an ultimate finish in my first game in Chess.com

Sort:
IoftheHungarianTiger

@TheRussianPatzer: OK, it's obvious I misunderstood what you meant about playing out of spite ... however that is because you used the term incorrectly.  Spite does NOT mean "just because."  I believe you are thinking of the idiom "In spite of."  To play "In spite of" means to play on anyway.  Example: "I played in spite of losing my queen."

However, what you wrote is: "I play out of spite" and "Don't think playing out of spite is so bad."  and originally "You may say it was because he has "fighting spirit", but often it's just out of spite in hopes that the opponent will drop dead or something."  When used in this context the term means malicious intent or ill-will. 

When condude2 wrote about "spiting his opponent" he used the term correctly, as the word is both a noun and a verb, depending on the context.  In his context, what he wrote was that he had never maliciously played on just to aggravate his opponent.

What you wrote here (although I'm now starting to understand you were confused by the meaning of the word and did not mean what you wrote) is that you thought it was probable that dreamgamer maliciously played on in the position simply to irritate or annoy for the sake of irritating or annoying the opponent.  There’s no point in arguing the matter.  It’s a fact of the English language.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spite

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spite

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spite

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/spite

I understand there are areas of "chess etiquette" that we are simply not going to agree on, and that's OK.  However, following your last post to condude2 (which was arrogant, obviously incorrect, and disrespectful ... writing "Lol" and accusing him of manipulating your words), I feel compelled to write the following: if you are truly interested in showing respect to other people, you should consider changing some of your behaviors.

  • Don't brutally criticize games of others of which they are obviously proud (there are ways of giving constructive criticism ... but you haven't given ANY positive feedback, or even constructively given advice, you’ve only repeated that the game was full of blunders, and you’d have preferred that he resign the game in future situations), and defend it by assuming you know what their ambitions are.
  • Don't mock other people's ideas ("lol@" someone's statement ... I assume you know what "lol" actually means, correct?)
  • Don't be so hasty to assume other people don't know what they are talking about, especially when it is you yourself who are in the wrong: Writing "Do you even know what spite means?" and "Again, do know what spite means?"
  • Don't assume you know it's best when a player should resign, rather than they themselves.  It’s very presumptuous and disrespectful.
  • Don't assume your viewpoints on chess etiquette are the only legitimate approach to playing a respectful game.

With all due respect TheRussianPatzer, you’re obviously a talented young player, but until you start treating people with respect, you are more a hindrance to your goal than a help.  No one wants to take etiquette advice from someone they find rude or disrespectful, which is how you have come across in several of these posts.  If you had originally written something to the following effect …

Congrats on the win.  But you’ll want to be careful of that as you start playing better competition and enter tournaments …a lot of time fighting on after losing a queen is looked at as disrespectful and frowned upon. Smile"

... then it is very probably these discussions would have taken a much more friendly turn ... assuming they had continued at all.  You’d have given your opinion, no big deal.  Instead, you chose initiate your participation by mocking someone else’s congratulations, then later you proceeded to deride the game and the opponent’s playing strength, then when you mistakenly wrote that you believed dreamgamer was playing out of malice or ill-will (out of spite) and were called on it … you obviously didn't check the word, but simply assumed condude2 didn’t understand the word, but you did.

Again, we’re not going to agree on everything … but someone needs to tell you that are not representing yourself as mature or respectful.  And if you’d like to become any kind of effective ambassador for your views on ‘chess etiquette’, you need to correct this behavior.

TheRussianPatzer

Again, I'm I can not possibly address everything you've said. I would rather not continue the conversation at all, but I want to end with this: My original comment was not advice for him. It was my response to your comment. I didn't tell him that he should've resigned, I simply said I don't see why you praised him for not resigning, as in general this is not an admirable trait.

I've never seen somebody use the word spite as a verb (spiting), but I'll admit that I was wrong about the meaning of spite. While the meaning I was refering to was one meaning, it does indeed have a more malicious meaning which I was not aware of. So I apologize for that arrogant statement by me, but I do not apologize for my original comment.

Unfortunately what happens is that when you get involved in a discussion like this you quickly forget what you were originally arguing about and proceed to change your stance multiple times. Eventually you look back and wonder how you got into this discussion to begin with. Well if you look back at my original comment, there is actually nothing in it which I wouldn't say again (albeit with a slightly different use of words). All the subsequent things I said were the result of attempting to defend my postition against strawmans, and I do take back some of the things I said in the spur of the moment. Hopefully nobody here was too offended ;)

IoftheHungarianTiger

@TheRussianPatzer: I agree we can probably conclude this topic.  While I'm sure both of us might like to have worded certain things differently, I believe each of us has covered our respective positions to our own satisfaction.  I know I have, and as such, I'm content to let the matter rest.

