So, at that rating, never surrender - especially in Blitz...
there are people good in openings, some are good in the midgame, and some are good in the endgame, they are rarely good in everything...
and it's still online-chess - dirty flag is an equal winning option
and if you can't find a win in time, you just have found something you should learn before you climb..., and if you want to spare time, you know you won, you could offer a draw ^^
When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal
Sort:
Dec 17, 2020
0
#823
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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.
On the contrary, it's a perfectly healthy response to circumstances. I value my principles. So do you. What else is there?
lfPatriotGames wrote:
wornaki wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Strangemover wrote:
Funny stuff 😅 what gambits are on your block list?
People who sacrifice pieces would also be blocked. I guess really any tactic that works might be subject to scorn.
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).
You dislike tactical play? I might have to check to make sure what website I'm on. I thought this was a forum about chess. Do you suggest we add dice to the game? Make it a little less tactical.
Good one. lol I'm laughing pretty hard right now. Seriously though, chess is like 50% tactics. I consider myself to be a positional/defensive player, but I often lose games due to having below average tactics for my rating level. So yeah, tactics are very important.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#825
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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.
Your point, shared by many here is that, since I'm a beginner and I play beginners, I have to expect players to never resign in case I blunder back. It's a good point, don't get me wrong, but imho, etiquette trumps level of play. I would resign a forced mate out of principle and many intermediate/advanced players would do so OTB too, regardless of opposition. Maybe not in online blitz (much less so in bullet) without increment, but even then, many would.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#826
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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
I wish I could believe that, but alas... I can't. In any case, if I am annoyed by their behaviour I have a tool at my disposal: a block. And blocked they are. Notice I didn't mention winning, losing, drawing or any rating thing.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#828
Keep it up guys.... we are not far away from the 1000 comment milestone
Dec 17, 2020
0
#829
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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.
I could, but I don't want to play any of that (except for daily, that I do play). Interestingly enough (lol), there are far less annoying cheapo loving wannabes in daily games. In any case, what I do is besides the point of my original post and besides the main point of my original message.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#830
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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?
Check again. Also, notice it wasn't forced mate.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#831
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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.
Good for them. They were/are great players. So what?
Dec 17, 2020
0
#832
wornaki wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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.
I could, but I don't want to play any of that (except for daily, that I do play). Interestingly enough (lol), there are far less annoying cheapo loving wannabes in daily games. In any case, what I do is besides the point of my original post and besides the main point of my original message.
That again reinforces the point we have been trying to make. Why do you think you don't encounter the "so called cheapos" in blitz chess who don't resign...but you never meet such a person in daily chess?? Do you get it ??
Dec 17, 2020
0
#833
Itude wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Itude wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
What could be more embarrassing then jumping into a conversation where you havent been invited , don't get replies yet keep continuing.
How about walking around a city naked apart from a frozen chicken covering your Gilhoolies and shouting " Trump won, he really did" ?
Ah I see. So thats you have been spending your time during the pandemic ? Nice.
No, that would be silly !
I also wear a mask
Ah the entire body is naked...but there's a mask on the face. This is hilarious.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#834
horselover123 wrote:
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.
memorizing opening refutations isn't that good, just learn to make good moves and understand the opening refutations. if you memorize some opening and get a comfortable position but don't know how to play it, there is no point in memorizing if you will just blunder the game afterwards
The point is, in many gambit lines, you are forced to memorize variations as many sound opening principles are thrown out the window precisely because of the gambit. If you make an otherwise sound move and it's not the "corrrect" one, you end up in a trap and lose. And I don't mind losing, but I like my online chess experience to be more "mainstream" if you will. I don't care to play people who are "wired" to go for that nonsense.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#835
wornaki wrote:
horselover123 wrote:
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.
memorizing opening refutations isn't that good, just learn to make good moves and understand the opening refutations. if you memorize some opening and get a comfortable position but don't know how to play it, there is no point in memorizing if you will just blunder the game afterwards
The point is, in many gambit lines, you are forced to memorize variations as many sound opening principles are thrown out the window precisely because of the gambit. If you make an otherwise sound move and it's not the "corrrect" one, you end up in a trap and lose. And I don't mind losing, but I like my online chess experience to be more "mainstream" if you will. I don't care to play people who are "wired" to go for that nonsense.
You never end up in a trap if you follow the opening principles correctly. You are gonna fall into a gambit only if you try to be greedy ....take a pawn ...or do something else thats greedy.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#836
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
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.
I don't refuse to learn. I refuse to play people who use certain gambits as a way to lure people into traps as their standard MO. I don't care for that kind of play. Me not caring is independent of me learning how to refute the gambits. But you seem to conflate me not wanting to play certain players with me not wanting to learn. Also, you conveniently forget that I said, multiple times, that I don't play here to learn.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#837
horselover123 wrote:
wornaki wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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?
Check again. Also, notice it wasn't forced mate.
i assume they refer to this game
which is now ur second to last played (at the time i am writing this) because you played another game
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/5989877408
i will insert board
Nice
Dec 17, 2020
0
#838
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
wornaki wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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.
I could, but I don't want to play any of that (except for daily, that I do play). Interestingly enough (lol), there are far less annoying cheapo loving wannabes in daily games. In any case, what I do is besides the point of my original post and besides the main point of my original message.
That again reinforces the point we have been trying to make. Why do you think you don't encounter the "so called cheapos" in blitz chess who don't resign...but you never meet such a person in daily chess?? Do you get it ??
Sure, because cheapo loving wannabes are usually beginners (not always and not for the same reasons every time) that play stuff that I don't feel like playing against. So, regardless of the result and regardless of their reasons, I don't want to play them.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#839
wornaki wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
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.
I don't refuse to learn. I refuse to play people who use certain gambits as a way to lure people into traps as their standard MO. I don't care for that kind of play. Me not caring is independent of me learning how to refute the gambits. But you seem to conflate me not wanting to play certain players with me not wanting to learn. Also, you conveniently forget that I said, multiple times, that I don't play here to learn.
Irrespective of your reason to play here..... but what u say honestly makes no sense. What if a person tries to lure you into a trap by playing gambits ? They are a part of the game.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#840
horselover123 wrote:
wornaki wrote:
horselover123 wrote:
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.
memorizing opening refutations isn't that good, just learn to make good moves and understand the opening refutations. if you memorize some opening and get a comfortable position but don't know how to play it, there is no point in memorizing if you will just blunder the game afterwards
The point is, in many gambit lines, you are forced to memorize variations as many sound opening principles are thrown out the window precisely because of the gambit. If you make an otherwise sound move and it's not the "corrrect" one, you end up in a trap and lose. And I don't mind losing, but I like my online chess experience to be more "mainstream" if you will. I don't care to play people who are "wired" to go for that nonsense.
you still need to be able to understand the gambit refutations. if you don't understand why a move is better than another, then it's kind of pointless in my opinion. I used to lose to the scotch gambit a lot which btw is a perfectly sound gambit. I started playing the refutation without understanding it and would get crushed in the middlegame, etc but now that I get it more, I can play perfectly fine against it.
Good for you. I'm not talking about gambits such as the Queen's Gambit or the Scotch Gambit or many of the other relatively sound ones. Hey, even the Smith-Morra is not the kind of gambit I'm talking about.
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.