power_9_the_people wrote:
Where is elsewhere? I wish you were here. Or something
There are other places in the online world to play and study chess... Needless to say... there's also the offline world.
On blocking players and making the most of your chess.com experience
Sort:
wornaki wrote:
power_9_the_people wrote:
Where is elsewhere? I wish you were here. Or something
There are other places in the online world to play and study chess... Needless to say... there's also the offline world.
The offline world? I know what you mean.
wornaki wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
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.
Elsewhere in other life? )
Strangemover wrote:
wornaki wrote:
Strangemover wrote:
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.
Strangemover, thank you.
All history of Chess ran before my eyes while I was reading your post... your observation.
But I wonder... how can the man with so low rating as wornaki.. to know the history of Chess well enough too... in order to argue with you?
I am russian but I have never seen even one game of Alehin... because I thought and I think still that GMs games are above my level of Chess understanding.
It's sad to say that for me... but I can't even understand .many moves of you... 2000s players.
Mar 3, 2021
0
#206
wornaki wrote:
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.
My bewilderment likely comes from the gap in understanding between you and I, when it comes to chess comprehension.
I don't mean this as an insult to you, but I do think it explains our difference of opinions. When you reach a higher level of play, some day, I'm quite confident that you'll think differently of the game.
This is true of all chess players: our notions and temperaments at the board tend to change and evolve as our vision and knowledge expands—as we start to see the ideas blooming behind the moves, rather than merely looking at the surface of the moves themselves.
What looks brutish and crass to you now may, one day, begin to look sharp and efficient. And Morphy's "caveman" style may, one day, even start to look beautiful.
Mar 3, 2021
0
#207
KnightChecked wrote:
wornaki wrote:
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.
My bewilderment likely comes from the gap in understanding between you and I, when it comes to chess comprehension.
I don't mean this as an insult to you, but I do think it explains our difference of opinions. When you reach a higher level of play, some day, I'm quite confident that you'll think differently of the game.
This is true of all chess players: our notions and temperaments at the board tend to change and evolve as our vision and knowledge expands—as we start to see the ideas blooming behind the moves, rather than merely look at the surface of the moves themselves.
What looks brutish and crass to you now may, one day, begin to look sharp and efficient. And Morphy's "caveman" style may, one day, even start to look beautiful.
It may happen. If/when I reach a higher level of chess comprehension, maybe I'll tell you I appreciate bully chess, but I sincerely doubt it. I have non chess related elements to dislike certain ways of playing chess, while at the same time liking others. For instance, i dislike caveman style, because it may be efficient, but it also hinges on the opponent not finding a good move to make. Somebody mentioned Tal... (you can add Nezhmetdinov too). Tal played some unsound sacrifices, but there was elegance to it. Morphy in this game (and in others), as well as many of the masters of that generation played unsound sacrifices that were far from elegant.
As you may realize, I like elegance a lot more than i like efficiency in chess. And I think that most aggressive tactical play leans towards crassness and I've talked to many who are of NM+ strength who think the same that I think. It's just a way of seeing chess. The NM+ strength players don't dismiss Morphy or any attacker chess at all, but even liking combinations and tactics, they don't think highly of bully like chess.
Mar 3, 2021
0
#208
Morphy was simply so much stronger than almost all of his opponents that a strong initiative in his hands was worth more sacrificed material. That his games were "bullying" (whatever that means) or unsound are probably beyond your or my ability to judge.
Mar 4, 2021
0
#209
wornaki wrote:
I've just blocked a guy who mated me by doing the usual Q+B battery against h7. I'm tired of all those who try that. It's as boring as those who go for Scholar's mate. All of that is so disgusting that it makes me wonder why i even bother playing on this site. Other sites have less annoying players...
lol WHAT? YOU BLOCKED THEM FOR CHECKMATING YOU? What are you doing on a chess website then?
Mar 4, 2021
0
#210
AunTheKnight wrote:
wornaki wrote:
I've just blocked a guy who mated me by doing the usual Q+B battery against h7. I'm tired of all those who try that. It's as boring as those who go for Scholar's mate. All of that is so disgusting that it makes me wonder why i even bother playing on this site. Other sites have less annoying players...
lol WHAT? YOU BLOCKED THEM FOR CHECKMATING YOU? What are you doing on a chess website then?
I did not block him because he checkmated me. If I were to do that... I would not play chess anywhere, not just here. 
But since you don't seem to interpret that correctly, i'll emphasize the reason "I'm tired of all those who try that". Simple as that.
Mar 4, 2021
0
#211
JackRoach wrote:
Annoying. Yeah, I assume every time a player doesn't hang a piece it must be annoying to you.
Nope. In that bullet game, his opponent hung a bishop.
Mar 4, 2021
0
#212
AunTheKnight wrote:
JackRoach wrote:
Annoying. Yeah, I assume every time a player doesn't hang a piece it must be annoying to you.