Smile

-waller-

Wow, this is a weird thread ...

In no way did White play the superior game. Black was clearly the better player, showing himself to be sharper throughout, and only lost concentration to make a silly blunder on the last move. It's the nature of chess that this can be enough to lose, but to claim White played the superior game because of it? Doesn't seem right to me.

IoftheHungarianTiger

Please be relevant, helpful & nice!

IoftheHungarianTiger

Perhaps black is the better player, but he did not play the better game here.  You are welcome to argue the point all you want ... the fact is the game ended in checkmate, with a loss for black. 

Had the game ended with resignation on move 18 or 19, sure, I could accept someone saying Black played the better game.  I can even accept someone making the statement that "Black played the better game EXCEPT for the missed mate."  But to simply state "Black played the better game" demands that you you ignore the most critical aspect of the game ... the checkmate.

-waller-

Meh, it's a question of semantics, and I'm inclined to take the phrase "the superior game" in the sprit of what it means, whereas you prefer to take a technical definition, based solely on the result. Fair enough. I doubt either of us will convince the other here!

IoftheHungarianTiger
-waller- wrote:

Meh, it's a question of semantics, and I'm inclined to take the phrase "the superior game" in the sprit of what it means, whereas you prefer to take a technical definition, based solely on the result. Fair enough. I doubt either of us will convince the other here!

I think that everything about that statement is a very, very good explanation of our situation! Smile

9liquid-swords9
TheRussianPatzer wrote:

lol @ "Great job at not giving up or resigning after the loss of Queen." This is totally wrong advice. In a blitz game (especially online) it's ok, but really in general it's pretty disrepectful. I wish more people would resign after decisive material loss.

 

this is correct. if it's internet skittles, yeah whatever it doesn't matter. but if it were an actual game in a tournament in real life and the person didn't resign after losing the queen without anything near compensation........just doesn't happen and for good reason.

CJKWA

Check out Anand vs Kasparov 1996 blitz final...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxbMzZ5a2Zg

Amazingly, Kasparov hangs his queen (or loses a rook for zip) at 5:04. Kasparov's reaction is priceless.

But after that Kasparov fights back and even has a go at attacking Anand's King! He eventually lost but my point is that if you feel you still have a reasonable chance at generating some counter play then play on... especially in the blunderfest that is blitz chess.

9liquid-swords9

I think some time after that, a linares in 99 or something?, kasparov and anand were tied for first and the organizers wanted them to play blitz to decide it and they both told them to shove it basically. funny.

 

oh and not to forget what happened here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ

CJKWA

LMFAO!!!!!

9liquid-swords9 that vid had me in stitches... pure gold (wiping tears away).

But those chicks are scary... I'd resign just from sheer terror.

dreamgamer

hello guys I'm not a beginner.even grand masters do blunders.

dreamgamer

I'm better player than some of them who commented here.Hello @IoftheHungarianTiger yours and my points just differ by 78.i have 1401 points

dreamgamer

I also should mention that I'm new to Chess.com and not to Chess

dreamgamer

sometimes you have to sacrifice your queen if you have a chance for checkmate.The position of the game is not important.the next upcoming steps or important.chill out guys

IoftheHungarianTiger

Hello dreamgamer!

I suspect that if you're new to chess.com and have grown to 1401, you're very likely better than I am, and as you log more games, your rating will likely pass mine.  I peaked at around 1550, but now I tend to hover around 1400-1450.

I apologize if I incited a disagreeable discussion on your game's forum ... and I also apologize if any of my posts suggested you were inexperienced or a beginner.  While our discussion took a turn that painted such a picture of you, I had no data to back up such an image and I'm sorry if I endorsed it in any way.

Anyways, I apologize again and I hope all the debate hasn't soured you too much on chess.com ... because the site does have lots of neat things about it!

I also should have welcomed you to the site in my first post, which I failed to do, so ...

Welcome to Chess.com! Smile

TheRussianPatzer

"sometimes you have to sacrifice your queen if you have a chance for checkmate." LOL. Come on man, you didn't sacrifice your queen. You blundered it! That's normal for blitz chess, but don't try to make yourself seem like some sort of genius who sacrificed the queen and then won with some brilliant combination.

You blundered the queen, played on a few moves, and then your opponent blundered to a mate in one which you spotted. Nothing more, nothing less.

dreamgamer

who ultimately won is the issue here

-waller-

Well, I definitely wouldn't resign there either. There are many pieces still on the board. But if I did manage to win, I'd be saying "I got lucky here" rather than "sometimes you have to sacrifice your queen for a chance of checkmate!"