One further thing: the OP can do what they like. I think that they're wrong, but whatever.
It is, however, ridiculous to post this under the title "making the most of your chess.com experience". If you're not trying to improve, and blocking half the players you encounter, you are definitely not making the most of it.
wornaki:
I'm not sure why you ever come here to play. You say it is because you want to have fun and don't care about improving your play, but isn't playing a good game the most satisfying thing you can do in chess? Most of us can't play out best-quality games all the time but enjoy it tremendously when we do.
It looks like you only enjoy playing when your opponent plays in the style you approve, using opening you deem acceptable. Perhaps you could just put out a challenge looking for players willing to play mini-matches in particular openings.
Opening forums on blocking players and boasting about how many "annoying" players (how dare they play the way they think is best) you have blocked displays poor manners and questionable taste.
It's a way of spending time in chess. Nothing too exciting, but it helps pass the time.
As for manners and taste... I can take the criticism. I'll raise my own. It's bad manners to play cheapo style. It's distasteful to play aggressive and unsound. All of that falls under the umbrella of bully chess to me and I strongly object to anything that is bully like.
Now, you may disagree with my characterization, but I'm coherent about it. I dislike it and I don't want to play against people who are play bully chess and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who doesn't. If there's any alternative to blocking people, I'm all eyes.
One further thing: the OP can do what they like. I think that they're wrong, but whatever.
It is, however, ridiculous to post this under the title "making the most of your chess.com experience". If you're not trying to improve, and blocking half the players you encounter, you are definitely not making the most of it.
As I said, there's many many reasons to block someone. If you feel that yours is correct, it's not a bad thing to block the opponent. That's all I'm telling beginners.
I have to say if you want to improve as a player then you really should learn to play against their openings. Find a way to analyze what's wrong with their opening and if you get them again this time you can destroy them and then always have that skill under your belt
Sure... I could do that, but I'm not interested in doing so here. I come here for the fun of playing chess.
hah ur not having fun if you think ppl play annoying moves
I have to say if you want to improve as a player then you really should learn to play against their openings. Find a way to analyze what's wrong with their opening and if you get them again this time you can destroy them and then always have that skill under your belt
Sure... I could do that, but I'm not interested in doing so here. I come here for the fun of playing chess.
hah ur not having fun if you think ppl play annoying moves
Fortunately, I play a lot of people and block a very small part of them... So it's still fun, but we'll see when it becomes not fun.
For those who think that the issue that I have is related to losing... Here's a game played with unsound aggressiveness... Namely, an attempt at a scholar's mate. Bully chess at its finest. I won on time, but my opponent had a worse position. Naturally, my opponent was blocked.
Bully chess i don't readily accept...
Anyone who reads this thread, ends up playing the OP and doesn't immediately start slamming every piece into the kingside in a desperate aggressive attack is a cop.
Lol
I just had a game in which I lost to one of those aggressive attacks. But I didn't block the guy, because it was a good sound game, with no simplistic attacks Compare the game by Morphy to this and see what I mean by saying sound aggressive game with no simplistic attacks.
So I post a Morphy game, and you call it "disgusting" chess. Then you post this game, between a 1300 and a 1200, and you call it "a good sound game".
...
I am bewildered.
Perhaps I need to reevaluate everything I thought I knew about chess. 
I just had a game in which I lost to one of those aggressive attacks. But I didn't block the guy, because it was a good sound game, with no simplistic attacks Compare the game by Morphy to this and see what I mean by saying sound aggressive game with no simplistic attacks.
So I post a Morphy game, and you call it "disgusting" chess. Then you post this game, and call it "a good sound game".
...
I am bewildered.
What makes you bewildered? That I think that the game I lost has more strategical finesse than the caveman tactical approach of Morphy? I object to the tactical bully type chess that was played by Morphy in that game you presented. Morphy was capable of winning without resorting to bully chess. The fact that he did... eh well... does not reflect that well on him imho. You're welcome to disagree.
