Again no one is making you come here youve had over 4 days yet chosen to play the troll with a pretence of being kind.
All your doing now is continuing that role.
Frankly
no thanks
Suicidal opponents
Sort:
Still the same fluff, and no examples to go with your attacks against your opponents in-game.
@Bicarbonatofsoda, wasn't referring to myself there buddy, but of this forum topic as a whole. It's gone an impressive 29 pages and counting, and absolutely nothing was said!
Imperfect_Luck wrote:
Its just casually tossing away pieces on hunches with the pretence of stratergy (and i say pretence because how those games i mentioned usually end. Both opoonent equally positioned equal points and its time that won the match'.
So at what point does one admit i had no stratergy beyond castling, then trading pieces of equally worth as soon as they come near me with the intention of only beating my opponent on time.
Please explain what makes you think that
a) you know that "both opponents are equally positioned" at the end of the games you've seen?
b) trading pieces makes winning on time easier?(I assume you think so because you continuously relate trading pieces to trying to win on time.)
Imperfect_Luck wrote:
dmxn2k wrote:
Imperfect_Luck wrote:
Im currious if im the only one who feels this way;
Most of my games, i seem to play suicidal opponents. Opponents who have the option to move out of attach, yet chose instead to trade pecies.
I find this spitful cowardly and pointless WHY?
Well since as long as i can rememebr ive always considered suicide the act of desperate deledued ppl and only desperately deldued people GLORIFY it as anything else. eg. 9/11.
Infact i will go as far to say suicide/mindless trade is the most retarded plan humanly possible in any context. any game. its jsut common sence to me yet it seems the amout of times i encoutner this is endless.
Im not talking about sacraficing a pecie to gain an advantage eg. sacraficing a knight to kill ur opponents queen im talking about equal trade. knight for knight knight for bishop bishp for knight rook for rook queen for queen.
I sit there looking at the score board thinking this is exactly why they added a score board to this game, to make its utter pointlessness (point*) more apparent, yet i encoutner this so often.
Infact each time i log on it makes me view a high rated game. and all i see is suicide. pointless spitful ppl mindlessly trading pecies literally every time. untill they're both down to i duno 2 pecies and 5 pawns each.
Why are these ppl being admired, promoted and displayed as somone ur suposed to gain experience from watching?
I have been playing chess for some time now for fun, no tournaments or i duno compotitions with trophys or cash or what not. simply fun. and i noticed soon after making my account i was not a fan of 5 min games. Why?
I found my opponents most of the time were suicidal, they didnt care where they moved or why, infact it was more like i was playing time than them. i was put into a rediculus sittuation. instead of trying to think up a plan to capture or annialiate my opponent i found i was thinking up a plan to stop them kill themselves. now i dont find that fun and i dont belive with each peace having its own unique ways of movement this was how the game was ment to be played.
Yet as i said earlier each time i log on im viewing high rated ppl (who probly farmed these 5 min or less suicidal games.
Honestly ive probly resigned more games than ive played due to this, i find no fun in playign a spitful suicidal cowardly opponent in any game.
ITs not only here either ive noticed tutorials promoting mindless trade, ppl ranting on and on about stratergies asthough its actually stratergy and when it gets down to it its suicide missions. I dont understand how this has become the norm (because it looks that way to me)
So yes im currious am i only in thinking this way?
If further explanation is needed i will give but yeah.
I've only played 10 minute games on this site, save one correspondence game I'm playing now, so I can't comment on five minute or less games.
However, I find the characterization of "suicidal opponents", opponents who trade down and simplify the game quickly, as a huge paradigm shift when compared to chess over a hundred years ago.
The first chess champion of the world, Wilhelm Steinitz, was initially considered a coward for his conservative play, his tendency to avoid the "swashbuckling" chess that dominated up to the late 19th century.
Yet now one might remark that this daring, bold, slash-and-trade chess is actually cowardly. I don't agree, and I find the fastest games to be largely quick footed with short-range tactical blows, and possibly more depending on the level of skill of the player.
