Never Give A Sucker An Even Break

What's your philosophy when it comes to playing chess?

It's Only A Game ... or ... Never Give A Sucker An Even Break!

or something in between?

OTB and correspondence Never give a break--blitz if an obvious error or mouse slip I usually give a take back if asked since the game is for fun

OTB is much more serious to me than online, but sometimes I still go for the kill.

kill..kill..kill  blitz or online

I try to leave my anger at my opponent out of chess, but sometimes it doesn't work, he is still rehabilitating... I send him flowers every week...

My approach to the game does not vary, regardless of the situation.  The struggle on a chess board is not personal, and there is great instruction (and beauty) in merciless play.

That said, my ability to effectively carry out my approach varies greatly based on my mood, health, rest, etc.  Also, like anyone else, my desire to beat a tournament opponent as opposed to a friend might supply additional fuel to find more correct moves.

All THAT said, it is still just a game.  After a merciless attack succeeds or fails, there is no shame in offering congratulations or encouragement.

On the board I show no mercy and expect no mercy. A killer, flat-crushing overrunning game is a rush no matter what side of the board I'm on (but it's most fun to run over the opponent), but after the game it's just fun, and the hardest word allowed is REVENGE!

Like it was said:

by kielejocain
Columbus United States

Option 2 in all forms of the game.

"[Chess]'s not matter of life or death ... it's more important than that."

"[Chess]'s not matter of life or death ... it's more important than that."

Shanks=Genius.

i am usually merciless, but one time i gave a guy my queen. it made a more fun game. when you are starting out you want to prove yourself by rating, once you get a good online rating, you realize fun is more important. in live play or tounaments-no mercy!!

no quarter asked or given, but it is only a game

I would have to agree with the general consensus but not the spirit. You take advantage of an opponet's blunder but without a sense of killing, beating, or humiliating. Its a matter of survival. An error can be the difference between my head or his and self-preservation is instinctual. A person's personality OTB or online parallels their outlook on life.

How does one discern who a sucker is? A crap player? A willing learner? In my experience, as an "underdog," It does not help if my opponent "gives me a break." I want to learn, I want help, but I don't want to be patronised...: ^ )

    When you play someone eye to eye, it is a whole different game.

The term 'sucker' is more appropriate in games like poker - where there is money at stake - than in chess; it implies hustling someone - conning them rather than simply outplaying them. It's the title of a famous movie starring W.C. Fields - and the phrase crops up in Sucker Row, a track from Mark Knopfler's Shangri-La album.

Perhaps I should have used a less memorable but more apt expression, like ruthlessly clinical.

Arty, your morphing into Miss Piggy again : ^ )

Still luv ya though...

Pretentious, Moi?

Paul211 Wrote...

well you know what you wrote.

Sorry Arty I think the trophy for "miss piggy incarnate" defo goes to our Paul. Ya gegg in : ^ ) 

We shall fight them on the beaches... we shall fight them with colloquialisms...

Siggy was nutts Paul , you do know that don't ya?  Anyway wasn't this forum topic about  the dilemas & contemplations of how to treat different opponents?