On blocking players and making the most of your chess.com experience

Yeah, Morphy had some dazzling King's Gambit attacks!

If you're interested in seeing more, that was the 4th game on this list: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1015028

No, he was much stronger than I was in those years.

Lol

calling a paul morphy game disgusting, no your play is disgusting, thats why you cant understand good chess. Hit 1300 atleast before judging chess man

if you are 900 in blitz, do expect me to play sacrificial chess against you because I know you wont be able to defend with your limited chess skills. Maybe when you will get better will people stop sacrificing so many pieces

im sorry but someone had to go at him. Calling a beautiful morphy game disgusting is unacceptable

)

wtf ur not too great from my perspective

Maybe. Or maybe they won't. Their choice, not mine.

I'm sorry you were effectively blocked, but it was his right to not play against you. When you annoy/disgust people, they may do harsh things in response.

A couple of things:

1- I didn't call the game disgusting. I called white's play disgusting and if white had been Kasparov, Tal or someone who had just started playing, my opinion wouldn't have been any different.

2-That kind of aggressive play is annoying. That's why I have my reservations about Morphy, Anderssen and many of that era. They liked to play "bully" chess. Were they great players? Without any doubt. Was their play typically very annoying and disgusting? Yeah. Were their masterpieces any less of a masterpiece because they played disgusting chess? No, but it does detracts from their "aura" that they resorted to "bully" chess to win some of them.

3- I don't see objective beauty in that game. All I see is "bully chess", extremely aggressive tactical play. Does that kind of play and its success show that Morphy was really great playing chess? Sure, but being great does not equal to playing beautiful 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.

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.

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. 

I would sacrifice 4 pieces against wornaki dubiously every game and still adopt him just to make him rage even more

What makes you think I would play 10 games against you after you tell me that? Also, what would be the merit in you adopting me? You're a far better player... Then again maybe you would want to prove that bully chess works...not that you have to.

Maybe they will start doing that. I don't think they will...

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.

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.