Perhaps should venture into 'live-chess' after yrs of absence to find out about this 'chat-psychology?'
Killer-moves tend to surpass & usurp that mostly.
A Question of Honor
Sort:
Thanks seemoreglass. Irontiger: I did NOT generalize to all americans, I did not even say 'many'. I explicitly downplayed my own experience. With no word you mention the observation that all people in this forum who defend an odd behavior at the board are of US american origin.
Btw, it IS true that overweight in US is a much more severe problem then in most countries of Europe. Which does not mean that many US americans would not live healthy; probably the majority successfully watches the weight.
It is also true that French people have more often a good taste (what to eat, what to dress... how to lead a good conversation) than some other Europeans, while leaving their apartment in a mess... Well the last point is a very subjective impression: In Paris you hardly find an apartment with enough space which is at the same time not expensive, that's why you don't care...
Irontiger wrote
Do you also believe all Americans are overweight ?
They might be. A few years ago, Americans lost so much weight that it threw the Earth slighly out of orbit. We were headed towards the asteroid belt, so, once again, Americans saved the Earth. This time they force fed each other.
my chess pieces are over weight ,does that matter ,i mean morally?
Somehow I can't find the source, but, yes.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must eat again to help save us (recent reports have us "drifting" again).
robertpetersen wrote:
my chess pieces are over weight ,does that matter ,i mean morally?
Morally, no, but less chances of mating.
thats what i mean , so the king is so fat it can only move a sq at a time , doesnt mean the that morally the queen gives up on mating does it ?
I'm glad I didn't bring up the issue of obesity. It seems some get pretty uptight about it.
[COMMENT DELETED]
drifting? i guess morals don't do that except ..in chess , i don't care how lovely she is , rich or poor , from star-trek outofspace or hometown or your best friend coming over holding his tea cup with a little finger out , the person across the board is your enemy , out to put the game and you to rest , think differently and you will lose !
draws can be played out , by the inexperience or foreseen as the inedible by experienced players , it is a honor to shake hands when seen as the outcome and re severe the concentration for the next match , it is a way to suggest to the player next to you , the possibilities are limited for you or them to continue the pace , until if lucky only two kings remain on the board , if you start to question , the morals of offering a draw you have to include the concept of refusing or declining the offer , there are many possibilities to this , are you being offered a draw because it is one way for the player not to loose to you ? then it is up to you to morally refuse and defend that honor , can you pause and see it is a intelligent decision then , you both played well, a hand shake and then it is a moral issue if you want to offer a rematch or except a rematch , i feel comfortable saying a draw is not a loose , but it is different if it is played out or mutually accepted so when in doubt , play it out the results should be the same or you may win , in torment playing , this is a different issue , it then reflects your advancement or retirement
I hate torment playing.
Btw, I always observe that fat players are often very good in Blitz games.
Is there a biological explanation for this ?
Or is it just that those people who play all the time blitz games in clubs, in pubs , on the internet, consider sports as a waste of time ?
seemoreglass wrote:
A person with self respect will admit when they have been outplayed, and they will resign in a timely fashion. Accepting defeat when it is deserved is justice.
Some will say that they still have an opportunity to outplay their opponent later in the game... Most often what happens when they happen to come back and win is that they simply bored their opponent to death by bouncing around and wasting each other's time in an objectively lost position.
To be honest, most chess players are shallow and care about internet rating points, which is the REAL reason most of them play on in horrible positions.
HI, seemore. Respectfully, I disagree with just about everything said in your post, but one thing in particular I'd like to adress.
Some will say that they still have an opportunity to outplay their opponent later in the game... Most often what happens when they happen to come back and win is that they simply bored their opponent to death by bouncing around and wasting each other's time in an objectively lost position.