I think weaker players are more likely to trade tit for tat than stronger players. As the strength progresses, the frequency of imbalances on the board increase.
Also, suicide implies death when ultimately, the goal of chess is not to preserve one piece or another, but primarily to protect the king and secondarily do so in a timely manner.
As time decreases, the importance of the second objective increases, and simplification might be the only way to reduce the chance of blunders, lest one might find conservative play, non-threatening, non-trading, positional play, be the more suicidal style of play considering aggressive trading's apparent dominance.
Thanks for your oppinion.
And thank you for your concise regard. I appreciate that you found time to respond to post.
To others here who insult and slite, try being more respectful. Imperfect_Luck has done nothing to earn the volume and degree of disrespect many here exhibit.
Bicarbonatofsoda wrote:
Imperfect_Luck wrote:
Please watch the vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-k2fRVYeFg&list=UUsKZ2yOsgfNxln8xH5WkGvg&index=25
great link!
*SPOILER ALERT!*
To take is a mistake.
Imperfect_Luck wrote:
I dont play games to win i play games for fun.
There's your problem! You keep saying that you don't feel people who trade pieces are playing the game the way it was meant to be played... But you yourself are, objectively, not playing the game the way it was meant to be played. I've said this before, but it's a game, you're supposed to play to win. If you enjoy playing to win, then it's a good game. If you don't play to win, you can't really blame anyone but yourself if your opponents don't give you positions that you enjoy playing!
The objective in chess is to capture the king. The objective must be achieved within an time.
The objective Imprefect_Luck playing games is to have fun. The objective must be achieved in whatever pay the game player has the most fun.
Whose objective is more important? Chess' or Imperfect_Luck. I say Imperfect_Luck's objective takes a greater priority than the objective of chess because chess is an idea created to serve man. Man does not serve chess.
There is no "problem" with his objective.
While one may look at his objective with disdain, the objective affects no one but himself.
dmxn2k wrote:
The objective in chess is to capture the king. The objective must be achieved within an time.
The objective Imprefect_Luck playing games is to have fun. The objective must be achieved in whatever pay the game player has the most fun.
Whose objective is more important? Chess' or Imperfect_Luck. I say Imperfect_Luck's objective takes a greater priority than the objective of chess because chess is an idea created to serve man. Man does not serve chess.
There is no "problem" with his objective.
While one may look at his objective with disdain, the objective affects no one but himself.
I'm not telling anyone to forgo having fun for winning. If Imperfect_Luck can't have fun while trying as hard as he can to win, I don't have a problem with it. I, however, enjoy trying to get the best positions possible, thus, I like Chess.
I played one tournament game recently that I really wanted to win. I knew my opponent wasn't good at endgames, and that I was in comparison, so I just tried to swap off material mindlessly to reach a solid endgame position. My opponent took advantage of this and fit a tactic in to the series of trades so that I lost a Rook for a Bishop. I wasn't trying to spite him, I was just trying to win, and I paid for playing somewhat mindlessly. He got the better of me.
My problem is that Imperfect_Luck appears to be a jerk. He's comparing people who want to trade down material to terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers. But hey, it's his opinion. If he wants to say terrible things about them, it's a free country!
No, wait, it's an online discussion forum, and flaming is against the rules.
Also, if you look at his profile, you can see a rather interesting story: He played a game with a guy who "suicided" a piece (for a legitimate reason, of course) so he left the game until his opponent's time ran out. Yeah... Either he regrets doing this, in which case we can wait for some kind of statement, or he doesn't regret it. If he doesn't regret it, it invalidates his claim that he has no problem with the people who "suicide" their pieces.
And all this time he has been lecturing us about the evil in the world. I think this calls for a quote:
Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged. Vigilance that is the price we must continuously pay.
the fewer pieces your opponent has, the fewer ways he has to checkmate you. then, it's a challenge to see who is more resourceful and can better form their offence while still maintaining a solid defence.
