They get so excited when beating a weak player

When a player blunders or plays a generally bad game, it's easy to take advantage of them.  Doesn't take many slips to make a win against them inevitable.  It commonly goes down like an avalanche; the winner tears-up the opponent and picks off pieces move-after-move without even blinking.  Most of us know this and understand the dynamics.

But I still chuckle when I see people posting games and boasting of their mastery because of all the 'brilliant' plays they scored, when everything was lined-up right for them, due to the decreasing piece strength and positional disadvantage of the disabled opponent.  It's so obvious when it stemmed more from the loser's ineptness than the skill of the winner.  Similarly, often, if you analyze the prevailing player's game you find all kinds of errors and missed opportunities.

I wonder if that's how a player like Bobby Fisher would see many of what we lower-eschelon players would consider our best games :-)

Say, you don't have anyone in particular in mind when you say this, do you...? 

I don't if you don't.

I am in no position to judge you for ranting :-) I'm already in trouble here for starting too many threads in two days.  I'm trying to simmer down now.  Cheers

Not that LIM has anyone in particular in mind either. (heehee!)

A friend and fellow chess player once told me that his objective was to make the second to last mistake in a game rather than the last mistake (i.e. the losing move that leads to checkmate). Actually, he used the word "penultimate" since he was rather bombastic.

LongIslandMark wrote:

I have no illusions about my wins - I've had a few good games, but mostly I played somewhat less poorly than my opponent. However, I can pretend to take a bit of pride in being able to see and take advantage of that first blunder (if it's not blindingly obvious).

But we do see the sorts of posts you imply. And I do see the posting community gets rightly annoyed when a game obviously won because of big blunders is presented as "brilliant" - especially when it's the blunder by the opponent that gave the game away and not the strategy or tactics the poster is lauding. And most especially when the poster refuses to acknowledge any of that.

And then everyone gets even more annoyed if they take the time to analyze and offer suggestions or point out flaws, only to have the OP say they don't see the point in any of that.

Sorry for the rant - seemed like your OP invited it.

And he was nice here

Just do what he says...

Not to mention derivative (since I believe Tartakover said that first).

And they say, winning a won game can often be the hardest thing to do in chess. When a player consolidates his position, holds onto his advantage, prevents his opponents counterplay, resists making any of those tempting sacs, and converts his win, he should be able to take a little pride in that. Because it doesn't always work out that cleanly.

This forum is for General Discussion.  So if you don't want to discuss generals, just shut the heck up.

strongly agree

And indeed it probably wouldn't have (if he'd been playing somebody with opposable thumbs and vertebrae and stuff).

I've always been amazed at "malinger"--I mean, that there's one word that means all that. 

Enigma, and Gargantuan are great words, as well.

Hey, that's my friend's name! :-)

AndyClifton wrote:

pt22064 wrote:

Actually, he used the word "penultimate" since he was rather bombastic.

Not to mention derivative (since I believe Tartakover said that first).

lol

I shun your friend for being bombastic.  He shouldn't be bombastic. We must  protect the people of Bastic!  For what are chess players if not valiant and medieval?