When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal - Chess Forums - Page 41

wornaki · 2020-10-17T17:43:08-07:00

A few times here I've stumbled upon non resigning people below 1200 in blitz. Granted, I play mostly 3+2 and increment accumulates if you know how to use it. Not to mention that it's blitz, so swindles and blundering are very much part of the nature of blitz. However... As an appeal t

PleasantEscalator

Dec 17, 2020

0

#801

I just turned 12 patzers... A month ago

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#802

wornaki wrote:

@JeffGreen333 i didn't lose that game. It's impossible to lose Q+K vs K having a queen as you well know. Also, I know the mate. I just don't want to have to play it. Believe it or not, some players don't care about winning blitz games online. I'm one of them. Also, my point stands, it's poor etiquette not to resign a lost position (when it's forced mate and you know it). It's just pettiness that prompts that behavior.

I read your original post. You said that it was K+R vs K and that you drew game. K+R vs K is an automatic win, if you've studied basic checkmates. However, K+Q vs K often leads to stalemate, if the side with the Q isn't careful. So, I always play those out. I'm pretty sure that everyone does, except for maybe Masters and above. So, either you're dead wrong or you're lying about the game in question or both. Take your pick. RE: "I've recently blocked one player who forced me to mate him R+K vs K, and in the end I didn't (couldn't care). He got his well fought draw and I got to block him." - Wornaki

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#803

Well even though the creator of this thread can be annoying at times , but I got to admit he is absolutely a master in engaging people and entertain them in this troll thread. And am not saying it in a bad way. I have tried to create many troll threads but failed miserably.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#804

wornaki wrote:

I'll let you in something else. I have adopted the policy of blocking people who play certain gambits in blitz too. The rationale is simple: you play them, it shows me you're a trickster, i don't play tricksters twice if I can avoid it.

Wow. Gambits are part of chess. Even the big boys play them from time to time. At this rate, you're going to end up blocking everyone on chess.com and have nobody left to play. You might want to see a psychiatrist, btw. This is the craziest thing I've heard all year (and this is 2020 lol).

PleasantEscalator

Dec 17, 2020

0

#805

Itude wrote:

Yes he was indeed the second best contributer in the whole thread.

Only one was able to revise this dead and dying entity however

True you revived it when they didn't;t have any posts for 2 days...

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#806

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Fine then. Keep with your so called perceived etiquette code. Nobody cares. The general consensus doesn't match your opinion. And please don't use the word trickster. LMAO. Its a part of the game. Players when they are new to the game are fascinated by gambits and other such traps. Doesn't mean they are cheapos. You call them out as if you yourself pay some high sophisticated GM level positional games.

Exactly. I rarely lose to gambits (except for the Queen's Gambit, which isn't risky at all and probably shouldn't even be classified as a gambit). I laugh when I see them, in fact. All you have to do is accept the pawn, get castled and develop quickly and you'll have a solid pawn up advantage.

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#807

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Fine then. Keep with your so called perceived etiquette code. Nobody cares. The general consensus doesn't match your opinion. And please don't use the word trickster. LMAO. Its a part of the game. Players when they are new to the game are fascinated by gambits and other such traps. Doesn't mean they are cheapos. You call them out as if you yourself pay some high sophisticated GM level positional games.

Exactly. I rarely lose to gambits (except for the Queen's Gambit, which isn't risky at all and probably shouldn't even be classified as a gambit). I laugh when I see them, in fact. All you have to do is accept the pawn, get castled and develop quickly and you'll have a solid pawn up advantage.

True

PleasantEscalator

Dec 17, 2020

0

#808

The King's Gambit is also played at high levels.

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#809

it is

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#810

wornaki wrote:

I'm going to keep with my etiquette code, you're right on that. If nobody cares, then why do they come here to dispute the meager etiquette code by a noob? I've got strong opinions on how I want to play chess. So there...

True. Why are we debating a 1000-1100 player who blocks players that play book gambits? His "etiquette" isn't winning him very many games. At least not against decent competition. I respect a player who doesn't cheat, even if it means that he will lose. That's good sportsmanship. However, to make up your own etiquette rules, impose them upon yourself and go out of your way to lose ... that borders on psychotic.

