Quiters! I hate them.

fredkamaru
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 ?

 

 

Allegedbox
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

IMBacon

Has anyone figured out what a "quiter" is yet?

Allegedbox

ya

IamNottadawg

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.

prowannab

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!

glamdring27

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.