If you're referring to me I have to say that I'm dead serious.
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
Sort:
Well said, Thriller Fan
Guys, the game wasnt a draw by perpetual, it was lost after a blunder.
Cogwheel wrote:
This guy is almost as good at BTB at trolling!
But not nearly as good as __?
let the air out of that head.
Apr 16, 2014
0
#127
macer75 wrote:
Cogwheel wrote:
This guy is almost as good at BTB at trolling!
But not nearly as good as __?
SebLeb, he is the real deal.
Apr 16, 2014
0
#128
(ThrillerFan) The goal, first and foremost, is to save your own King.
I philosophically disagree....but, point well taken.
Apr 16, 2014
0
#129
I agree with perpetual check on the condition that it is done perpetually. That requires stamina. The first 100 000 are not the problem, but then...
Apr 16, 2014
0
#130
DrChess_7960 wrote:
Hey guys, I hate to break up the fun. I am assuming that the later posts are, in part, the result of only seeing the one before yours. If you take the time to - even just cursorily - go thru the whole thread, you would notice that by about the 3rd page, the OP gets it! He realizes that he made some mistakes which allowed his opponent to chase his King and ultimately checkmate him (ouch!). He has not posted over several pages ago. I think we can stop beating him over the head now. Otherwise, I'd say we are the trolls.
WRONG! The last post before mine wasn't even read. When I look at a thread that is already long, I do it in this order:
1) The first post. If the first post is Whining, I don't care how many times he's "got it". You don't whine on a chess forum. You will hear back from people like myself! Next time, don't post such utter BS!
2) If the first post is interesting, I follow the next few posts to see where the trend is going, like maybe the entire first page, give or take a few posts to where you reach a legit breaking point.
3) Assuming Step 1 doesn't end all browsing, like this thread did, then I look at the last 10 to 15 to see where it's at now, and then post.
4) Lastly, I check a little later at all posts after mine! Hence why I saw this one I'm replying to.
Again I will say, you put up some BS post that pertains to whining, expect many negative responses back basically telling the OP to "GROW UP!" Take up Tic Tac Toe if you hate the rules of chess or are too freakin lazy to master all aspects of the game rather than thing we should just let you trounce all over us simply because you won a pawn!
ThrillerFan wrote:
You don't whine on a chess forum.
You don't whine on a chess forum.
You must be new here.
Apr 16, 2014
0
#132
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
(ThrillerFan) The goal, first and foremost, is to save your own King.
I philosophically disagree....but, point well taken.
Not looking to raise an argument, just have a simple question.
If saving your own King isn't first priority, just curious what is?
If it's mating the other King (2nd priority if you ask me), and saving your own takes a back seat to that, then good luck when you get killed first!
Think of it like this. I personally have a genuine grudge and hate for all people still alive today that were a member of the Taliban on Tuesday, September Eleventh, Two-Thousand and One. If I had any form of political power (which I don't), my first goal would be to eliminate whoever is left from that group!
So, let's say I was the head of the US Military. If I go and hunt down all of those 2001 Taliban Nutjobs with a pistol, running at full speed on two feet like a madman in their direction to conduct an attack, I'm not going to get very far, am I? I'd have my head blown off. If I had a whole army to prepare some form of defensive around me, and conducted the attack with a specific plan in mind and some common sense with an invasion type of approach like the US Military did, I'd probably be more successful. Notice in the second approach, the first step was to keep myself alive. Only then do you go after them!
Chess is the same way. If I attack like a raging madman, my King's head will get chopped off. If I protect my king (not "over-protect", simply protect to a satisfactory level), and then go after yours, I have a better shot of winning!
Apr 16, 2014
0
#133
TheGrobe wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
You don't whine on a chess forum.
You don't whine on a chess forum.
You must be new here.
I guess it depends on your definition of "New". If almost 20 years on chess sites is "new", then yes! I've been an active member of the following:
FICS - 1995 to 1999
ICC - 1997 to Present
CHESS.com - June 2011 to Present
OK, oblivious then?
Apr 16, 2014
0
#135
WalhallaRoad wrote:
lol what a joke. He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game. Make no mistake he was losing on material. actually, looking at the game, he had a queen a rook and two panws. I had a queen, two rooks a bishop and 5 pawns plus I had his king in REAL danger. I guess he was tied with me.
Material isn't everything.
WalhallaRoad wrote:
lol what a joke. He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game.
This is one of my favorite jokes ever. How else can you win if not due to the rules of the game?
What would the OP suggest to even remedy the problem?
"Okay, uh, that was your, uh, 12th check in a row. So, uh, according to the rule book, your next move may NOT be a check."
Ace_Club wrote:
Hardest thing to win is a won game.
If I were in the losing position, I'd be doing everything I could to find some way to get a draw, or even a win, out of the situation. Nothing cheap about it. 1/2 point is better than 0 points.
Sorry, but i disagree. For you, 1\2 points isn't better than 1 point
Apr 17, 2014
0
#139
WalhallaRoad wrote:
I was winning a game pretty handidly and my opponent sacrificed a pawn in order to give his queen open space to check me. It was in a position in the board where I didn't have a shield for my king and so he could have checked me as many times as he wanted. I think it's pretty cheap.
I think it's genius! It sounds as if he took advantage of your poorly protected King position with a neat pawn sacrifice (which you fell for)...
Pussies