I don't care how many times you win, if you don't play convincingly to do it, you're no better than before.
If you play convincingly and lose you're a better player
I don't care how many times you win, if you don't play convincingly to do it, you're no better than before.
If you play convincingly and lose you're a better player
It's simple. Just because you won doesn't justify how you did it. If you play well and outdue your opponent in a multi-dimension of ways beyond one or two openings or using the clock doesn't prove your skill or ability over your opponent.
The means of how you play should justify your result.
Not the result should justify the means of how you play
Proof: look at the ratings curve.. whose will go up, and whose will stay the same.
Then those same people complain about hitting plateau's.
I don't have a plateau because I don't fap off to beating people with a few structural exloits they have not yet experienced and indulge in that one area of expertise
When I beat someone I don't play them again, because I see nothing to gain from trying to beat someone a second time.
When people beat me (and think they're better) they continue to rematch me and want to keep beating me.
aha.. chessmicky spoken like a true cheapo/ time tactic player
In 3 months I'll add another 100-150 points to my rating.. is that bad? Is it supposed to go down
My online rating went up 960 points in the past year.
...
...
...
(That's because this site starts everybody at 1200, and I was a 2050 OTB player before joining the site).
Unless of course he adds 100-150 points by playing a weak computer over and over again because he refuses to play the same person twice.
I know how you feel, just know that you will probably grow farther then them.
I agree with you about all the platuea threads being because of the moron time player / down a piece cheap shooters. I have not peaked yet, once I thought I did, gained a 100 points within a few weeks. this is beacuse every win I get I earn and around a quarter of my losses are still from what was at some point a winning position.
converting won posisions is the road to big ratings
FACH THE ADMINS!!!!
I don't see the point, since I doubt that most of the admins here do much singing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fach
Maybe he means for us to sing to the admins.
Then we would be the ones being fached, and the admins would be the ones doing the faching. But he explicitly said "fach the admins."
Maybe he means for us to sing to the admins.
Then we would be the ones being fached, and the admins would be the ones doing the faching. But he explicitly said "fach the admins."
If so, then would the ends justify the means?
The means should justify the end
If this statement doesn't apply to your playing style on the chessboard you're a patzer