Chess.com Launches 2024 Community Championships With Hyperbullet - Chess Forums - Page 4

BigChessplayer665

Jul 11, 2024

0

#61

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

It seems like all the forms of chess available in the community championships are the make believe chess categories:

Chess960

Spell Chess

Bughouse

Duck

Fog of War

Seirawan

Crazyhouse

None of those really matter. Even Hyper Bullet is kinda cringe b/c its just blunder chess

And why can't there be different versions of chess ?

Chsss is not the one true version of chess before he modern version there was cachagura or something (I don't know how you say it ) things evolve overtime most likely once computers solve chess chess960 will before more popular for competitive players

Wind

Jul 12, 2024

0

#62

I personally think they are simply different. Can't see a superiority vs inferiority relation outside a perspective of personal taste.

Some people prefer Bughouse over standard Chess, so one could say Bughouse is superior for them. You prefer Chess over all other Variants, so you say Chess is superior for you. In the end there is not one single irrefutable statement.

Now one could say that those other forms are less popular. In this case it'd be accurate, as we all know that standard Chess is the most popular Chess form there is.

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#63

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

Wind wrote:

I personally think they are simply different. Can't see a superiority vs inferiority relation outside a perspective of personal taste.

Some people prefer Bughouse over standard Chess, so one could say Bughouse is superior for them. You prefer Chess over all other Variants, so you say Chess is superior for you. In the end there is not one single irrefutable statement.

Now one could say that those other forms are less popular. In this case it'd be accurate, as we all know that standard Chess is the most popular Chess form there is.

I humbly disagree with your perspective

Chess960

Spell Chess

Bughouse

Duck

Fog of War

Seirawan

Crazyhouse

are all insignificant forms of Chess because while using similar types of pieces, those variations truly lack the respect of real chess players worldwide

Only the original form of Chess in its established variations of time controls are considered superior to non-chess iterations that either lack the semblance to Chess or that pare down the time element to make the game into "blunder" chess such as HyperBullet and to some degree Bullet 1/0

This is not merely an opinion, rather it is based on reality.

You think it's based on reality it's just a game dude some less popular games are better than others

If chess.com wanted to make a championship It doubt it was because they thought it was inferior

Also please don't clog up forums with aggressive opinions that you pretend are facts

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#64

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

Wind wrote:

I personally think they are simply different. Can't see a superiority vs inferiority relation outside a perspective of personal taste.

Some people prefer Bughouse over standard Chess, so one could say Bughouse is superior for them. You prefer Chess over all other Variants, so you say Chess is superior for you. In the end there is not one single irrefutable statement.

Now one could say that those other forms are less popular. In this case it'd be accurate, as we all know that standard Chess is the most popular Chess form there is.

I humbly disagree with your perspective

Chess960

Spell Chess

Bughouse

Duck

Fog of War

Seirawan

Crazyhouse

are all insignificant forms of Chess because while using similar types of pieces, those variations truly lack the respect of real chess players worldwide

Only the original form of Chess in its established variations of time controls are considered superior to non-chess iterations that either lack the semblance to Chess or that pare down the time element to make the game into "blunder" chess such as HyperBullet and to some degree Bullet 1/0

This is not merely an opinion, rather it is based on reality.

You think it's based on reality it's just a game dude some less popular games are better than others

If chess.com wanted to make a championship It doubt it was because they thought it was inferior

Also please don't clog up forums with aggressive opinions that you pretend are facts

You're just upset that you lost to ME in blitz 3/0

Get over it dude. It's not bad to lose to an opponent who is rated above 2300 blitz. It means that you lost to a formidable opponent.

