People at chess.com play insanely aggressive

Sort:
Jadulla

All blitz players think about here at chess.com is threats, threats, threats. They don't care about positional understanding whatsoever, and spit out moves without any thought. If you want to get better, learn to play real chess, not "offence-defence" as GM Igor Smirnov likes to call it.

If you want a funny story about this, go here, click on the book cover, and go to the part "Mr. Metallic and Mr. Pink vs. Mr. Orange, Fantasyland 2009" about 1/3 in the preview.

KirbyCake

you're funny complaining when you're playing at level where only tactics matter

or are you just mad because your opponents are better than you at tactics?

Bareilly

Well it doesnt matter if someone plays agreesively till they play soundly or the opponent is not competent enough to "punish" them for the agression.

Fischer once said- "Tactics flow from position."

So if you are a positional player- no reason to despair. 

One way to crsuh tactically insane opponent is to always look out at ways to squash counter-play. Take away vital squares away from opponent's pieces or block a critical diagonal etc.

I am presenting a tactical game- where I rejected a safer variation of check mate and instead opted for flashy/tactical Venus Fly Trap.



Jadulla

I have over 1600 in tactics trainer, so I think you might be wrong there.

Take a tour to Lichess, that's where people play good chess. They take their time and does strategical evaluations. Chess.com is a kindergarten in comparison. My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

Jadulla
Bareilly wrote:

 

Nice, not often you see a smothered mate

Pulpofeira

Blitz is a mean business, I think.

Game_of_Pawns

I don't know why Kirby was being so harsh. I agree, Jadulla. I have also found that players are typically far more aggressive on this website than on others. I also find that it isn't just in blitz, but also correspondence.

charles_butternucker
Jadulla wrote:

My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

Then why do you still lose that much?

LouisCreed

It's called 'brute force's tactics. It's because players today play more accurate and more like computers.

KirbyCake
Jadulla wrote:

I have over 1600 in tactics trainer, so I think you might be wrong there.

Take a tour to Lichess, that's where people play good chess. They take their time and does strategical evaluations. Chess.com is a kindergarten in comparison. My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

 

 

 

tactics trainer doesn't even work properly and isn't a good indicator of tactical ability.

rating for the most part is 10 times more accurate

 

alexpatas

I agree with Jadulla, have won many games here, if opponent have been overagressive. The main rule of chess is try to find the best move in every position, but some people here are only trying to find the most agressive move. Of course, if your position is worse, then in blitz sometimes is useful to find some complicated move, which is not maybe best, but in worse position you have to risk.

LouisCreed

You should try to make only two kinds of moves. Good ones and better ones.

Jadulla

charles_butternucker wrote:

Jadulla wrote:

My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

Then why do you still lose that much?

Well, I don't. This is just my yolo-account

Jadulla

KirbyCake wrote:

Jadulla wrote:

I have over 1600 in tactics trainer, so I think you might be wrong there.

Take a tour to Lichess, that's where people play good chess. They take their time and does strategical evaluations. Chess.com is a kindergarten in comparison. My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

 

 

 

tactics trainer doesn't even work properly and isn't a good indicator of tactical ability.

rating for the most part is 10 times more accurate

 

KirbyCake wrote:   tactics trainer doesn't even work properly and isn't a good indicator of tactical ability.rating for the most part is 10 times more accurate  That's your opinion. Perhaps tactics was all that mattered for you at my level, but that pretty much proves my point.

Jadulla

KirbyCake wrote:

Jadulla wrote:

I have over 1600 in tactics trainer, so I think you might be wrong there.

Take a tour to Lichess, that's where people play good chess. They take their time and does strategical evaluations. Chess.com is a kindergarten in comparison. My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

 

 

 

tactics trainer doesn't even work properly and isn't a good indicator of tactical ability.

rating for the most part is 10 times more accurate

 

Oh god, the phone app ruins the quoting

johnmusacha
Jadulla wrote:
charles_butternucker wrote:
Jadulla wrote:

My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

Then why do you still lose that much?

Well, I don't. This is just my yolo-account

*guffaw

KirbyCake

the fact that you're only over 1600 in tactics trainer probably means you get outcalculated by 1300s on chess.com

Jadulla

KirbyCake wrote:

the fact that you're only over 1600 in tactics trainer probably means you get outcalculated by 1300s on chess.com

The problem is rather that I don't get time to calculate. In 90 min time controls I play pretty flawlessly and rarely miss any tactic.

charles_butternucker
Jadulla wrote:
charles_butternucker wrote:
Jadulla wrote:

My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

Then why do you still lose that much?

Well, I don't. This is just my yolo-account

That seems believable.

Jadulla

charles_butternucker wrote:

Jadulla wrote:
charles_butternucker wrote:
Jadulla wrote:

My rating has been skyrocketing after I found out how to exert their shitty play.

Then why do you still lose that much?

Well, I don't. This is just my yolo-account

That seems believable.

If you believe this is a serious account, be my guest