Tonya_Harding wrote:
Yes! Like it's always the even worse wannabe Chess players who can't get over the fact they won't make it to the holy Grail of amateur players (2000 and +) without hard working!
who are u talking to ms. stock fish
Jeez are people here toxic...
Sort:
Dec 12, 2020
0
#23
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Yes! Like it's always the even worse wannabe Chess players who can't get over the fact they won't make it to the holy Grail of amateur players (2000 and +) without hard working!
u realize that means u
Dec 12, 2020
0
#24
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Kopamed a écrit :
In fact, some people here are so toxic, that when you don't take their comments to heart, and look at the bigger picture, it becomes quite obvious and hilarious how they are wasting their own time and fighting over nothing. Here, is a good example of this: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/new-to-this-site-how-do-i-play-a-game-with-myself . On that thread, the queen of chess herself/himself (I think you can guess who that is without having to say their name) started a giant toxic fight that lasted 2 days and spanned over more than 5 pages. She/he could have just replied with the link to the analysis board, yet she/he chooses to not only to ruin some people's day by wasting their time but also wasted her/his own time by being unnecessary toxic. Its really funny how she/he just wastes her/his own time, but I still think its a big problem that some people here are that toxic and are not willing to behave maturely. Why are people this toxic and why do mods do nothing about them?
And sure doing such a "naming and shaming" thread is not toxic at all, then, restarting a flame war that a moderator just have locked down is not toxic at all, and one is not in their right to point out it's irritating and annoying to see people asking where their nose is, because they're too lazy to try find out by themselves but want to play Chess anyway.
That's a good 3 - 0 for pathetic whinny squeaker vs reason.
u realize when u say 3-0 its why squeaker 3 u 0 lmao
i really dont think ur reason
and if u say im wasting my time im not, im practicing my debate for debate class sike
Dec 12, 2020
0
#25
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Yes! Like it's always the even worse wannabe Chess players who can't get over the fact they won't make it to the holy Grail of amateur players (2000 and +) without hard working!
You are barely 2000... you do realise you are just a wannabe chessplayer right? 2000 is nothing in the big schema of things. In long time controls im 1800, barely 200 points beneath you and I never studied chess in my life. Doesn't that tell you how bad 2000 is? If you think it's good maybe you should ask a titled player what a 2065 in chess.com is worth ... xD
Dec 12, 2020
0
#26
xor_eax wrote:
Just ignore those toxic players around 2000 ELO, which is incredibly mediocre in the big schema of chess things, but still enjoy acting like they are the best players on the site.
I suggested to a player to study positional play along tactics the other day, and I dared mentioned I am a 1800 ELO player in longer time controls (but Im 1200 in rapid because I just blunder almost every game in fast time controls), and instead of criticising my advise with real arguments addressing my points, some random 2100 decided to focus his whole argument I was exaggerating or lying about my rating. Imagine studying chess all your life and being just 300 points ELO above a player like me who has not read a single article of chess in their life, and bragging about it
Just ignore toxic people.
excuse me!? we the gods here boi! you all the plankton that keep this terribly funded pyramid scheme going!
When u have a forum on any site or engine, it'll attract people with problems. You have to think of the forums like a social setting at school or workplace etc. When there's a large gathering of people anywhere you get conflict of ideas.
Some people perceive things differently. The problem is there's no filter, so everything is posted just how it is. It's inevitable.
Dec 12, 2020
0
#28
I have met some pawn pushers in my life. It's understandable they come to these forums to troll amateurs, it's like ... all they have. Some of them around 2000 ELO in chess, but 100 ELO in real life. Their pawn pushing skills don't help them on anything outside a chess board at all, and are usually on the receiving end on everything other than moving pieces on a board, so it's quite understandable the internet gives them a chance to be the ones on top and brag about it.
Some even create internet clubs and call them "Chess elite" just for bragging rights. It gets a bid sad.
Dec 12, 2020
0
#29
Tonya_Harding wrote:
xor_eax a écrit :
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Yes! Like it's always the even worse wannabe Chess players who can't get over the fact they won't make it to the holy Grail of amateur players (2000 and +) without hard working!
You are barely 2000... you do realise you are just a wannabe chessplayer right? 2000 is nothing in the big schema of things. In long time controls im 1800, barely 200 points beneath you and I never studied chess in my life. Doesn't that tell you how bad 2000 is? If you think it's good maybe you should ask a titled player what a 2065 in chess.com is worth ... xD
And you pretend not to realize that reaching 2000+ is something not even 1% of players on Chess.com can reach.
With that "mediocre" 2071 rating I've got right now as I'm typing, I do rank #7588 on over 2.600.000 players who used this site in the past 90 days and played "rapid" games.
"Mediocre" contains the root "med", like "middle, or medium. Do you see your wrong here?
When you make it to 2000+, you achieve the highest amateur rank there is, and can titkle the toes of the "gods" of Chess, like scoring a win or a draw, every now and then, vs an IM or a GM. And not just out of a blunder of them.
