My opponent got so lucky! - Chess Forums - Page 6

Reepicheep14 · 2018-04-26T04:24:29-07:00

My opponent got so lucky to get a draw in this game. I was clearly winning; I was up +6 at the end, but the site said it was a draw from insufficient material.

HolographWars

Jul 19, 2019

0

#101

It’s funny but really trash.

Reepicheep14

Jul 19, 2019

0

#102

ChessBoy513 wrote:

Reep, I might be wrong, but the following things are definietly right:

1. 15.Bf7# is NOT a forfeit.

2. You do NOT need touchdowns to checkmate.

3. You don't have anything to support your claims, while I have Stockfish to support me with the early checkmate controversy.

4.Try getting a titled player to support your claim because that should teach you Carlsen isn't with you.

5. You can't do king sacs.

6. Last of all, of course Carlsen(and me) won't understand it! Do you expect a grandmaster or an at least mediocre player(me) to understand a completely amateurish game?!

No, you don't understand.

This was an extremely high-level game. Stockfish doesn't even begin to understand the concepts behind these moves. Not even Carlsen could make any sense of it. Appealing to authorities like Carlsen and Stockfish won't mean anything, because this is way over their heads.

HolographWars

Jul 19, 2019

0

#103

That is a snob appeal fallacy. Ain’t gonna work with someone educated in logic.

ChessBoy513

Jul 19, 2019

0

#104

Reep, if you're a high level player, then how come you don't even have a title?

ChessBoy513

Jul 19, 2019

0

#105

Reepicheep14님이 썼습니다:

ChessBoy513 wrote:

Reep, I might be wrong, but the following things are definietly right:

1. 15.Bf7# is NOT a forfeit.

2. You do NOT need touchdowns to checkmate.

3. You don't have anything to support your claims, while I have Stockfish to support me with the early checkmate controversy.

4.Try getting a titled player to support your claim because that should teach you Carlsen isn't with you.

5. You can't do king sacs.

6. Last of all, of course Carlsen(and me) won't understand it! Do you expect a grandmaster or an at least mediocre player(me) to understand a completely amateurish game?!

No, you don't understand.

This was an extremely high-level game. Stockfish doesn't even begin to understand the concepts behind these moves. Not even Carlsen could make any sense of it. Appealing to authorities like Carlsen and Stockfish won't mean anything, because this is way over their heads.

By the way, if you're a master then how come you're only in the 1500s?

ChessBoy513

Jul 19, 2019

0

#106

Reepicheep14님이 썼습니다:

ChessBoy513 wrote:

14.Qh5+ followed by mate, 15.Bf7#, 22.Bxd8 and 26.Na7# were chances where white could have won, whereas g1=Q and a1=Q were chances where black could have won. Reep, touchdowns don't give you anything. I wonder how the moves are so bad despite being a daily game and how white didn't get checkmated early. You thought 15.Bf7# was a forfeit, Reep? See https;//www.chess.com/live/game/3866985920 and think again. You nearly lost in the endgame and only drew because your opponent accidentally underpromoted. Points aren't everything and you can't do king sacrifices. I wonder if you were surprised you couldn't do the king sac. You don't need touchdowns to checkmate and Junebug analysis and Junebug was way better. Try to win the exchange and Reep, your first 3 moves would only work if it was King of the Hill. If you like developing kings and random openings, play King of the Hill or Fischerandom(Chess960). Your exclamation points are rather blunders, and YOU were the one who got lucky, not Junebug. Why don't you two play a rematch? It was officially a draw by insufficient checkmating material. That's about it.

You just don't understand the way the game works and the deep strategy behind those moves.

I don't blame you. Not even Stockfish understands it.

Post FIDE's chess rules here because that should solve the early checkmate controversy.

ChessBoy513

Jul 20, 2019

0

#107

I won the grand war!

Reepicheep14

Jul 20, 2019

0

#108

I don't have a title because I don't play OTB. I'm rated 1500s because my opponents don't play fair and follow rules against things like early checkmates and because chess.com doesn't understand things like touchdowns. FIDE doesn't understand it either.

Pirkkalager

Jul 20, 2019

0

#109

I learned so much from this game. Thank you Master.

ChessBoy513

Jul 20, 2019

0

#110

Wow. If even the rules of FIDE are with me on the early checkmate controversy that proves YOU are wrong. By the way, Stockfish DOES consider touchdowns but only if they're by pawns because you can and must promote them. You should ask them to change the rules if you want, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen.

Yoqub

Jul 20, 2019

0

#111

Explain me what did happen here?

ChessBoy513

Jul 20, 2019

0

#112

Yoqub님이 썼습니다:

Explain me what did happen here?

See post #1.

ChessBoy513

Jul 20, 2019

0

#113

Reepicheep14님이 썼습니다:

I don't have a title because I don't play OTB. I'm rated 1500s because my opponents don't play fair and follow rules against things like early checkmates and because chess.com doesn't understand things like touchdowns. FIDE doesn't understand it either.

The rules of FIDE are the official rules of chess. Nobody is going to recognize you if you don't play tournaments. By the way, you should play Fischerandom(Chess960), Reep. If the game was Fischerandom, it would have made it better.

skeldol

Jul 21, 2019

0

#114

chess is like poker, luck always plays a part but over time the better player wins.

YummyBrain

Jul 21, 2019

0

#115

I laughed for a good five minutes reading the analysis. I think touch-downs are underrated!

lfPatriotGames

Jul 21, 2019

0

#116

skeldol wrote:

chess is like poker, luck always plays a part but over time the better player wins.

I think chess would be a lot more like poker if the games started out the same (you never know what pieces you are going to start with) and luck would play a bigger part if you couldn't see the opponents pieces. THEN it would be more like poker.

josephyossi

Jul 21, 2019

0

#117

i hope everyone realizes this is a meme

Reepicheep14

Jul 21, 2019

0

#118

YummyBrain wrote:

I laughed for a good five minutes reading the analysis. I think touch-downs are underrated!

Finally someone gets it. Yes, hardly anyone really understands the value of touchdowns.

incorrectname

Jul 21, 2019

0

#119

From wikipedia:

A meme (/miːm/ MEEM^[1]^[2]^[3]) is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture—often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme, or meaning represented by the meme.^[4] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.^[5]

Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.^[6]

ChessBoy513

Jul 21, 2019

0

#120

Reepicheep14님이 썼습니다:

YummyBrain wrote:

I laughed for a good five minutes reading the analysis. I think touch-downs are underrated!

Finally someone gets it. Yes, hardly anyone really understands the value of touchdowns.

I do, but only if they're in the endgame or by pawns.