Seriously though, if you are struggling from some sort of trauma tilt because of opening tricks quit playing e4 for a while. I quit playing center pawn stuff completely because I find those trappy shots annoying (except I'll bust out the danish gambit once in a while for old time's sake) and I started improving once I started to get the hang of it. Learning a new way to approach things is keeping my interest.
Seriously though, if you are struggling from some sort of trauma tilt because of opening tricks quit playing e4 for a while. I quit playing center pawn stuff completely because I find those trappy shots annoying (except I'll bust out the danish gambit once in a while for old time's sake) and I started improving once I started to get the hang of it. Learning a new way to approach things is keeping my interest.
If you're directing that at me... I play stuff here that I would never play in a serious game. Among that is 1.e4. Dunno about OP. My serious repertoire with both colours is based on minimizing the chances of tactical play. Then I come here to play stuff that I normally wouldn't play and I get to confirm why it is that I don't play that way when I'm serious. Too many idiotic moves, too many trappy lines, too many shots. That's why I block so many people...
Either way, I'm unwilling to play them further. You wouldn't believe the amount of players I've blocked...
You are probably making a wise choice transitioning to daily. It seems to better suit your sensibilities than does blitz.
Either way, I'm unwilling to play them further. You wouldn't believe the amount of players I've blocked...
You are probably making a wise choice transitioning to daily. It seems to better suit your sensibilities than does blitz.
More like, I don't mind blitz, but I'm tired of the disrespect and annoying play that I get when playing recreational blitz at this level. However, playing seriously against stronger players at blitz can be really fun and instructive. It is also true, that I don't want to play serious blitz here, as the average blitz player in this site is annoying to me.
If you're directing that at me... I play stuff here that I would never play in a serious game. Among that is 1.e4. Dunno about OP. My serious repertoire with both colours is based on minimizing the chances of tactical play. Then I come here to play stuff that I normally wouldn't play and I get to confirm why it is that I don't play that way when I'm serious. Too many idiotic moves, too many trappy lines, too many shots. That's why I block so many people...
It wasn't towards you, but complaining about cheap crap in blitz is like ordering Indian food and complaining that it is spicy. It just doesn't seem to be your scene.
Apparently, some beginners don't even know the correct moves to play. I had an opponent today where I only had my king left, and he was using his queen and rook to put me in check. But then, he missed an obvious checkmate, instead doing this: (go to the last move)
Yup. Missed a checkmate causing a draw by stalemate. Even I wouldn't do that.
The ratings on here are not accurate. I have a puzzle rating of 2550 (WAY overrated) and a rapid of 1550 (WAY underrated). Just a week ago I started playing 2 day games where I had an 800 rating. Ive gained almost 500 points so far... You may be playing someone who doesn't usually play rated games, likes to try crazy openings that keep their rating low, etc.
Yup. Missed a checkmate causing a draw by stalemate. Even I wouldn't do that.
We all do that sooner or later. Especially under time pressure.
I see this somewhat regularly at the 1100 level. A lot of people just never really learn to mechanically close out a won position and are in trouble when their opponents don't resign.
Yup. Missed a checkmate causing a draw by stalemate. Even I wouldn't do that.
We all do that sooner or later. Especially under time pressure.
Time pressure? He had 5:04 left when he made that last move. I don't think time pressure was the cause here.
The ratings on here are not accurate. I have a puzzle rating of 2550 (WAY overrated) and a rapid of 1550 (WAY underrated). Just a week ago I started playing 2 day games where I had an 800 rating. Ive gained almost 500 points so far... You may be playing someone who doesn't usually play rated games, likes to try crazy openings that keep their rating low, etc.
I'm not trying to be mean, but those were the actual ratings at the end of the game. Also, his rapid rating is 302 now, so I doubt he sticks to unrated games.
Yup. Missed a checkmate causing a draw by stalemate. Even I wouldn't do that.
We all do that sooner or later. Especially under time pressure.
Time pressure? He had 5:04 left when he made that last move. I don't think time pressure was the cause here.