Nope I could care less if you beat me

Why would I be upset over a loss your not that good at chess just cuse you win a game

Also your as formidable as a stick lmao nice try to prove your opinions are "better " than someone else's due to being "better" at a board game

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#65

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

You think it's based on reality it's just a game dude some less popular games are better than others

If chess.com wanted to make a championship It doubt it was because they thought it was inferior

Also please don't clog up forums with aggressive opinions that you pretend are facts

BTW, I've noticed that while you keep running your mouth on the forums after losing to ME in blitz 3/0, you have fallen off quite steeply in the last 2 days

From 2250, you have dropped down about -100 points to the 2150 level. Come on dude. you have to concentrate on your chess game. spend your time working yourself back up rather than posting on the forums on topics that you know little about

Leave the heavy lifting to the real chess players above you who speak from a position of knowledge and skill . like ME

I'm not your elder, but because I'm above 2300, I do feel like you should be calling me "Daddy" for now until you reach 2250 again. Until that time, may I call you Junior ChessPlayer665? LOL

There's something called tilt lmao

I would care about me losing to you if I cared alot about my rating but do not your just bragging about yourself

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#66

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

I don't really respect players who punch down on their Opponents by playing -1400 or more below their rating to beat up on lower rated competition

Such players are disingenuous & lack the character of real chess players. Chess is supposed to be about honorable conduct & when you see those players rated 2100 beating up on 800 level opponents it really turns my stomach. There is no honor in beating up on opponents rated 1400-1300 points lower than you.

I don't play people lower rated than me to beat them up theres not fun in that but a lot seem to like playing against 2000+ why not let them

If they want to play I let them and alot actually do want to play 2000s and they genually do get better it's fun to watch how they improve over time

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#67

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

I didn't just take issue with your rapid drop in rating by -100 points in the past 2 days in blitz chess

I also called out your preference to beat up on opponents rated 1200 to 1400 points below you to boost your ego. there is nothing honorable about punching down on your competition

others may disagree but that is my personal opinion. Just as it is my personal opinion about all the fake non forms of chess that are being promoted.

I don't have a preference to "beat low rated players up " I like playing against everyone I don't CARE about their rating wether or not they are 800 or 2900

If you care about their rating because 'bad " that's more about you than it is about me

Besides lower rated players are way better than you think they are

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#68

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

I didn't just take issue with your rapid drop in rating by -100 points in the past 2 days in blitz chess

I also called out your preference to beat up on opponents rated 1200 to 1400 points below you to boost your ego. there is nothing honorable about punching down on your competition

others may disagree but that is my personal opinion. Just as it is my personal opinion about all the fake non forms of chess that are being promoted.

I don't have a preference to "beat low rated players up " I like playing against everyone I don't CARE about their rating wether or not they are 800 or 2900

If you care about their rating because 'bad " that's more about you than it is about me

Besides lower rated players are way better than you think they are

how convenient that you play 800 level opponents after taking a beating from 2200 level opponents over the last 2 days and falling -100 points in blitz chess

that's just coincidental

no. it isn't.

look stop picking on the lowly rated 800 players and show some respect for the game of Chess. Set your match selector to 2200 plus and play some real opponents rather than hiding from them and playing 800 level opponents rated -1300 below you or more. that's just embarrassing already

quit trying to justify your actions to pick on lower rated players. it's not a fair fight. take on 2200 level opponents and continue your descent in rating. take your medicine instead of hiding from it

Do you no what my pairings setting is -25 + all there's a reason for that

I only play lower rated players if they want to im not picking on anyone BECAUSE they want to do it

If I forced them to do it it would be different but I do not

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#69

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

this is not trash talking. take a look at who this guy is playing and you will see that he is punching down on much weaker opponents rated -1300 below his level to boost his ego

I take issue with that because I'm tired of the lack of honor in chess today. that's dishonorable to pick on such lowly rated opponents

Actually I don't do it for an ego boost lmao actually playing against lower rated players shows me just how bad I am at chess they beat me all the time

There not esson to play against lower rated players for an "ego boost " ironically got the one that has he ego here otherwise why would you be bragging about playing "good" players "

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#70

It's alot more honorable to let a person worse than you to play for practice rather than to reject them

I would love to play against a 2900 just for he challenge plus they probably feel the same way why not make that a reality