BTW, Imperfect_Luck is a complete nincompoop if (s)he cannot differentiate a terrorist from a chess game. whenever i play against somebody i lack confidence playing against, i try to trade s many pieces as possible so that the game can be closer at the end. i see no shame in trading for logical reasons or just mindlessly if you play your hardest and accept defeat when you loose. the problem is people like Imperfect_Luck being idiots and trying to make us play like how they want us to play. if everyone i played against played the moves i wanted them to make, i would be the next grandmaster since i would win every game. but, chess is only a game and not everyone plays the same. i would like to play this ignoramus troll just to piss him off and 'suicide' my pieces for favor of resourcefulness over a game of 'who wants to play two idiots at a cluttered board?'.
doctorjimmy wrote:
dmxn2k wrote:
The objective in chess is to capture the king. The objective must be achieved within an time.
The objective Imprefect_Luck playing games is to have fun. The objective must be achieved in whatever pay the game player has the most fun.
Whose objective is more important? Chess' or Imperfect_Luck. I say Imperfect_Luck's objective takes a greater priority than the objective of chess because chess is an idea created to serve man. Man does not serve chess.
There is no "problem" with his objective.
While one may look at his objective with disdain, the objective affects no one but himself.
I'm not telling anyone to forgo having fun for winning. If Imperfect_Luck can't have fun while trying as hard as he can to win, I don't have a problem with it. I, however, enjoy trying to get the best positions possible, thus, I like Chess.
I played one tournament game recently that I really wanted to win. I knew my opponent wasn't good at endgames, and that I was in comparison, so I just tried to swap off material mindlessly to reach a solid endgame position. My opponent took advantage of this and fit a tactic in to the series of trades so that I lost a Rook for a Bishop. I wasn't trying to spite him, I was just trying to win, and I paid for playing somewhat mindlessly. He got the better of me.
My problem is that Imperfect_Luck appears to be a jerk. He's comparing people who want to trade down material to terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers. But hey, it's his opinion. If he wants to say terrible things about them, it's a free country!
No, wait, it's an online discussion forum, and flaming is against the rules.
Also, if you look at his profile, you can see a rather interesting story: He played a game with a guy who "suicided" a piece (for a legitimate reason, of course) so he left the game until his opponent's time ran out. Yeah... Either he regrets doing this, in which case we can wait for some kind of statement, or he doesn't regret it. If he doesn't regret it, it invalidates his claim that he has no problem with the people who "suicide" their pieces.
And all this time he has been lecturing us about the evil in the world. I think this calls for a quote:
Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged. Vigilance that is the price we must continuously pay.
Flaming is "Defined as personally attacking individual(s) or group(s)." His was an impersonal attack that, while "terrible", follows the guidelines of these forums.
As for him abandoning a game without resigning, that certainly is against fairplay rules and good etiquette. It's wrong, and he should - if he has not already - come to terms with the idea that some may not adhere to his wishes on this site.
I don't recall him ever lecturing us about evil in the world though. I recall him professing a preference and critical opinion.
dmxn2k wrote:
doctorjimmy wrote:
dmxn2k wrote:
The objective in chess is to capture the king. The objective must be achieved within an time.
The objective Imprefect_Luck playing games is to have fun. The objective must be achieved in whatever pay the game player has the most fun.
Whose objective is more important? Chess' or Imperfect_Luck. I say Imperfect_Luck's objective takes a greater priority than the objective of chess because chess is an idea created to serve man. Man does not serve chess.
There is no "problem" with his objective.
While one may look at his objective with disdain, the objective affects no one but himself.
I'm not telling anyone to forgo having fun for winning. If Imperfect_Luck can't have fun while trying as hard as he can to win, I don't have a problem with it. I, however, enjoy trying to get the best positions possible, thus, I like Chess.
I played one tournament game recently that I really wanted to win. I knew my opponent wasn't good at endgames, and that I was in comparison, so I just tried to swap off material mindlessly to reach a solid endgame position. My opponent took advantage of this and fit a tactic in to the series of trades so that I lost a Rook for a Bishop. I wasn't trying to spite him, I was just trying to win, and I paid for playing somewhat mindlessly. He got the better of me.