PleasantEscalator

Dec 17, 2020

0

#811

I forgot you mentioned that you don't have the right to declare anything.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#812

wornaki wrote:

I think it's quite demeaning to say stuff "You are rated 1000 in blitz. It's smart to play things out at that rating". Not only does it imply that I'm weak (which I have no problem admitting) in a rather condescending tone, but it also implies respect from my opponent can't be given to a "lowly" player like me. Nice etiquette code there.

You missed the point of his comment. At the 1000 level, many blunders are made on both sides of the board (even more so when playing blitz). That's why you should always play it out. The only reason that someone has a winning position is that the other guy blundered more than he did, earlier in the game than he did. Who's to say that the guy that is currently "winning" won't start blundering more in the moves to come, especially if you're playing blitz? Your etiquette only makes sense at the Master level or above .... not at the 1000 (novice) level. You certainly don't deserve to win by resignation just because the other 1000-rated player made one more blunder earlier than you did in a blitz game. You will surely even up the blunder tally in the moves to come, because of your low rating and time trouble. Your entire argument is flawed.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#813

wornaki wrote:

nTzT wrote:

Your opponent has every right to play the game to the end. It's their decision whether or not to resign.

Sure, and it's my right to block them for what I consider breaches in etiquette such as playing a forced mate to annoy me.

Ok, here's your problem. You believe that they are playing it out just to annoy you. lol This simply isn't true. They are playing it out to give themselves a chance to win and/or to preserve their rating. It's not about you at all. Nobody plays chess just to annoy their opponent. The world doesn't revolve around you. People have lives, go to school, go to work, sleep and play chess for entertainment, fun and competition. They don't have time to annoy total strangers on chess.com. lol

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#814

wornaki wrote:

The thing that I dislike about 1.d4 e5 and other similar stuff at my level in online blitz is that it's all about seeing how you can make someone fall for your trap. One thing is opening prep, which can go a long way and be quite forcing and be played at your own risk OTB. Quite another thing is the cheapo loving tactician "I've watched a couple of videos on gambits and I want to make people fall for a trap" wannabes. Those are usually quite annoying. Not because of the result. I couldn't care less about the result. What I dislike is their attitude. It's not that they want to play a line that's unsound because they assume the risk of it being refuted on a longer time control, what they want is to get the "high" of annoying an opponent in a faster time control. Their idea is not to play chess, but to play exclusively for traps, tricks and cheapos that are "memorized". Those players are the type that go "Oh, I get wins because nobody can refute my gambits/unsound lines" instead of being the players I would like to face, the ones that go "I play better chess than you and I win".

Then play 1. d4 e5 2. d3 exd4 3. exd4 d5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Qe2ch Qe7 7. QxQch (the Englund Gambit Declined). It's a bit drawish, but it will get them out of their prep. You can also play this variation of the Englund Gambit Accepted, if you want to go for the kill .... 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nxe5 5. e4 c6 6. NxNe5 QxNe5 7. Bd3 Bc5 8. Qe2 d6 9. Be3

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#815

theendgame3 wrote:

Why don't you try longer time controls and forget about blitz- you have obviously jumped in at the deep end. In your profile you admit you' hate and don't know openings' any decent coach will tell you not to blitz anymore but to play longer time controls and study openings. I bet if you played some rapid 20 min games you would feel better and PLAY better. Just try it.

Honestly try this.

Stop commenting on this forum.

Play longer time controls and study openings.

Then let us know how you got on in a week maybe?

I bet your chess is better, you will feel better because you have learnt.

FORGET BLITZ AND BULLET AND LEARN.

YOU WILL NEVER LOOK BACK.

lets all try to encourage him now guys

I agree. Blitz is mostly about memorization and speed. If you haven't memorized your openings yet, then you should be playing rapid, classical or daily games, not blitz. Blitz won't help you improve. You're just going to make the same mistakes over and over again. Buy books, watch free online lessons on YouTube, do the free Tactics Trainers and Puzzle Rushes on here and play longer time controls. Then all of your etiquette ideas won't come into play as much, because you'll be able to crush all gambits and cheapo tactics.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#816

nTzT wrote:

In your very last game you blunder a piece and ruin the entire game and it's completely lost and then you make your opponent have to play 20+ more moves. The irony...

Wow, what a hypocrite. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If he's not going to resign, then why should his opponents?

wornaki

Dec 17, 2020

0

#817

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Fine then. Keep with your so called perceived etiquette code. Nobody cares. The general consensus doesn't match your opinion. And please don't use the word trickster. LMAO. Its a part of the game. Players when they are new to the game are fascinated by gambits and other such traps. Doesn't mean they are cheapos. You call them out as if you yourself pay some high sophisticated GM level positional games.