At first I thought that maybe the OP had a point that I just didn't agree with, but the more they talk, the more I disagree.
If the OP had their way, Alekhine and Tal would surely have been hounded out of the game at a junior level.
Personally I find the repetition that the OP almost actively doesn't want to get better baffling. I want to get better at all my hobbies; at everything I do really. It's not a primary motivation, necessarily, but surely you derive more satisfaction and enjoyment from doing things better? Yes, day to day I might do it just for fun, but if I'm not improving over the long run, it just feels like a waste of time. But that's their call.
Looking at that game between the OP and roberto83 which ended with a block, it is unbelievably arrogant to complain that the opponent played "unsound", let alone "disgusting" chess, in a 28-move game that they won. If it was a cheap trick, the game would be over in a couple of moves. Over that length of game, if the play was unsound, the OP should have won.
As others have commented, the actual basis for the OP's annoyance seemed to be not that his opponent did anything actually wrong, but that he had the temerity to attack the OP's king at all.
This prompted me to look a bit more closely at the OP's record.
Total bullet games played: 2126
Won: 1009
Won by timeout: 846
Won by checkmate: 81
Won by resignation: 77
Lost: 1017
Lost by timeout: 447
Lost by checkmate: 336
Lost by resignation: 204
So in bullet over 80% of the OP's wins are by timeout, less than 8% by checkmate and around 15% in total by winning "on the board", i.e. by checkmate or resignation.
Meanwhile more than half their defeats come as a result of lost or apparently lost position.
This rather suggests that if anyone is habitually playing "unsound" chess in these bullet games, it's the OP, whose primary strength is moving quickly and hoping to flag the opponent before they get checkmated.
Several points:
1- It's bullet.
2- I'm not playing serious chess on this site
3- I provided an example of sound aggressive attack in which I didn't block my opponent
4- If people don't like me playing bullet the way I do, they can block me. Just a click away.
5- I've blocked several people that I have won against (and not by flagging)
As for Tal and Alekhine, there was nothing too unsound about many of the sacrifices they made. They were great players whose style was aggressive, but not cheapo like. They didn't go for that. With the romantics... that's harder to state. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
Quite a few of Tal's sacrifices were unsound. You should make a post listing the acceptable openings/variations that people may play against you. Are positional sacs off the table as well?
At first I thought that maybe the OP had a point that I just didn't agree with, but the more they talk, the more I disagree.
If the OP had their way, Alekhine and Tal would surely have been hounded out of the game at a junior level.
Personally I find the repetition that the OP almost actively doesn't want to get better baffling. I want to get better at all my hobbies; at everything I do really. It's not a primary motivation, necessarily, but surely you derive more satisfaction and enjoyment from doing things better? Yes, day to day I might do it just for fun, but if I'm not improving over the long run, it just feels like a waste of time. But that's their call.
Looking at that game between the OP and roberto83 which ended with a block, it is unbelievably arrogant to complain that the opponent played "unsound", let alone "disgusting" chess, in a 28-move game that they won. If it was a cheap trick, the game would be over in a couple of moves. Over that length of game, if the play was unsound, the OP should have won.
As others have commented, the actual basis for the OP's annoyance seemed to be not that his opponent did anything actually wrong, but that he had the temerity to attack the OP's king at all.
This prompted me to look a bit more closely at the OP's record.
Total bullet games played: 2126
Won: 1009
Won by timeout: 846
Won by checkmate: 81
Won by resignation: 77
Lost: 1017
Lost by timeout: 447
Lost by checkmate: 336
Lost by resignation: 204
So in bullet over 80% of the OP's wins are by timeout, less than 8% by checkmate and around 15% in total by winning "on the board", i.e. by checkmate or resignation.
Meanwhile more than half their defeats come as a result of lost or apparently lost position.
This rather suggests that if anyone is habitually playing "unsound" chess in these bullet games, it's the OP, whose primary strength is moving quickly and hoping to flag the opponent before they get checkmated.
Several points:
1- It's bullet.