My problem is that Imperfect_Luck appears to be a jerk. He's comparing people who want to trade down material to terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers. But hey, it's his opinion. If he wants to say terrible things about them, it's a free country!
No, wait, it's an online discussion forum, and flaming is against the rules.
Also, if you look at his profile, you can see a rather interesting story: He played a game with a guy who "suicided" a piece (for a legitimate reason, of course) so he left the game until his opponent's time ran out. Yeah... Either he regrets doing this, in which case we can wait for some kind of statement, or he doesn't regret it. If he doesn't regret it, it invalidates his claim that he has no problem with the people who "suicide" their pieces.
And all this time he has been lecturing us about the evil in the world. I think this calls for a quote:
Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged. Vigilance that is the price we must continuously pay.
Flaming is "Defined as personally attacking individual(s) or group(s)." His was an impersonal attack that, while "terrible", follows the guidelines of these forums.
As for him abandoning a game without resigning, that certainly is against fairplay rules and good etiquette. It's wrong, and he should - if he has not already - come to terms with the idea that some may not adhere to his wishes on this site.
I don't recall him ever lecturing us about evil in the world though. I recall him professing a preference and critical opinion.
He hasn't explicitly flamed anyone, but yes, the horrible implication is there.
As to the lectures on evil, don't forget all the times he used the word "malice," the rant on the lifelong rape victim, and of course the Picard quote.
@Imperfect_Luck, you poseted a link to the video by Igor Smirnov called "to take is a mistake" (which I did watch completely). If trading pieces is usually a mistake, then why do you resign when your opponent does so? Why resign when your opponent messes up and leaves you with an advantage?
I'll tell you why. Because you do not actually believe that "to take is a mistake", you believe that "to take ruins my checkmate plan so I'm gonna go on a forum and tell everyone who trades pieces that they are suicidal and unworthy opponents".
By the way, when you have a forum topic that is 30 pages long and out of all the posts, maybe 2 or 3 people sympathize with you, and everyone else tells you that you're wrong, that's a pretty good indication that you're wrong.
You sound too rational for this forum, NegaMax. 
NegaMax wrote:
By the way, when you have a forum topic that is 30 pages long and out of all the posts, maybe 2 or 3 people sympathize with you, and everyone else tells you that you're wrong, that's a pretty good indication that you're wrong.
I can assure you that the 2 to 3 posters that "sympathize" with him were just trolling.
TacticalSymphony wrote:
NegaMax wrote:
By the way, when you have a forum topic that is 30 pages long and out of all the posts, maybe 2 or 3 people sympathize with you, and everyone else tells you that you're wrong, that's a pretty good indication that you're wrong.
People can be pretty stubborn and defiant.
I know a senior citizen who once argued for three hours with a dozen people that if you close all the doors, windows, and draw the shades to said windows in your house when it's 100 degrees out (with no air conditioning) the house will remain cooler because you've effectively blocked the warm air from entering your home. As he was arguing this, he was pouring sweat from head to toe in his kitchen. Obviously, the sane, middle aged people were only trying to spare the man from heat exhaustion and inevitable death.
lol
bestovalltime wrote:
Blah blah blah
Out of all this, this is the best post so far.
I just don't understand why you don't want to give us examples from your own games. I think it would be interesting for you to hear our view on th emoves made by your opponents, but even more interesting for us to hear why you think certain moves (trades) are suicidal or are only played by cowards.
I even want to play a game with you. Not a blitz game but a correspondence game in wich you have 3 days to make a move. And everytime i trade pieces i willfully explain why i made that move.
I truly hope that we can finally start talking about chess games and chess positions in this thread.
Wow, still going at it, and not providing an example for a real discussion about chess. Now you're resorting to the same malicious character assassinations to which you accuse everyone here of doing. Nice going. Forget all that stuff for now, and let's just talk about the moves that got you going here in the first place.
What part of you disgust me makes you think i wanna talk to you