I played a game where I blundered my queen and won in 28 moves.
how do you deal with losing 49% of your games?
Sort:
983hf98he4 wrote:
out of curiosity, how does everyone else deal with losing nearly half their games? i hate it. i thought after playing chess a bunch i would get better at accepting loss, but it's just as frustrating now as when i first started. how do you cope with losing consistently?
Mate, I guess you have never been a financial trader. 51% win rate is good. Very good.
Same goes for chess.
Nov 20, 2023
0
#44
Lagomorph wrote:
983hf98he4 wrote:
out of curiosity, how does everyone else deal with losing nearly half their games? i hate it. i thought after playing chess a bunch i would get better at accepting loss, but it's just as frustrating now as when i first started. how do you cope with losing consistently?
Mate, I guess you have never been a financial trader. 51% win rate is good. Very good.
Same goes for chess.
Mate, I guess you have never been a chess player. 49% lose rate is not a 51% win rate. Draws exist!
If you're playing people of approximately your own strength, wouldn't you expect to score around 50%. What's the problem>
TomekPrzemek16 wrote:
IsraeliGal
I'm sorry but there's absolutely no logic or sense in your statement.
then that shows you are dumber than i thought.
You said that if your opponent gives up a piece they are dumb for giving away that piece. Im countering your stupid argument with your own comment, just in opposite. If you go up a piece because of your opponents "Stupidity" but then you end up drawing or losing that game because they didnt resign, YOU are also DUMB, for not winning with a clear advantage.
So your opponent not resigning immediately after going a piece down is valid, theres no reason not to. Its YOUR fault for losing if you do in that situation, and why would your opponent not give a chance for that to happen by not resigning?
If you get upset by people not resigning in lost positions, how about you show that by winning quickly instead of sitting and complaining about it in the forums because you most likely have lost from a position like that before, so you feel triggered.
That should be the norm
llama_l wrote:
983hf98he4 wrote:
out of curiosity, how does everyone else deal with losing nearly half their games? i hate it. i thought after playing chess a bunch i would get better at accepting loss, but it's just as frustrating now as when i first started. how do you cope with losing consistently?
Yeah, for me it can be difficult to play for fun if the games are rated... first of all because I have to be in good form and focused (unless I'm underrated at the moment).
So two basic ways... play unrated, or play some fun rated games where you experiment with a new opening. Yeah you'll lose a lot in the fun games, but then your rating will be low, and when you play seriously again you'll be more likely to win.
I don't play non-serious rated games much, but I think that's how many other players do it. When you see their rating graph it swings in a 200-300 point range (+ or - 100 is common). For me, if I'm being serious about my games, it's basically impossible to lose 100 points... you just have to know your body and not make bad decisions (like playing when tired or hungry or distracted)...
... in other words, when you are choosing to play when you're not in good form, go into it with reasonable expectations. Pre-forgive yourself for losing before you even make the first move.
i totally agree - i try to always play as close to my peak as possible. sometimes i click on my opponent's profile and see these 300-500 point swings. i figure they either don't care, or enjoy losing a bunch in order to win a bunch against weaker players.
this is embarrassing, but i didn't realize you could do unrated games! i'll look into it.
Nov 20, 2023
0
#49
If you're prepared to spend countless hours on improving, keep at it, you will be better eventually. If you don't have that time or patience, and the game frustrates you like that, stop playing, find something more worthwhile for you than staring at 64 squares.
People who keep playing after loosing a queen a rook or a bishop/ knight in a rapid game are id@#ts and don't understand chess or just have too much free time.
Even if you manage to win after losing a piece, it just means that your opponent was dumb and there's nothing to be proud of.
And if you lose after going up a queen or a piece, then you got nothing to be proud of either, and were dumb enough to throw away a free win.
So the opponent not resigning is perfectly fine. You disproved yourself with your own comment.