To get beyond 2200 is something that requires two things:
_ Rare mind features, such as photographic memory
_ More work than one with a full time job, relationship and maybe kids, can provide.
So, spit all you want on "2000+", it's the ultimate achievement for any regular amateur player. And I can't help but notice, you're so far from it, still in the beginners section, what you type can be taken for childish jealousy.
yes but serious people who train are ez 2000, just becuase some noobs dont train u say that
Dec 12, 2020
0
#30
Tonya_Harding wrote:
xor_eax a écrit :
I have met some pawn pushers in my life. It's understandable they come to these forums to troll amateurs, it's like ... all they have. Some of them around 2000 ELO in chess, but 100 ELO in real life. Their pawn pushing skills don't help them on anything outside a chess board at all, and are usually on the receiving end on everything other than moving pieces on a board, so it's quite understandable the internet gives them a chance to be the ones on top and brag about it.
Some even create internet clubs and call them "Chess elite" just for bragging rights. It gets a bid sad.
You can say all you want, but it's not me who's wandering around with a 1200+ Elo rating and try convince people they're actually 1800.
ur so bad u actually belong in the trash elite
Dec 12, 2020
0
#31
Tonya_Harding wrote:
xor_eax a écrit :
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Yes! Like it's always the even worse wannabe Chess players who can't get over the fact they won't make it to the holy Grail of amateur players (2000 and +) without hard working!
You are barely 2000... you do realise you are just a wannabe chessplayer right? 2000 is nothing in the big schema of things. In long time controls im 1800, barely 200 points beneath you and I never studied chess in my life. Doesn't that tell you how bad 2000 is? If you think it's good maybe you should ask a titled player what a 2065 in chess.com is worth ... xD
And you pretend not to realize that reaching 2000+ is something not even 1% of players on Chess.com can reach.
With that "mediocre" 2071 rating I've got right now as I'm typing, I do rank #7588 on over 2.600.000 players who used this site in the past 90 days and played "rapid" games.
"Mediocre" contains the root "med", like "middle, or medium. Do you see your wrong here?
When you make it to 2000+, you achieve the highest amateur rank there is, and can titkle the toes of the "gods" of Chess, like scoring a win or a draw, every now and then, vs an IM or a GM. And not just out of a blunder of them.
To get beyond 2200 is something that requires two things:
_ Rare mind features, such as photographic memory
_ More work than one with a full time job, relationship and maybe kids, can provide.
So, spit all you want on "2000+", it's the ultimate achievement for any regular amateur player. And I can't help but notice, you're so far from it, still in the beginners section, what you type can be taken for childish jealousy.
The "gods" of chess, etc. etc. do you even listen to yourself and how you talk? Im not far from it im 1800 in longer time controls. But I dont study chess and even if never make 2000 i dont care. You on the other hand care so much and are barely 2000. It must suck to be you.
I also had photographic memory when I was younger but I used it for other more important things than a board game.
Dec 12, 2020
0
#32
xor_eax wrote:
Tonya_Harding wrote:
xor_eax a écrit :
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Yes! Like it's always the even worse wannabe Chess players who can't get over the fact they won't make it to the holy Grail of amateur players (2000 and +) without hard working!
You are barely 2000... you do realise you are just a wannabe chessplayer right? 2000 is nothing in the big schema of things. In long time controls im 1800, barely 200 points beneath you and I never studied chess in my life. Doesn't that tell you how bad 2000 is? If you think it's good maybe you should ask a titled player what a 2065 in chess.com is worth ... xD
And you pretend not to realize that reaching 2000+ is something not even 1% of players on Chess.com can reach.
With that "mediocre" 2071 rating I've got right now as I'm typing, I do rank #7588 on over 2.600.000 players who used this site in the past 90 days and played "rapid" games.
"Mediocre" contains the root "med", like "middle, or medium. Do you see your wrong here?
When you make it to 2000+, you achieve the highest amateur rank there is, and can titkle the toes of the "gods" of Chess, like scoring a win or a draw, every now and then, vs an IM or a GM. And not just out of a blunder of them.
To get beyond 2200 is something that requires two things:
_ Rare mind features, such as photographic memory
_ More work than one with a full time job, relationship and maybe kids, can provide.
So, spit all you want on "2000+", it's the ultimate achievement for any regular amateur player. And I can't help but notice, you're so far from it, still in the beginners section, what you type can be taken for childish jealousy.
The "gods" of chess, etc. etc. do you even listen to yourself and how you talk? Im not far from it im 1800 in longer time controls. But I dont study chess and even if never make 2000 i dont care. You on the other hand care so much and are barely 2000. It must suck to be you.
I also had photographic memory when I was younger but I used it for other more important things than a board game.
now i have to agree ur loosing the debate, saying u had the skill means ur bad and calling chess a board game is like ur not studying
Dec 12, 2020
0
#33
duntcare wrote:
xor_eax wrote:
Tonya_Harding wrote:
xor_eax a écrit :
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Yes! Like it's always the even worse wannabe Chess players who can't get over the fact they won't make it to the holy Grail of amateur players (2000 and +) without hard working!
