded who are lost in the REAL world, I am sure they hang on your every word, your so darn smart
Huh i'm 2001
iihsi, I agree. I will only resign if I feel like it, for example, for some reason I want to cut down on my number of games. I will never resign on Chess.com because my opponent wants me to. In real life, that is different. My opponents there deserve my respect. On Chess.com, it is only whiners and cry babies that demand you resign for to please them.
I strongly disagree. I will admit that most of my moves are probably poor, but I never make a move that is without some rationale, albeit that rationale may be misguided. Thus every game to me, win or lose, is a lesson in itself.
OK, we at least share the trait of playing mostly poor moves. But you said you never make move that is without some rationale. In your game against Knightvanvorst, what was the rationale for moving the pawn to f3? You resigned a couple moves later. Why did you choose that move over other moves?
Well, obviously because taking the pawn on e3 would have resulted in Qxe3+. The wrong move as it turned out, but the game was probably already lost.