2- I'm not playing serious chess on this site
3- I provided an example of sound aggressive attack in which I didn't block my opponent
4- If people don't like me playing bullet the way I do, they can block me. Just a click away.
5- I've blocked several people that I have won against (and not by flagging)
As for Tal and Alekhine, there was nothing too unsound about many of the sacrifices they made. They were great players whose style was aggressive, but not cheapo like. They didn't go for that. With the romantics... that's harder to state. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
Quite a few of Tal's sacrifices were unsound. You should make a post listing the acceptable openings/variations that people may play against you. Are positional sacs off the table as well?
Compare any game by Tal with one of his sacrifices with the game by Morphy and notice the difference between "unsound" aggressive play and "bully chess". Morphy used to play bully chess.
This is veering into other territory but the games of both Morphy and Tal helped to greatly improve the overall standard of play in the best players of their time. The reason for this was that they both proved that the general level of defensive technique was inadequate.
At first I thought that maybe the OP had a point that I just didn't agree with, but the more they talk, the more I disagree.
If the OP had their way, Alekhine and Tal would surely have been hounded out of the game at a junior level.
Personally I find the repetition that the OP almost actively doesn't want to get better baffling. I want to get better at all my hobbies; at everything I do really. It's not a primary motivation, necessarily, but surely you derive more satisfaction and enjoyment from doing things better? Yes, day to day I might do it just for fun, but if I'm not improving over the long run, it just feels like a waste of time. But that's their call.
Looking at that game between the OP and roberto83 which ended with a block, it is unbelievably arrogant to complain that the opponent played "unsound", let alone "disgusting" chess, in a 28-move game that they won. If it was a cheap trick, the game would be over in a couple of moves. Over that length of game, if the play was unsound, the OP should have won.
As others have commented, the actual basis for the OP's annoyance seemed to be not that his opponent did anything actually wrong, but that he had the temerity to attack the OP's king at all.
This prompted me to look a bit more closely at the OP's record.
Total bullet games played: 2126
Won: 1009
Won by timeout: 846
Won by checkmate: 81
Won by resignation: 77
Lost: 1017
Lost by timeout: 447
Lost by checkmate: 336
Lost by resignation: 204
So in bullet over 80% of the OP's wins are by timeout, less than 8% by checkmate and around 15% in total by winning "on the board", i.e. by checkmate or resignation.
Meanwhile more than half their defeats come as a result of lost or apparently lost position.
This rather suggests that if anyone is habitually playing "unsound" chess in these bullet games, it's the OP, whose primary strength is moving quickly and hoping to flag the opponent before they get checkmated.
Several points:
1- It's bullet.
2- I'm not playing serious chess on this site
3- I provided an example of sound aggressive attack in which I didn't block my opponent
4- If people don't like me playing bullet the way I do, they can block me. Just a click away.
5- I've blocked several people that I have won against (and not by flagging)
As for Tal and Alekhine, there was nothing too unsound about many of the sacrifices they made. They were great players whose style was aggressive, but not cheapo like. They didn't go for that. With the romantics... that's harder to state. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
Quite a few of Tal's sacrifices were unsound. You should make a post listing the acceptable openings/variations that people may play against you. Are positional sacs off the table as well?
Compare any game by Tal with one of his sacrifices with the game by Morphy and notice the difference between "unsound" aggressive play and "bully chess". Morphy used to play bully chess.
In all seriousness, I have no idea what you mean by bully chess. In your game from post 191, your opponent wasn't bullying anyone. He played poorly, I'm assuming due to premoves. Morphy is considered ahead of his time though in terms of how he handled the open games. If anything his peers thought he played too slowly, developing all his pieces BEFORE sacrificing. If you don't like Morphy you must hate anyone who came before him.
This is veering into other territory but the games of both Morphy and Tal helped to greatly improve the overall standard of play in the best players of their time. The reason for this was that they both proved that the general level of defensive technique was inadequate.
