Draws are for losers

F tier rage bait gng

Yeah, I've seen better.

Another superb "truth revealing" thread

Darth Vader: I AM the one who will bring peace to the Galaxy!

Deadmanparty: I AM the clown show!

I do.

The rest of your comment was good, so why throw in this completely baseless attack?

Draws are often looked down upon by plenty of chess players. This mentality is nowhere near exclusive to the US. The OP is probably trolling anyway, so it's a very poor example to prove your point.

Lots of people look down on draws and those people are usually the average person playing a game, not those who look at chess as an integral part of life and believe if your rating is not at least 1400 you are a beginner.

Your first fallacy is in thinking that you represent normal people. You do not. Your second fallacy would be in thinking that you represent a majority of people, you do not.

Your biggest fallacy is in thinking that a draw is a loss, it is not. It is a draw, a tie, no win or loss for either side.

belive it or not, my friend offered me a draw when he was in the winning position... i think you're wrong

I would say that 'beginner' relates to when you started and not your level of skill.

There is a significant skill gap however in being a 1000 rated player and a 1400 rated player. If you wish to become better then I suggest you learn how to checkmate people and put some time into studying or learning end games instead of whining about it and trying to change the rules or attacking the player that drew against you.

You are only making yourself look ridiculous.

But it isn't completely baseless. American culture gives no respect at all to ties or draws, and it is one of the few cultures on the planet to take that attitude.

They even consider this to be "normal".

Consider a couple of the most popular games and sports in the USA... Baseball and Poker.

If a baseball game "ends" in a tie... then it doesn't end. It goes into extra innings. No respect for a draw. Contrast this with the most popular international sport, football (called "Soccer" in the USA). In that sport a draw is a typical result, and is accepted and respected.

The most popular table game in the USA isn't chess, it's Poker. And elaborate tie-break rules exist for determining the "winner" in case of ties. Again, the draw gets no respect.

Why would you call it a baseless attack? Just because it contained the label "American"? But what if this cultural bias IS characteristic of American culture? Is it still "baseless"? Is it even an attack?

The average rating on this site is around 750, so I certainly wouldn't lump everybody under 1400 as "Beginners".

Plenty of FIDE players do.

Plenty of more serious chess players view ratings as your worth. Unless you are in tournaments it is just a way to find an opponent close to your ability.

he also had checkmate in 1 multiple times

I'm not sure other games can be compared very well to chess. When it comes to chess, I would still say it is baseless. In general, and from many different countries, I have found chess players that are very against draws.

My current coach, a Candidate Master from Serbia, is this way. I strongly doubt he would say draws are "for losers," but he has said before that he doesn't like draws. Actually, another Serbian coach I've taken a class with before said the same thing.

This mentality is pretty common among master-level players in general, in fact. Not all master-level players, but certainly not just American players.

I will also point out that it has nothing to do with the fact that he said "American." If you replace the word "American" in his post with people from basically any other country, it would be equally ridiculous IMO, and I probably would've written the same thing.

Perhaps "attack" was a poor choice of word – I still believe it was a baseless comment, and I see no reason to believe American chess players are any more strongly against draws than those from other countries.

Unless something has changed in the last 15 years since I was a poker player, your post doesn't make any sense. You don't have draws in Chess tournaments, you have tie breakers to determine a winner, or you keep playing until there is a winner. Each game of chess in the tournament is akin to a hand in poker. In poker hands there are draws. In big tv tournaments in chess they don't want draws, they want a winner, but back in the days actual draws in poker tournaments was common, when it got to the final two, three or four people would make a deal total up the prize pools of 1st through whatever was making the deal and split it.

So your statement that it is 'American' Culture is false. In fact, in Hockey, the ''we don't want a draw" culture came from Europe, where they didn't want ties so they instituted the Shootout to end games and spread it along with diving to the North American game where draws were once a common occurance.

I think blueemu has a point. If you look at the most popular sports game in the world - football - there are loads and loads of draws.

The concept of a draw adds an extra dimension to a game - especially if one side was clearly better, but couldn't force the win. In that case you could say they were "better", but not better enough to prove it. It's different if like in a basketball game the score is 81-81at the end, then both sides are likely about equally as good. But games where you can draw by turtling means that to fully win, the good player can't just incrementally be better, you have to be substantially better, you have to earn it, you have to prove it.

Draws have analogies to real-life situations. It's not always win or loss - sometimes an argument or a conquest is fought to the point where you can't say one person really "won".

Going back to turtling again - the fact that a worse player can sometimes pull out a draw by this technique make things less predictable than a NFL game where I think that people already know with 99% certainty who's going to win before the game begins a lot of the time. With football you never really know. These are both teams in the same pro league, not like against some amateurs. If Magnus plays Kramnik Magnus is ridiculously better than Kramnik at this point - but Kramnik could very likely hold him to a draw one in every couple of games, and then if Magnus presses too hard he could end up losing.

I'm no fan of anti-chess or anti-football, putting up a wall of defenders, etc. That's for sure dreadful and pointless, pointless unless you're Costa Rica playing Germany, then you can try that. But imagine a game having gone badly, a miserable-looking position, but you try your best to hold and amazingly you scramble a draw from it.