I wasn't talking about his being under time pressure. Just that more people than you think will do exactly this sort of blunder, and a lot of those times there is time pressure. I see it with tons of time on the clock as well, just not as often.
also has a psychological effect - if ur playing an opponent who has a very different rating, game desicions tend to be affected
The OP is tilting and is psychologically trying to find an excuse
my advice is take a break for a day, then come back
I play quite some poker. In the poker community there are a lot of jokes about people complaining how it is impossible to beat bad players because bad payers call everything and you cannot bluff them, and saying that they should move to higher stakes where people play better and "would respect their raises."
Of course, this notion that better players are somehow easier to beat is pure non-sense. Did not think that similar complaints could be found here 
I don't think it's easier or harder to beat (as in the kind of words used by OP) some kind of players at beginner/early intermediate level, but much more frustrating and rather useless long term. Usually that's one of the reasons why many in the true elite of chess don't do their best at Olympiads and Open tournaments.
look, the title of this post was obviously not meant to be taken literally, although I am impressed how much discussion was generated.
I don't think it's easier or harder to beat (as in the kind of words used by OP) some kind of players at beginner/early intermediate level, but much more frustrating and rather useless long term. Usually that's one of the reasons why many in the true elite of chess don't do their best at Olympiads and Open tournaments.
Also similar to poker. You don't learn anything by beating bad players.
Which is only true if you have mastered the basic tools needed to beat bad players. The one thing about chess is that elo is what it is. In poker it is a lot easier to engage in self-deception about one's ability by not being precise about gains and losses and whining about luck.
I don't think it's easier or harder to beat (as in the kind of words used by OP) some kind of players at beginner/early intermediate level, but much more frustrating and rather useless long term. Usually that's one of the reasons why many in the true elite of chess don't do their best at Olympiads and Open tournaments.
Also similar to poker. You don't learn anything by beating bad players.
Which is only true if you have mastered the basic tools needed to beat bad players. The one thing about chess is that elo is what it is. In poker it is a lot easier to engage in self-deception about one's ability by not being precise about gains and losses and whining about luck.
You do realize ELO rating points are basically a statistical measure that's extremely dependent on the mean rating of the player's pool, right? The higher rated players you play, the higher your chances of increasing your ELO, even if you just draw one game out of 100.
The higher rated players you play, the higher your chances of increasing your ELO, even if you just draw one game out of 100.
Which is offset by the unlikeliness of that result.
If I play someone hundreds and hundreds of points higher or lower than me the system gets a little warped because it deals in integers. The worse player is essentially freerolling because they never lose rating points and can only gain. People who play reasonably suitable matchups don't have this issue.
There are other inefficiencies in these ratings, such as I could sandbag in a way by playing 3 minute blitz when that is way too fast for me so that when I play 5 minute I am way underrated.
Still, it is what it is. Harsh light of truth is harsh.
Typically, in the end, you learn pretty much nothing from that kind of game, except maybe to keep your cool. However, it's actually not worth playing that kind of game.
Well, except for improvising king safety, changing plans on the fly, spotting tactics and pretty much all of chess other than the sort of theory battles that really only matter at the expert level at longer time controls.
What all of this amounts to is beginner level players wanting to be experts without battling through the ranks to develop actual expertise. They blame losses on the opponents erratic play and complain that their opponents don't resign rather than address the flaws in their games and way of thinking that make them exploitable. You get to play expert style chess when you are expert style non-exploitable.
All games get off book and messy at some point. There is a point where you actually have to get into the trenches and battle, and that comes sooner when an opponent goes rogue.
I used to see this in poker. I'm kinda surprised to see it in a game with far less variance.
Well, there is some overlap between strategy in chess and in poker, which has been exemplified by many good chess players becoming quite decent poker players.
Other than that, it doesn't really do much for chess development to face cheesy openings and questionable moves over and over. The other day I asked an Expert, which is now possibly very very close to NM strength how many times he had faced two "wrong" chess openings (the Englund gambit and the Tennison gambit) in his 20+ competitive classic/rapid OTB chess career and he told me it has been 0, as far as he could remember. Now, online I get the Englund gambit every 50 games at my level, even in longer blitz (5+0) and I have played against the Tennison numerous times. After much consideration, I decided to use those openings as my "time to block a player" alert. After my opponent plays that opening (and only if I don't know them), I block them, as I believe playing that is a sign of somebody who either doesn't take chess seriously or doesn't take me seriously. Either way, I'm unwilling to play them further. You wouldn't believe the amount of players I've blocked...