chess players are bad

**updated : my personal thread resolution to my inquiry. 

1) time-log all games moves, when each move happened according to the clock

2) keep track of Checkmates to win and Checkmates lost. (games won by checkmate, games lost by checkmate vs Overall record) 

ratio of games won by checkmate/ won on time, lost by checkmate/ lost on time. 

 ======================================================

The players on this website don't properly antiquate success with reputation. 

I like how in competitive [video] gaming people hold other players accountable for playing style. 

In chess many players don't respect the players. 

It's like watching a soccer team dive, foul, slow the clock on substitutions, fake injury's. It's because they play the game with decency, but then they throw away all rules when they're losing and down on time. (I've played opponents that in 1 minute games will force you to chase them and you have to be forced to figure out how to checkmate or lose on time.. when they played a decent game until that last 15-20 seconds and you played good winning chess to get to that position.. then boom.. they're lost.. and they run away the clock)

Actually they're just painstakingly arrogant,because they're constantly in bad positions but play like they're better, and then get lucky into winning positions with bad moves. 

You simply have to ignore the nonsesnse moves and pretend it didn't happen. If you react to it knowing what they're trying to do you will just be in a maze. 

i.e react to a move that attacks one piece, but by defending it you compromise the overall complexion of hte position, but it wasn't intended, they just simply get lucky into good positions if you react to moves that really don't do much. 

It becomes frustrating and eventually you have to quit, because you don't want to lose to many games on record or rating points when you know you're outplaying your opponents but losing.. but eventually after enough games, I catch on and start capitalizaing on the positional weaknesses, but I usually don't have enough time to play that many games.. it's about 15-20 games in that I realize it. 

It's also frustrating when only about 10% of my losses are by checkmate, and 90% of my wins are by checkmate. 

I think chess.com should make this a valued statistic. 

I don't think a player under 1500 has checkmated me legitimately in about 1000 games. 

chess.com NEEDS to

1) Time-log every move played within a game  within the time control of the game.. what time within the game each move was made. 

2) !! Keep track of the Number of games that you have WON by checkmate, and keep track of the number of games you have LOST by checkmate.

Ratio of wins to checkmates  ratio of losses to checkmates (by loss)

If those two statistics were tracked I would have no more complaints. 

I agree on the importance of chess games won/lost by checkmate especially in 1, 2, 3, or 5 minutes bullet/blitz.

Even if that would make me a very bad player ah ah ah

I don't care if I'm a bad player or not. 

The point is I'm sick of trying to win every game and losing on time, and it doesn't reflect my score  W/L

I get tons of checkmates, and opponents seldom can checkmate me, and it's frustrating because to me that means I'm out playing them, and I realize that I should be focused on time control as a means of the game, but some players never make an effort to win the game

Time-logging moves

would show the pace which the game was played. 

It would show for instance why you would start blowing pieces away if your low on time, or at exactly the pace of the game from start to finish. 

Well, my opinion is that that's kind of the point of 1 minute games at least. Being able to balance between playing a good game and playing for time is very important in my opinion. I've played games where my opponent takes a while to think of moves, and while they're good moves, they're just too slow. In the end, if I can put him under a few checks, then I've won the game. I don't think that this is "unfair", rather I feel it's part of the strategy. 

Just play 30 minute games.

To Pullin a win is only "legitimate" if it's his win. 

"You didn't really beat me, bro. The clock just ran out." 

"Nah, you just got lucky." 

"Lol, I'm not 1100, I'm like 1500 cause you have to be over 1500 to checkmate me, the other 99% of my games I lose on time."

Bad sportsmanship. Accept your losses, don't make up new rules and expect others to follow them. If you're playing a one minute game then you have to get a fast mate or win on time, that's what you need for that particular time control.

My advice to you:

1. Stop bitching.

2. Play 15/10 games instead and don't make up a new rule to explain away your losses. 

If you want to do this, play longer time controls. You can capitalise on all the positional weaknesses you want in bullet but it wont help you when you hang your queen.

You could always start playing Fischer or Bronstein blitz/bullet. At least you have a few seconds to dodge your way out of someone expensing your time without losing anything. That should be enough for a quick mind and a shitty, desperate stab.

I don't know if they play that here in Chess.com, though, and I don't know why people insist on playing absolute times at this year we live in. Analog clocks cost the same than digital ones. Maybe people like this aspect of the game that you so despise. I do admit it's kinda cool looking, especially live, when that fast forward action begins and either side actually does deliver checkmate.

Im bad cuz Michael Jackson said so...

Acid badger is so mad

anyone who doesn't like these rules is obviously scared

3) Chess.com  PLEASE  update your game logs with a Houdini 3 or houdini 4 reference for game score evaluation  +/- . I don't even think it'd be necessary to suggest moves, but simply to evaluate the position after every move to see the evaluation move by move. 

If someone is playing within their own rating bracket, how can they hope to improve if they're not playing against higher rated opponents in rated games without knowing if their moves are strong or not. 

This would at least disclose to them whether the opponent made a strong move, or if they themselves made a strong/ weak move in each game to see how the evaluation score changed. 

You can analyse your own moves if you want to.

You can take a video of your screen during the games and pinpoint the times on the clocks if you want to.

This isn't chess.com's issue; it's yours.

Winning on time is the primary strategy to winning bullet games. In blitz it's about 50% skill and 50% time management, I'd say. Therefore, one's bullet/blitz skill is reflected in the rating, but not necessarily CHESS skill in general.

P.S. I honestly haven't even looked at the OP's rating yet, but judging as how he refers to his wins as "checkmates" and not resignation, I'm assuming it is quite low.

Because there's a difference between checkmates and resignation? lol

@ Zigwurst  the first 2 points I made I can't evaluate   in terms of W/L vs Checkmates and Time logs because that information doesn't exist. 

Point #3 isn't as important imo. 

You can go through every single one of your games that you've played and try to figure everything out if you really want to.

And @JMB he's only an 1100

When you can type 100 WPM, you can type your life story in 10 minutes !

 "