ivandh wrote:
Closer to the mark, but I think the biggest contributor to science is some guy in his garage doing what the instructions tell you not to do.
Sure, but who invented the garage?
Official list of how to make yourself a Chess Jerk
Sort:
Sounds French.
Oct 27, 2011
0
#44
pbrocoum wrote:
I love the game of chess, I find it to be quite beautiful, but unfortunately it's often ruined by jerks (we humans have a tendency to ruin anything we get involved in). Here's my list of ways that people ruin the game, and feel free to add more of your own below.
Do not resign -- so you are down a rook, two pieces, and three pawns, so what?!? Valiantly struggle on for as long as possible, wasting everybody's time. Play as slowly as possible when not resigning -- going along with number 1 above, if you have a hopeless position and are not going to resign, make sure to only move once every 2 days 23 hours and 59 minutes. This way, you will lose only over months and years, instead of right away. Disconnect in live chess -- if you hang a piece in the first minute of a live game, it's better to disconnect and let your clock run down for 5, 10, or 15 minutes rather than just resign. This way, you get to laugh at your opponent for sitting at his computer like an idiot. Reconnect after 4 minutes and 59 seconds -- after you have disconnected in a losing position, and your opponent has gotten up to go to the bathroom or to get some coffee, reconnect and hope he doesn't come back, thus earning yourself a full point. Abort 75% of your games -- rather than using the "game settings" to set up the pool of people you want to play with to match your preferred rating level, it's better to abort game after game after game, annoying people to no end.Did I miss any?
1. Why should you resign? Its a matter of choice. Some people believe they can win from an inferior position and many have done so anyway.
2. If the game is 3 days per move, you have to accept that some people will take up to three days. If that frustrates you, play 1 day per move.
3. Some people's connections go off. Those who purposefully do it because they are losing are just fed up. You could smash you computer in frustration or play online chess while time runs down on live chess.
4. People are weird like that.
5. Change your settings limite who can play you.
1. Resign in every game in which you are not white
2. Get checkmated in four moves and complain that the opponent is "cheating" or using "dirty tricks".
1. Eat BBQ ribs while playing on your opponent's $200 wooden Kasparov set.
2. Throw your triple weighted King at your opponents head as your resignation notice; and nearly start a Chessplayer riot.
3. To be a jerk as a Director: Don't believe the guy from another country who told you he had been an Expert there and put him into the second section, then pair him with hometown guy you drop down from the top section to be his Chess assassin; then when the Chess assassin gets massacred, tell the guy you're sorry he is only elligible now for half-prizes. lol. The joy of International Chess.
4. Tell your son's opponent you were in the KGB, and you want to kill him. And you thought soccer moms and little league dads were bad?!
One I got to see, two I got to experience, and the final one I heard happened twice. (To Nigel Short, and believe it was Patrick Wolfe or Michael Wilder as the other victim, but can never remember which.)
OH yes, one from west coast, club play ... Hit your opponent with a chair after he beats you in a skittles game.
LOL, I just remembered ... my last comment was on a thread called "How to play safe Chess?". ... Hey, there IS NO SAFE CHESS~ ! }8-D
pbrocoum wrote:
@bobbyDK-- this happens all the time in OTB tournaments. For example, in the last round, the top two players agree to a draw in order to split the prize. Not really sure what to do about this, or if it's so bad. Also, rating floors are meant to limit sandbagging.
@tonymtbird -- you've got to be kidding me. Sitting and staring at a blank monitor is as invigorating and intellectually stimulating as standing in line at the DMV. Are you saying that people standing in line at the DMV are "idiots" for being bored?
@mevdog1971-- in live chess there is a "game settings" link under the new game button where you can set the opponent ratings that you want to play. Everybody should use it :-) As far as aborting games, the solution seems simple: just don't allow games to be aborted. What honest reason is there to start a game and not want to play?
@oinquarki -- I welcome ideas about how to solve these problems.
@Elubas -- =)
@bigpoison -- ha ha, unfortunately.
@teocaf -- I don't see what The Immortal Game has to do with anything. Firstly, you and I, and these people on Chess.com, are not going to be playing immortal games, but secondly, Anderssen gave up both rooks and a bishop, then his queen, checkmating his opponent with his three remaining minor pieces. That's pretty amazing, and I never said that "one should resign whenever they are down material no matter what, even if there is an awesome mating attack." Obviously, awesome meeting attacks are the exception. Furthermore, Kieseritzky actually resigned on move 19, with the following amazing mating attack never actually being played. Anderssen then announced the mating moves to the spectators. So The Immortal Game actually PROVES my point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game
One thing where I seem to disagree with most people is that I don't think sandbagging is as common or as big a problem as people think. One's rating is very important and I don't think people would purposefully lower it that much just to beat a few patzers.
well, who died and made you the pope of chess protocol. "OFFICIAL list, indeed!".
so the immortal game is a well-known example of being a lot of material down and going on to win. K is the one who resigned (the one with lots of extra material), not A (the one who was a lot of material down). so your reasoning is not at all in line with point one of your list. be that as it may, i will get down to what i perceive is the heart of the matter regarding your post. so you're frustrated with playing online because other people do not act in accordance with your views of how they should behave, when to resign, etc. the problem i see is that your posting in its title already flames others by calling them jerks. you are categorically casting them in a negative light without recognizing that there may be good reasons for them acting the way they do--such as not resigning. i will say that in my games, when i am material down, i am looking even harder for a way to form a mating attack, to lock up his extra material, etc. when i have convinced myself that there is not a way forward, then i will consider resigning. i'm not going to take that cue from you or even arrive at the same conclusion in the same timeframe as you might. also, i learn the game from playing on the board and not from books, so it benefits me to see things done for use in future games. i'm not going to consider someone who says: "hey, why don't you resign there, you hopeless jerk"
if you are indeed trying to make things better, as you say in one of your posts, then perhaps the way forward for you is to learn how to play in a more gracious manner, give people the benefit of the doubt, you know, that sort of thing...
teocaf wrote:
pbrocoum wrote:
@bobbyDK-- this happens all the time in OTB tournaments. For example, in the last round, the top two players agree to a draw in order to split the prize. Not really sure what to do about this, or if it's so bad. Also, rating floors are meant to limit sandbagging.
