Count me in the confused camp too.
It's not like your superior play was winning the day. Sure, you had snatched the odd pawn here and there (a style of play also open to criticism), but your opponent initiated the bad exchange on move 26, an unforced error, handing you a winning position. You didn't outthink your opponent, you had good luck.
And then when you returned the favor, your opponent is now the bad guy? As I said, call me confused.
I get it - he/she won. The computer would have done the same. But computers aren't playing to improve, unless you're part of an AI training program. You'll never improve playing like this. You'll keep losing then you'll keep hopping your knights around trying to fluster the opponent and eventually find that fork. If I wanted to play against that I'd go fire up Chessmaster.
I've found that when my opponent takes their time with every move and every strategy, usually those opponents produce a good game, they show respect towards their opponents. And then you've got these other players.
Black played a incredibly decent game. His/her accuracy was 80% to your 67.4%.
(I'm only mentioning that because you're putting down this person's playing, yet he/she out-played you fair and square.)
Seems to me you would be much happier playing more classic time controls, like the old fashion correspondence chess. Why not play the 3-days per move time control?
Quiet frankly, Black was playing exactly as one should play under these time controls: the way I WISH I could play (and will play some day...i just started in February).
You say you want an opponent who takes the time needed to make judicious moves, but you're not playing those time controls. Can't have it both ways.
Plus, you get paired up against folks with similar ratings.
Maybe join a club that has really long time controls. I know of two that have varied correspondence chess time controls. Message me if you're interested.
Otherwise, Black played an above average game for this time control.
@DLB777, my accuracy usually scores in the 90's. This wasn't even my usual way of playing the Ruy Lopez. I only bring that up to show that rapid can be as decent as any time-control - no shenanigans required.
But black wasn't moving the knight around a lot.
The few times he moved it, usually it's because you attacked it.
And in the end it's the bishop that forked you.
This post makes no sense.
26. b3?
U did a blunder. Would be better rxc4. Nothing to complain, Bro.
But black wasn't moving the knight around a lot.
The few times he moved it, usually it's because you attacked it.
And in the end it's the bishop that forked you.
This post makes no sense.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
I seriously thought perhaps the incorrect game was posted
@DLB777, my accuracy usually scores in the 90's. This wasn't even my usual way of playing the Ruy Lopez. I only bring that up to show that rapid can be as decent as any time-control - no shenanigans required.
No doubt. With your rating, I totally believe you.
My accuracy was 77% on Level 1 against the computer today (middle of the night) . I was so happy. I can only imagine having the accuracy of folks with your skill and higher.
Something for me to strive for.
Correspondence chess is the time-control you're looking for. If chess could ever compare to war then let's discuss the strategies and resources we find in daily chess.
Rapid is more akin to rounds in a UFC cage fight. Even by that bar I still win, seeing how it's all about your scoring if you avoided the definite K.O.
Eh, no you wouldn't. You got knock out in the end by a tactic. That to me doesn't sound like playing better. Funnily enough you talk so high about playing strategical and "respectable" yet I see very little difference in the way you or your opponent played this particular game. If time control is the issue, play a longer time control. Simple as that.
@nexim, do you perhaps have a separate account? I have the feeling we've spoken before. Your words are very personal.
At move 26 he should take with the bishop, not with the rook. All low rated players have that neurotic need to give a check, even if theres no reason to do it.
no actually to play more aggressive u take with the rook, checking the enemy king
Wait.. you resigned because you hot bored of the game?
Well i didn't see whats wrong in this game. I was expecting lots of knight maneuvers keeps looking for a fork.. (by judging the initial message). If you think he was cheating.. well.. it's a whole different thing. but in my humble opinion this gameplay is looking human-like (still needs to be analyzed). all in all, i didn't get your point.. what happened :D
I've never found it productive to get upset about what moves my opponent makes or doesn't make on his or her time. And if my opponent is trying to win or draw in a difficult, maybe almost impossible situation ... well, isn't that the point of playing chess?
Wait.. you resigned because you hot bored of the game?
Due to some to some unexplained freezing with the analysis engine yesterday, I didn't get around to scanning it. It turns out that rook capture leaves me -2.3 or so.
@nexim, do you perhaps have a separate account? I have the feeling we've spoken before. Your words are very personal.
No I don't, and I don't remember speaking with you before. You go to a public forum and make a post about another player saying that the way he or she plays kills the fun of the game and imply that his way of playing isn't respectable.
Why do you expect to receive any sort of respect yourself from such a premise?
I know why this sucks, but it's just part of online without increment. In one of my games, it was a completely drawn endgame (k+r vs k+r) but I had 40 seconds. I was lucky to escape due to the 50-move rule.
Timing out your opponents, 0.1secs by 0.1 secs is just part of blitz/rapid(no increment).
WSama
Your opponent certainly had fun in winning this game, if the result or the way it was achieved killed the fun for you that's your problem, your opponent is not playing here to entertain you.
If hopping knights around in your time trouble was a sure way to confuse you and provoke a blunder then it was the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with "wait around for mistakes to happen". After all you can't win if the other player doesn't commit any mistake.
"From the beginning of the game my opponent was looking to simplify the position" - nothing wrong with that, may be he prefers to play simple technical positions.
"I didn't resign because I had lost, I was simply annoyed at that point, as well as low on time." This explanation is laughable and totally immature, just as your whole rant in this thread.
I kinda get where you're coming from now. Someone on my friend list plays just like that. Mindlessly chucking knights around the place and hoping for blunders. He wins a game here and there but it's not the way to improve in the long run.
That was my point, exactly.
Plus a little bit of frustration.