You are barely 2000... you do realise you are just a wannabe chessplayer right? 2000 is nothing in the big schema of things. In long time controls im 1800, barely 200 points beneath you and I never studied chess in my life. Doesn't that tell you how bad 2000 is? If you think it's good maybe you should ask a titled player what a 2065 in chess.com is worth ... xD
And you pretend not to realize that reaching 2000+ is something not even 1% of players on Chess.com can reach.
With that "mediocre" 2071 rating I've got right now as I'm typing, I do rank #7588 on over 2.600.000 players who used this site in the past 90 days and played "rapid" games.
"Mediocre" contains the root "med", like "middle, or medium. Do you see your wrong here?
When you make it to 2000+, you achieve the highest amateur rank there is, and can titkle the toes of the "gods" of Chess, like scoring a win or a draw, every now and then, vs an IM or a GM. And not just out of a blunder of them.
To get beyond 2200 is something that requires two things:
_ Rare mind features, such as photographic memory
_ More work than one with a full time job, relationship and maybe kids, can provide.
So, spit all you want on "2000+", it's the ultimate achievement for any regular amateur player. And I can't help but notice, you're so far from it, still in the beginners section, what you type can be taken for childish jealousy.
The "gods" of chess, etc. etc. do you even listen to yourself and how you talk? Im not far from it im 1800 in longer time controls. But I dont study chess and even if never make 2000 i dont care. You on the other hand care so much and are barely 2000. It must suck to be you.
I also had photographic memory when I was younger but I used it for other more important things than a board game.
now i have to agree ur loosing the debate, saying u had the skill means ur bad and calling chess a board game is like ur not studying
Did you read what I wrote? I said a couple of times I dont study chess at all.
And I had photographic memory, yes. But I've not really used it in years and I think it's gone. When I was in my teens I could visualise entire pages of books and read them back in my mind. For example.
Never used the skill on chess, it seems like a waste spending it on a board game.
Dec 12, 2020
0
#34
Tonya_Harding wrote:
You're no 1800 OTB, it's not possible to be an active player OTB and get a rating 600 points under online.
I dont play OTB, I play Daily chess. I take around a couple of minutes per move and I usually play around 70-100 simul games with a short time control. Thinking about every move for a couple of minutes helps a lot. It also helps I learnt positional thinking and long term strategy and that shot me up to the 1800s. And im playing against people that use databases and engine-analysed games - which I dont.
The reason I dont play OTB is at under 1800s is Im not seriously enough into chess for that, and also the under 1800 bracket is usually little kids bracket.
I simply cannot see anything on the board at 10 minute games, I hang pieces in 80% of my games. That'd not happen in longer time controls, AT ALL.
what is the criteria that measures toxicity of people?
Dec 12, 2020
0
#36
https://psychcentral.com/blog/whats-a-toxic-person-how-do-you-deal-with-one/
According to Gale, it’s common for people with toxic behavior to: create drama in their lives or be surrounded by it; try to manipulate or control others; be needy (“it is all about them all the time”); use others to meet their needs (such as “narcissistic parents”); be extremely critical of themselves and others; be jealous and envious of others, bemoaning their bad fortune and others’ good fortune; abuse substances or harm themselves in other ways, and be unwilling (or unable) to seek help from loved ones, a therapist or a recovery program.
Dec 12, 2020
0
#37
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Then your 1800 rating is no proper Chess rating, it's more like an ICCF rating. Same goes with Chess puzzles composition and solving, it's sure an art, but it's not "Chess" as should be: with a proper time limit, like 1h30+30s/move.
It's not FIDE rating, no. But it's still chess rating, and you are wrong, because it's not like "puzzles" that put you in a position from the get-go and you have to find out just a few moves that you KNOW they are there. It's a full match from start to finish, just longer time control. I doubt I would hang all the pieces I hang @10 minutes in a 1h 30 minutes move. Considering I take around a couple of minutes per move on each game in daily-like chess (because I have around 40-50 to move in each day), 1h30 would be similar. Also my opponent would not have the help of chess databases which are allowed, or engine analysis from already finished games, which are also allowed.
Dec 12, 2020
0
#38
Tonya_Harding wrote:
Games where you can move the pieces over the board before you play your move is no proper Chess.
Chess is chess, the rules are the same.
Dec 12, 2020
0
#39
rudscoe wrote:
what is the criteria that measures toxicity of people?
Chess.com will be adding the following symbols next year. They will appear in place of the membership icon.
Dec 12, 2020
0
#40
What do you mean? The rules are exactly the same as OTB chess. It's not different compared to the chess we play on this site, it's just a longer time control, such as a daily control. The FIDE has even created titles for players that used to play by mail (real mail), because it's chess.
Now you are getting really silly and just arguing nonsense for the sake of arguing.
its uncreative troll