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#71

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

It's alot more honorable to let a person worse than you to play for practice rather than to reject them

I would love to play against a 2900 just for he challenge plus they probably feel the same way why not make that a reality

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#72

I'm just being nice bro chill out nothing about honor lmao if you think it is your just being dishonorable

I don't play against lowrated players to flex or to win every game I like to lose alot more often than I like to win

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#73

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

I feel like I'm doing a service to our chess community by defeating players like Junior Chessplayer665 who keeps picking on much lower rated opponents rated 800 to boost his ego while pretending that he is doing them a favor by doing so.

i'm upholding the honor of Chess. someone has to do it

take care & be honorable everyone

Your not unfortenently your just doing it for your own ego to flex how your better than someone else

Why do you care so much about how someone else plays chess anyway this doesn't make any sense to me it's a game everyone as long as they arnt being toxic about it can play chess however they want to

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#74

llama_l wrote:

Is it fun to beat much weaker opponents? Sometimes. It's fun because not only do all your ideas work, and even when you blunder you get to win anyway. That can be a lot of fun.

Is it fun to lose to a much stronger opponent? Sometimes. It's fun because you can steal their hard-earned ideas and techniques, and they'll also highlight your major flaws for you.

But sometimes it's not fun at all to play someone much lower or much higher...

... so I think both of you @prince_skywalker and @bigchessplayer665 are wrong each of you are pretending it's one thing or the other. In reality it's a little of both.

sometimes I agree sometimes it isn't fun ... Lol but yes pretty much this I agree with

He was missing the point of why I'm doing it though

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#75

llama_l wrote:

Is it fun to beat much weaker opponents? Sometimes. It's fun because not only do all your ideas work, even when you blunder you get to win anyway. That can be a lot of fun.

Is it fun to lose to a much stronger opponent? Sometimes. It's fun because you can steal their hard-earned ideas and techniques, and they'll also highlight your major flaws for you.

But sometimes it's not fun at all to play someone much lower or much higher...

... so I think both of you @prince_skywalker and @bigchessplayer665 are wrong each of you are pretending it's one thing or the other. In reality it's a little of both.

Though my point was not either or not t was fun I was trying to say that I was doing it because other people wanted to I probably could've used a better choice of words

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#76

llama_l wrote:

But yeah, after you're learned the basics, playing titled players can speedrun your improvement... because they're giving you all their ideas and techniques... just handing them to you, like here you go, I worked on this for years, and now you get it for free

Pretty much lol that's kind of what I said earlier when I was saying "I would want to play against 2900s why wouldn't I let lowerated players play against me ) cause to me that's selfish

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#77

From what ir recall I wasn't arguing wether or not it was fun though I do agree with your first post im just curious where I said it was fun or where exactly it was a bit iffy

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#78

llama_l wrote:

I don't know if it's useful when you're, you know... 1000 or something. IMO it's probably better to get a book on strategy or endgames, something like that.

But yeah, after you've taken time to study all the basics, then you can look at what some guy who has been improving for 10 years does, and "steal" that

I think we should ask breeze wether or not it's useful but from what I heard from 1200s playing against me it was super helpful

I do think usually playing against an opponent about 400 ish higher rated tho is more useful

BigChessplayer665

Jul 13, 2024

0

#79

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Prince_Skywalker wrote:

I don't really respect players who punch down on their Opponents by playing -1400 or more below their rating to beat up on lower rated competition

Such players are disingenuous & lack the character of real chess players. Chess is supposed to be about honorable conduct & when you see those players rated 2100 beating up on 800 level opponents it really turns my stomach. There is no honor in beating up on opponents rated 1400-1300 points lower than you.

I don't play people lower rated than me to beat them up theres not fun in that but a lot seem to like playing against 2000+ why not let them

If they want to play I let them and alot actually do want to play 2000s and they genually do get better it's fun to watch how they improve over time

I guess I did say it's fun to watch how they improve over time

amerikahoya

Jul 15, 2024

0

#80

Hello guys here for the award