@tonymtbird -- you've got to be kidding me. Sitting and staring at a blank monitor is as invigorating and intellectually stimulating as standing in line at the DMV. Are you saying that people standing in line at the DMV are "idiots" for being bored?
@mevdog1971-- in live chess there is a "game settings" link under the new game button where you can set the opponent ratings that you want to play. Everybody should use it :-) As far as aborting games, the solution seems simple: just don't allow games to be aborted. What honest reason is there to start a game and not want to play?
@oinquarki -- I welcome ideas about how to solve these problems.
@Elubas -- =)
@bigpoison -- ha ha, unfortunately.
@teocaf -- I don't see what The Immortal Game has to do with anything. Firstly, you and I, and these people on Chess.com, are not going to be playing immortal games, but secondly, Anderssen gave up both rooks and a bishop, then his queen, checkmating his opponent with his three remaining minor pieces. That's pretty amazing, and I never said that "one should resign whenever they are down material no matter what, even if there is an awesome mating attack." Obviously, awesome meeting attacks are the exception. Furthermore, Kieseritzky actually resigned on move 19, with the following amazing mating attack never actually being played. Anderssen then announced the mating moves to the spectators. So The Immortal Game actually PROVES my point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game
One thing where I seem to disagree with most people is that I don't think sandbagging is as common or as big a problem as people think. One's rating is very important and I don't think people would purposefully lower it that much just to beat a few patzers.
well, who died and made you the pope of chess protocol. "OFFICIAL list, indeed!".
so the immortal game is a well-known example of being a lot of material down and going on to win. K is the one who resigned (the one with lots of extra material), not A (the one who was a lot of material down). so your reasoning is not at all in line with point one of your list. be that as it may, i will get down to what i perceive is the heart of the matter regarding your post. so you're frustrated with playing online because other people do not act in accordance with your views of how they should behave, when to resign, etc. the problem i see is that your posting in its title already flames others by calling them jerks. you are categorically casting them in a negative light without recognizing that there may be good reasons for them acting the way they do--such as not resigning. i will say that in my games, when i am material down, i am looking even harder for a way to form a mating attack, to lock up his extra material, etc. when i have convinced myself that there is not a way forward, then i will consider resigning. i'm not going to take that cue from you or even arrive at the same conclusion in the same timeframe as you might. also, i learn the game from playing on the board and not from books, so it benefits me to see things done for use in future games. i'm not going to consider someone who says: "hey, why don't you resign there, you hopeless jerk"
if you are indeed trying to make things better, as you say in one of your posts, then perhaps the way forward for you is to learn how to play in a more gracious manner, give people the benefit of the doubt, you know, that sort of thing...
I DO NOT WANT TO BE A CHESS JERK!!!!
well, who died and made you the pope of chess protocol.
Don't you read the newspapers? the last Pope of Chess Protocol died over a week ago.
Popes of Chess Protocol are elected by the College of Cardinals of Chess Protocol meeting in Conclave.
Some chess boards were burnt, eventually the smoke turned white and a new Pope of Chess Protocol was consecrated.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Goodness gracious you're right! That's what I call common sense.
I just discovered a new way to be a Chess jerk.
Make it your self-appointed duty on Chess sites to cast doubts & dispersion at anyone who says they reached any level of play. Then when they send you a complete resume of game sources, ratings & achievements ... dont read it! Just forget all about it, then accuse them Again a few years later the first time your duty radar detects their presence. HOWEVER, you must be sure not to actually do a thorough examination; rather grasp upon one piece of information, tell yourself "aha, god I am so clever", then fire away.
kco wrote:
a bit sore about Reb about are you.
Who ?!
};-)
LetsReason wrote:
luminaire wrote:
pbrocoum wrote:
Here's my list of ways that people ruin the game...
...1. Do not resign -- so you are down a rook, two pieces, and three pawns, so what?!? Valiantly struggle on for as long as possible, wasting everybody's time.
I disagree with this one.
I think the more you allow yourself to be affected by people's negativity (either perceived or actual), the less focus you have on the actual game of chess - and it is just a game after all!! ( albiet a very serious one :D )
It's all relative. No? So I lose a game and cuss you out. I talk about your mother, your daughter and your family and use many unmentionables. You just blow it off. Cool. Please don't be bothered though. I'm just blowing off steam and don't mean anything by it. Since that is the way I feel about it, you should not be bothered.
The OP's original points all referred to chess ettiquite, which is what I limited the scope of my response to.
Of course you can take it to the extreme with that level of trash talking, which is an entirely valid point. My point is that this it's just a game, and you are better off not reacting to petty things like poor sportsmanship. Talk about my mother? Yup, I'm going to get pissed off about that... for about 5 seconds. Then I'm going to get over it. What do you recommend? Yelling at your computer screen?
You yourself said that online we encounter the entire spectrum of humanity. I simply choose not to let the "Chess jerks" ruin it for me.
The attitude of "don't whine about it" would have prevented virtually every scientific advance in history.
Probably not. Virtually every scientific advance in history is rooted in man's desire to kill other men.
Closer to the mark, but I think the biggest contributor to science is some guy in his garage doing what the instructions tell you not to do.