Your repertoire consists mostly of gambits.
You compare your style to Morphy.
Your idea of a tactic is taking a pinned piece.
You think pawn endings are simple.
You slap !! on half of your moves in the post-mortem, despite losing the game.
You bought Rybka instead of getting a stronger engine for free.
You think the four move checkmate is sneaky.
You think of your "style" as positional when in reality you're just scared of tactics.
You are either terrified of openings or you claim to be an expert in them.
You play long strings of theory despite not having a clue what is going on in the game.
You get Kasparov and Karpov mixed up.
You have to remember "white on right" and "queen on her color" to set up a board correctly.
You look at the letters and numbers when you notate.
Your idea of a strong move is one that "they won't expect".
You think that your chess.com rating is an accurate indication of your playing strength.
You think that GMs today are "wimpy" for having too many drawn games.
Your idea of psychology in chess is desperately trying to trade pieces whenever you play a stronger opponent.
You play Najdorf/Catalan and claim to fully understand it.
And last, but not least:
You are rated over 2700 turn-based at chess.com.
thanx, now I know for sure.
it hapens to be that all of you are bad players or was and so what if we are
-i'm not- with time they will gain experience at least most of them-i'm not a good player either- and will learn from their mistakes
peace and love
peace and love
peace be upon you all
I've never heard of "white on right" before. And I never even realized that checkmate could be achieved in four moves until I joined this website.
In fact, most of what you said I don't even know about.
Technically, the fastest checkmate is 1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4#.
So, to add someting to the list, "You know you're a bad chess player if you can loose a game in 2 moves". (Which I've already done in Live chess).
I am now in shock and awe at how quickly checkmate can be achieved.
But that still leaves one question: what does 'white on right' mean.
- Your opponent laughs tentatively after you double jump their knight and bishop with your pawn and declare "king me!"
Well this settles it:
Next time I promote a pawn, I'm declaring 'Queen Me'!
I just laughed so hard at this.
Everyone is a bad chess player. Not one game of chess in the history of man or computer was without errors.
Does one really need signs?
I thought a game without errors would lead to a draw, and definitely not a win for black?
Nope, wrong. Chess is actually solved as a win for black, as another famous game between world champions with no errors proves:
Chess is solved as a win for black?
When the going gets tough, you think your opponent is a spoil-sport !!
No, it isn't. I think he was joking. But it isn't solved as a draw, either; that's what it would mean if you could prove that perfect play leads to a draw.
As far as I know, chess is a very long way from being solved.
I'm sure RD was joking.
You still think two dimensional chess is hard.
Now, wait a minute! Those Fischer-Spassky and Kramnik-Topalov games are not error-less games! In each game, White forfeited. I'd call that an error!
1) You 'analyse' games by simply playing through the moves, and refuse to try any variations in case you forget what the position was.
2) You insist on showing your games to stronger players, but refuse to listen to their advice.
3) You think the easiest way to draw with a stronger player is to swap as many pieces off as you can.
4) You try to cling on in strategically lost positions rather than playing for counterplay.
Shouldn't games that have less errors be mostly draws?
You lose a game without a single piece or pawn being taken.
You resign because they took your favorite pawn.