Exactly. I rarely lose to gambits (except for the Queen's Gambit, which isn't risky at all and probably shouldn't even be classified as a gambit). I laugh when I see them, in fact. All you have to do is accept the pawn, get castled and develop quickly and you'll have a solid pawn up advantage.

Kudos for rarely losing to gambits. My point about certain gambits as a proxy for a certain type of players is what I'm interesting in discussing.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#818

wornaki wrote: I dislike tactical play (no surprise there), but I don't block tactical players. I've yet to block anyone who has sacrificed pieces against me (regardless of the game result).

This comment is enough to prove that this guy is a troll

Because I dislike tactical play? It's just a taste, a preference. I dislike ultra aggressive tactical play designed to run over the opponent by force. It goes against all of what I like in chess. Purely a personal taste.

Many top players played like that religiously. Morphy, Tal and Kasparov ... just to name a few.

wornaki

Dec 17, 2020

0

#819

JeffGreen333 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

The thing that I dislike about 1.d4 e5 and other similar stuff at my level in online blitz is that it's all about seeing how you can make someone fall for your trap. One thing is opening prep, which can go a long way and be quite forcing and be played at your own risk OTB. Quite another thing is the cheapo loving tactician "I've watched a couple of videos on gambits and I want to make people fall for a trap" wannabes. Those are usually quite annoying. Not because of the result. I couldn't care less about the result. What I dislike is their attitude. It's not that they want to play a line that's unsound because they assume the risk of it being refuted on a longer time control, what they want is to get the "high" of annoying an opponent in a faster time control. Their idea is not to play chess, but to play exclusively for traps, tricks and cheapos that are "memorized". Those players are the type that go "Oh, I get wins because nobody can refute my gambits/unsound lines" instead of being the players I would like to face, the ones that go "I play better chess than you and I win".

Then play 1. d4 e5 2. d3 exd4 3. exd4 d5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Qe2ch Qe7 7. QxQch (the Englund Gambit Declined). It's a bit drawish, but it will get them out of their prep. You can also play this variation of the Englund Gambit Accepted, if you want to go for the kill .... 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nxe5 5. e4 c6 6. NxNe5 QxNe5 7. Bd3 Bc5 8. Qe2 d6 9. Be3

You do realize that many players won't play those lines and that they are not "forced", right? Why waste time memorizing opening refutations at my level? It's useless. A win or a draw or a loss will not do anything for my online chess experience. Not facing players who play that nonsense, on the contrary, will do a lot for me.

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#820

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

The thing that I dislike about 1.d4 e5 and other similar stuff at my level in online blitz is that it's all about seeing how you can make someone fall for your trap. One thing is opening prep, which can go a long way and be quite forcing and be played at your own risk OTB. Quite another thing is the cheapo loving tactician "I've watched a couple of videos on gambits and I want to make people fall for a trap" wannabes. Those are usually quite annoying. Not because of the result. I couldn't care less about the result. What I dislike is their attitude. It's not that they want to play a line that's unsound because they assume the risk of it being refuted on a longer time control, what they want is to get the "high" of annoying an opponent in a faster time control. Their idea is not to play chess, but to play exclusively for traps, tricks and cheapos that are "memorized". Those players are the type that go "Oh, I get wins because nobody can refute my gambits/unsound lines" instead of being the players I would like to face, the ones that go "I play better chess than you and I win".

Then play 1. d4 e5 2. d3 exd4 3. exd4 d5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Qe2ch Qe7 7. QxQch (the Englund Gambit Declined). It's a bit drawish, but it will get them out of their prep. You can also play this variation of the Englund Gambit Accepted, if you want to go for the kill .... 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nxe5 5. e4 c6 6. NxNe5 QxNe5 7. Bd3 Bc5 8. Qe2 d6 9. Be3

You do realize that many players won't play those lines and that they are not "forced", right? Why waste time memorizing opening refutations at my level? It's useless. A win or a draw or a loss will not do anything for my online chess experience. Not facing players who play that nonsense, on the contrary, will do a lot for me.

Here's again the problem. You refuse to learn...and call out people who play stuff you refuse to learn as nonsense. And again a 1100 player calling any lines of the game nonsense doesnt make sense at all.