pratheekr wrote:
Getting the win is all that matters in chess.
As long as I can take a Bishop I'm satisfied. Getting a win is just a minor bonus.
Quiters! I hate them.
Sort:
Nov 17, 2018
0
#62
I have played games that lasted 3 moves,and lost,I still wanted the rematch. Then I've played games where I was 2 moves from checkmate and pulled it out as a win. So when people say that playing a losing game to me is the beginning of a quitter. To me if you play to the end you will always learn something and maybe even pick up a w.
Nov 18, 2018
0
#65
I doubt anyone could look at all their losses and point out what they learned. Certainly unless their rating is on a clear constant upward trajectory they probably aren't learning much from lots of them. Playing on to the end is fine. Expecting others to do so just for the sake of it is silly. If learning is the aim then spending the same time you would spend losing a resignable game on the tactics trainer would teach you more
Some people want to play different people each game, there is no problem with that. Also when you rematch the same person over and over, you understand their ideas or thoughts better and that can be more decisive than the moves in a physiological aspect.
Some hate resignation, some get mad if you don't resign. Some demand a rematch some do not want to ever play you again. You would probably be happier if you learned to relax. It is just a game and supposed to be fun. If I am playing daily I would give someone a rematch if they wanted it. A lot of times though I have time for one game and have to get back to work or let the dog out. I am usually on the losing end though so biggie.
prowannab a écrit :
So let me get this straight. If I feel like I'm going to lose in the first or second move I should resign/quit because it is the honorable thing to do because I'm not only saving myself time,but also the opponents time? How in the hell am I ever going to learn anything If I do that? 1st If I play to the end I may end up with a w.most likely not but I will learn how to finish. 2nd If I keep quitting ( yes like a yellow belly) how am I ever going to learn how to win. 3rd If you don't have time to play a single game let a lone a rematch you shouldn't start a match to begin with. Yes I lose more than I win, Yes I'm ok with that, because I like playing chess. I just really hate those people that know/think they are going to lose so they give up. To me that's BS! Call me what you will,say what you will about my English,and or play. I don't care. Like the title says I hate quitters! Excuse me but I thought the point of chess was to win,Not to quit. What was explained to me as a young lad, was it's the art of war. You win or you lose. That to me means you never quit or give up like a yellow belly!
Most of the things you said about the learning part are incorrect.
1st : one or two moves cannot categorize a game as "losing"
2nd : you would have the win, but the thing is you wouldn't really learn anything about chess. You would just have used a blunder. And the best way to learn how to exploit a blunder is not to play a losing position and hope for one, but to spend useful time doing tactics exercises to better spot blunders and avoid making them in the first place. Playing is not the only part for learning chess. Actually you often learn more not by playing, but by studying and analyzing. Playing is just a measurement
3rd : you have one hour, you launch a 30 min game. Anyone blunders a rook in the first 10 minuts... You both will learn more by playing a new game or making exercises / analysis instead of playing a game that does not even require to think. And you dont need to think not because you have played many games with a full rook more, but because you studied that with a full piece ahead, you look for exchanges while strenghtening your weaknesses, and win an easy endgame
loooooool the art of the war ! do you know most wars end by surrender rather than full extermination of the other side until the end ?
Nov 19, 2018
0
#69
fredkamaru wrote:
prowannab a écrit :
So let me get this straight. If I feel like I'm going to lose in the first or second move I should resign/quit because it is the honorable thing to do because I'm not only saving myself time,but also the opponents time? How in the hell am I ever going to learn anything If I do that? 1st If I play to the end I may end up with a w.most likely not but I will learn how to finish. 2nd If I keep quitting ( yes like a yellow belly) how am I ever going to learn how to win. 3rd If you don't have time to play a single game let a lone a rematch you shouldn't start a match to begin with. Yes I lose more than I win, Yes I'm ok with that, because I like playing chess. I just really hate those people that know/think they are going to lose so they give up. To me that's BS! Call me what you will,say what you will about my English,and or play. I don't care. Like the title says I hate quitters! Excuse me but I thought the point of chess was to win,Not to quit. What was explained to me as a young lad, was it's the art of war. You win or you lose. That to me means you never quit or give up like a yellow belly!
Most of the things you said about the learning part are incorrect.
1st : one or two moves cannot categorize a game as "losing"
2nd : you would have the win, but the thing is you wouldn't really learn anything about chess. You would just have used a blunder. And the best way to learn how to exploit a blunder is not to play a losing position and hope for one, but to spend useful time doing tactics exercises to better spot blunders and avoid making them in the first place. Playing is not the only part for learning chess. Actually you often learn more not by playing, but by studying and analyzing. Playing is just a measurement
3rd : you have one hour, you launch a 30 min game. Anyone blunders a rook in the first 10 minuts... You both will learn more by playing a new game or making exercises / analysis instead of playing a game that does not even require to think. And you dont need to think not because you have played many games with a full rook more, but because you studied that with a full piece ahead, you look for exchanges while strenghtening your weaknesses, and win an easy endgame
loooooool the art of the war ! do you know most wars end by surrender rather than full extermination of the other side until the end ?
u can stop typing u already made ur point
Nov 19, 2018
0
#72
People should resign rather than walking away from a game and letting the clock time out. It is rude, inconsiderate, poor manners and extremely poor sportsmanship to waste your opponents time that way.
So let's put this analogy in here. A professional athlete practices their skill to get better at whatever it was they do. If they ( a football receiver) where to play a game and not catch the single pass that was thrown at them should they just quit their profession or not play the rest of the game. Should they just chalk it up to a game lost because they didn't get that single pass? Hell no. So people quitting for a few moves not going their way to me is complete BS!