Nope. In that bullet game, his opponent hung a bishop.
And yet, I didn't block him for that.
Mar 4, 2021
0
#213
wornaki wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
wornaki wrote:
I've just blocked a guy who mated me by doing the usual Q+B battery against h7. I'm tired of all those who try that. It's as boring as those who go for Scholar's mate. All of that is so disgusting that it makes me wonder why i even bother playing on this site. Other sites have less annoying players...
lol WHAT? YOU BLOCKED THEM FOR CHECKMATING YOU? What are you doing on a chess website then?
I did not block him because he checkmated me. If I were to do that... I would not play chess anywhere, not just here. But since you don't seem to interpret that correctly, i'll emphasize the reason "I'm tired of all those who try that". Simple as that.
Soon you will find all checkmates annoying at this rate.
Mar 4, 2021
0
#214
AunTheKnight wrote:
wornaki wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
wornaki wrote:
I've just blocked a guy who mated me by doing the usual Q+B battery against h7. I'm tired of all those who try that. It's as boring as those who go for Scholar's mate. All of that is so disgusting that it makes me wonder why i even bother playing on this site. Other sites have less annoying players...
lol WHAT? YOU BLOCKED THEM FOR CHECKMATING YOU? What are you doing on a chess website then?
I did not block him because he checkmated me. If I were to do that... I would not play chess anywhere, not just here. But since you don't seem to interpret that correctly, i'll emphasize the reason "I'm tired of all those who try that". Simple as that.
Soon you will find all checkmates annoying at this rate.
Maybe... or maybe I'll stop finding annoying playing "styles" soon enough 
wornaki wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
wornaki wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
wornaki wrote:
I've just blocked a guy who mated me by doing the usual Q+B battery against h7. I'm tired of all those who try that. It's as boring as those who go for Scholar's mate. All of that is so disgusting that it makes me wonder why i even bother playing on this site. Other sites have less annoying players...
lol WHAT? YOU BLOCKED THEM FOR CHECKMATING YOU? What are you doing on a chess website then?
I did not block him because he checkmated me. If I were to do that... I would not play chess anywhere, not just here. But since you don't seem to interpret that correctly, i'll emphasize the reason "I'm tired of all those who try that". Simple as that.
Soon you will find all checkmates annoying at this rate.
Maybe... or maybe I'll stop finding annoying playing "styles" soon enough
block those people who are abusing the use of their queen next... UGH my opponents queen is so annoying -_-
Mar 4, 2021
0
#216
The standard f7 and h7 mating attacks are a basic element of opening theory (especially the 1.e4 e5 openings) so it's likely that many times your opponents are not actually trying to mate you but are just forcing you to show them how you plan to defend your king. That you fail to do so is on you and blocking them because of your own failures IS poor sportsmanship. Blocking people that you don't wish to play again is your prerogative, but starting forums to boast about it encourage others to emulate you seems questionable.
Mar 4, 2021
0
#217
mpaetz wrote:
The standard f7 and h7 mating attacks are a basic element of opening theory (especially the 1.e4 e5 openings) so it's likely that many times your opponents are not actually trying to mate you but are just forcing you to show them how you plan to defend your king. That you fail to do so is on you and blocking them because of your own failures IS poor sportsmanship. Blocking people that you don't wish to play again is your prerogative, but starting forums to boast about it encourage others to emulate you seems questionable.
Well said.
Mar 4, 2021
0
#218
mpaetz wrote:
The standard f7 and h7 mating attacks are a basic element of opening theory (especially the 1.e4 e5 openings) so it's likely that many times your opponents are not actually trying to mate you but are just forcing you to show them how you plan to defend your king. That you fail to do so is on you and blocking them because of your own failures IS poor sportsmanship. Blocking people that you don't wish to play again is your prerogative, but starting forums to boast about it encourage others to emulate you seems questionable.
I never implied they weren't basic attacks. I dare even say they are simplistic, which is why I dislike them. And I don't think it's poor sportsmanship to block people who play simplistic aggressive chess, but that's an opinion.
wornaki wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
The standard f7 and h7 mating attacks are a basic element of opening theory (especially the 1.e4 e5 openings) so it's likely that many times your opponents are not actually trying to mate you but are just forcing you to show them how you plan to defend your king. That you fail to do so is on you and blocking them because of your own failures IS poor sportsmanship. Blocking people that you don't wish to play again is your prerogative, but starting forums to boast about it encourage others to emulate you seems questionable.
I never implied they weren't basic attacks. I dare even say they are simplistic, which is why I dislike them. And I don't think it's poor sportsmanship to block people who play simplistic aggressive chess, but that's an opinion.
you could try to trade queens early
Where is elsewhere? I wish you were here. Or something