True. Now... in your opinion as a stronger player @Strangemover. Did Morphy play "bully chess" quite often? How often did Tal play "bully chess"?
This is veering into other territory but the games of both Morphy and Tal helped to greatly improve the overall standard of play in the best players of their time. The reason for this was that they both proved that the general level of defensive technique was inadequate.
True. Now... in your opinion as a stronger player @Strangemover. Did Morphy play "bully chess" quite often? How often did Tal play "bully chess"?
I think 'bully' is the wrong word...
Morphy showed scant regard for his pawns and in pure terms demonstrated the power of piece development and initiative. He showed greater understanding of these concepts than his peers - he cannot be blamed for beating others to prove himself the strongest player in the world and doing it the way he saw fit (nobody showed him these concepts, he figured it out for himself). One could possibly say that he 'bullied' the Duke and the Count in the 'Opera game' as he was playing skittles vs relative patzers - but even then he left a miniature which survives today as one of the most famous games of all time and which demonstrates how chess can be beautiful IMO.
Tal was an attacking genius...but as someone else stated earlier his attacks and sacrifices were not always sound. This wasn't important though because he simply checkmated everybody and left an unmatched collection of masterpieces. He created complications which proved too difficult to untangle for opponents most of the time.
Both players have and will continue to inspire people to grow an interest in chess by demonstrating what wonders are possible on a chessboard. It is their crushing victories that breed this inspiration.
Quite simply, it doesn't matter. You're using the blocking feature to prevent yourself from improving at chess. There are plenty of other players looking for games and I doubt anyone will be upset at not playing you.
Quite simply, it doesn't matter. You're using the blocking feature to prevent yourself from improving at chess. There are plenty of other players looking for games and I doubt anyone will be upset at not playing you.
The world of chess is vast... I will tell you one thing, though... I will continue to improve, though as I've been repeatedly saying, it may be elsewhere.
At first I thought that maybe the OP had a point that I just didn't agree with, but the more they talk, the more I disagree.
If the OP had their way, Alekhine and Tal would surely have been hounded out of the game at a junior level.
Personally I find the repetition that the OP almost actively doesn't want to get better baffling. I want to get better at all my hobbies; at everything I do really. It's not a primary motivation, necessarily, but surely you derive more satisfaction and enjoyment from doing things better? Yes, day to day I might do it just for fun, but if I'm not improving over the long run, it just feels like a waste of time. But that's their call.
Looking at that game between the OP and roberto83 which ended with a block, it is unbelievably arrogant to complain that the opponent played "unsound", let alone "disgusting" chess, in a 28-move game that they won. If it was a cheap trick, the game would be over in a couple of moves. Over that length of game, if the play was unsound, the OP should have won.
As others have commented, the actual basis for the OP's annoyance seemed to be not that his opponent did anything actually wrong, but that he had the temerity to attack the OP's king at all.
This prompted me to look a bit more closely at the OP's record.
Total bullet games played: 2126
Won: 1009
Won by timeout: 846
Won by checkmate: 81
Won by resignation: 77
Lost: 1017
Lost by timeout: 447
Lost by checkmate: 336
Lost by resignation: 204
So in bullet over 80% of the OP's wins are by timeout, less than 8% by checkmate and around 15% in total by winning "on the board", i.e. by checkmate or resignation.
Meanwhile more than half their defeats come as a result of lost or apparently lost position.
This rather suggests that if anyone is habitually playing "unsound" chess in these bullet games, it's the OP, whose primary strength is moving quickly and hoping to flag the opponent before they get checkmated.
Several points:
1- It's bullet.
2- I'm not playing serious chess on this site
3- I provided an example of sound aggressive attack in which I didn't block my opponent
4- If people don't like me playing bullet the way I do, they can block me. Just a click away.
5- I've blocked several people that I have won against (and not by flagging)
As for Tal and Alekhine, there was nothing too unsound about many of the sacrifices they made. They were great players whose style was aggressive, but not cheapo like. They didn't go for that. With the romantics... that's harder to state. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.