Nov 19, 2018
0
#74
Different game. People eat apples without peeling them so why don't people also eat lemons the same way? They're both fruit after all.
Jan 6, 2019
0
#75
I have looked at a few of your games, and you play at a level where major pieces and good positions are thrown away with no real conception of how chess can be played (being honest, not meaning to offend; a better player than I would say the same of my games). So it is perfectly reasonable at your level to play on for a win when you are a Queen or more down. In the same way I will play on if I am a P or even minor piece down if I think there are opportunities for pushing my opponent into a mistake (also taking into account their time pressure).
But general chess etiquette is to resign if you are in a losing position that you would expect your opponent to comfortably finish off, bearing in mind their ability.
To complain about players resigning early, or not offering/accepting rematches is just silly playground stuff, in my opinion.
Jan 6, 2019
0
#76
Emotion has no place in Chess! Hate is a strong word and if true will put you off your concentration A game. Of course being humans if we didn't enjoy it (emotionally) what's the point. Well, the point is to stay calm as best we can and concentrate on the calculation/position/tactics etc in front of us. By not getting over emotional at the end of a game, will go a long way to focus fully when we are next in the middle of a hard battle, and one false move and it's lights out! Heart beating quicker and thoughts steering towards annoyance will only make it harder thus more annoying!
quentle wrote:
resigning isn't etiquette. resigning is a choice.
I have looked at a few of your games, and you play at a level where major pieces and good positions are thrown away with no real conception of how chess can be played (being honest, not meaning to offend; a better player than I would say the same of my games). So it is perfectly reasonable at your level to play on for a win when you are a Queen or more down. In the same way I will play on if I am a P or even minor piece down if I think there are opportunities for pushing my opponent into a mistake (also taking into account their time pressure).
But general chess etiquette is to resign if you are in a losing position that you would expect your opponent to comfortably finish off, bearing in mind their ability.
To complain about players resigning early, or not offering/accepting rematches is just silly playground stuff, in my opinion.
Jan 6, 2019
0
#78
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
quentle wrote:
resigning isn't etiquette. resigning is a choice.
I have looked at a few of your games, and you play at a level where major pieces and good positions are thrown away with no real conception of how chess can be played (being honest, not meaning to offend; a better player than I would say the same of my games). So it is perfectly reasonable at your level to play on for a win when you are a Queen or more down. In the same way I will play on if I am a P or even minor piece down if I think there are opportunities for pushing my opponent into a mistake (also taking into account their time pressure).
But general chess etiquette is to resign if you are in a losing position that you would expect your opponent to comfortably finish off, bearing in mind their ability.
To complain about players resigning early, or not offering/accepting rematches is just silly playground stuff, in my opinion.
It's an interesting one so i looked it up. The customary code of polite behaviour in society or among members of a particular profession or group.
I guess everything we do (most things!) is a choice. Nobody has to resign. Although i'd rather someone resign rather than run the clock down as a way of annoying your opposition who you've just lost to.
What do you think CalculatorKid?
NickHanne wrote:
I prefer it when the game is played out to a check mate or a stale mate.
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
quentle wrote:
resigning isn't etiquette. resigning is a choice.
I have looked at a few of your games, and you play at a level where major pieces and good positions are thrown away with no real conception of how chess can be played (being honest, not meaning to offend; a better player than I would say the same of my games). So it is perfectly reasonable at your level to play on for a win when you are a Queen or more down. In the same way I will play on if I am a P or even minor piece down if I think there are opportunities for pushing my opponent into a mistake (also taking into account their time pressure).
But general chess etiquette is to resign if you are in a losing position that you would expect your opponent to comfortably finish off, bearing in mind their ability.
To complain about players resigning early, or not offering/accepting rematches is just silly playground stuff, in my opinion.
It's an interesting one so i looked it up. The customary code of polite behaviour in society or among members of a particular profession or group.
I guess everything we do (most things!) is a choice. Nobody has to resign. Although i'd rather someone resign rather than run the clock down as a way of annoying your opposition who you've just lost to.
What do you think CalculatorKid?
Jan 6, 2019
0
#80
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
NickHanne wrote:
I prefer it when the game is played out to a check mate or a stale mate.
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
quentle wrote:
resigning isn't etiquette. resigning is a choice.
I have looked at a few of your games, and you play at a level where major pieces and good positions are thrown away with no real conception of how chess can be played (being honest, not meaning to offend; a better player than I would say the same of my games). So it is perfectly reasonable at your level to play on for a win when you are a Queen or more down. In the same way I will play on if I am a P or even minor piece down if I think there are opportunities for pushing my opponent into a mistake (also taking into account their time pressure).
But general chess etiquette is to resign if you are in a losing position that you would expect your opponent to comfortably finish off, bearing in mind their ability.
To complain about players resigning early, or not offering/accepting rematches is just silly playground stuff, in my opinion.
It's an interesting one so i looked it up. The customary code of polite behaviour in society or among members of a particular profession or group.
I guess everything we do (most things!) is a choice. Nobody has to resign. Although i'd rather someone resign rather than run the clock down as a way of annoying your opposition who you've just lost to.
What do you think CalculatorKid?
100% but if it's a choice between a resignation or your opponent not moving and letting the clock run down, have you a preference?
People on t'internet just don't get sarcasm.
Plenty of people resign precisely because they enjoy chess though. Actual competitive chess rather than just moving pieces around. So they resign and play another game in the time the person who didn't resign was just playing out a lost game.
That's due to the fact that you just can't tell through text. Crucial indicators of Sarcasm are hinted irl.
Yeah, but when you make the sarcasm so obvious that you'd have thought no-one could fail to recognise it it's funny when people still take it seriously! I mean when I say people should resign on move 1 how can anyone really take that seriously?!