This is known as “outplaying your opponent later in the game.” I view a game of chess as more of a long distance race than a sprint. It ain't over til it's over. And I’m sure many will agree that see-saw battles are some of the most exciting. And though I don’t do it myself, wouldn’t you agree that a person’s mental set-up such as a susceptibility to boredom is a legitimate avenue of attack in the multi-faceted game called chess? This is the kind of thing that makes an otherwise excellent chess player better suited perhaps to correspondence play than to OTB. There must be a great many players of enormous ability that are not or no longer are champions somewhere to issues such as inability to concentrate sufficiently or lack of stamina.
Inventing great battles that might be possible, but in fact, all cases that really happened are continuations of a lost situation where the attempto 'to bore to death' fails (and they deservedly lose).
The spectators nod their head and go home.
seemoreglass wrote:
SquareDealer wrote:
seemoreglass wrote:
A person with self respect will admit when they have been outplayed, and they will resign in a timely fashion. Accepting defeat when it is deserved is justice.
Some will say that they still have an opportunity to outplay their opponent later in the game... Most often what happens when they happen to come back and win is that they simply bored their opponent to death by bouncing around and wasting each other's time in an objectively lost position.
To be honest, most chess players are shallow and care about internet rating points, which is the REAL reason most of them play on in horrible positions.
HI, seemore. Respectfully, I disagree with just about everything said in your post, but one thing in particular I'd like to adress.
Some will say that they still have an opportunity to outplay their opponent later in the game... Most often what happens when they happen to come back and win is that they simply bored their opponent to death by bouncing around and wasting each other's time in an objectively lost position.
This is known as “outplaying your opponent later in the game.” I view a game of chess as more of a long distance race than a sprint. It ain't over til it's over. And I’m sure many will agree that see-saw battles are some of the most exciting. And though I don’t do it myself, wouldn’t you agree that a person’s mental set-up such as a susceptibility to boredom is a legitimate avenue of attack in the multi-faceted game called chess? This is the kind of thing that makes an otherwise excellent chess player better suited perhaps to correspondence play than to OTB. There must be a great many players of enormous ability that are not or no longer are champions somewhere to issues such as inability to concentrate sufficiently or lack of stamina.
I play chess because I like the strategy on the board, and out-thinking my opponent. I don't want to play "who cares more about points" or "who has more endurance" or "who's 'mental set up' is better."
Obviously we have different definitions of good chess. To you, good chess means winning a game, period. To me, good chess is about playing good moves. I'd rather just move on to the next game than spend an unnecessary 20 moves or 20 minutes to reach checkmate.
Seemoreglass, respectfully, I agree with just about everything you said. From what you've written it seems that you're saying:
It doesn't matter if I win or lose a chess game, it's about how the game is played.
Estragon wrote:
But if you truly don't care about the outcome, but only the quality of play, then when your opponent doesn't resign when he "should" in your view, you could just resign yourself and move on.
Since winning and losing isn't the point, right?
An interesting idea Estragon. I have no problem playing a game to checkmate and rarely does it even cross my mind that my opponent should resign; yet come to think of it I'm sure I could save myself a lot of time wasted on too many losers if I adopted this policy. If I start playing chess regularly again I might try it out; at the least I can expect to get some great responses for the action on top of all the extra time.
Estragon did not make any point. Because there are no players of such kind. At least subconciously everyone wants to win. This is the purpose of the game, defined by its rules. We cannot escape it.
The question is, do we respect the opponent, and ourselves enough.
I repeat it, even if it is ashes in my mouth: continuing many moves in a position that is lost for you in any event, is not respectful, neither to your opponent, nor to yourself.
Can you not admit that in one tiny thing US americans are behind ?
The shorter tradition lead to a lack of behavior of SOME players.
My claim is confirmed to the least by my own limited witness -
two years in the american province -
but by some funny posts written exclusively by your countrymen.
Experience dismissed. No hear-say, and no plaintiff's testimony.
Seriously guy...
Do you also believe all Americans are overweight ? And all French are inefficient, lazy workers, but romantic bread-eaters ? etc.