To be frank it's actually so cringe to see this guy try to appear intelligent or something whilst typing like a child and crying about problems that don't exist. Wanting a competitive match at the bottom 6-17 percentile or something when a close match only means equal amount of massive blunders. Completely delusional.
Why are speedruns even allowed?
Sort:
400 Rated player calling others uncompetitive as he blunders his queen away for the 100th time and blames the website's algorithm for making the games too uncompetitive!
Oct 25, 2021
0
#64
CooloutAC wrote:
TLDR bud.
OK - When you're getting antsy and hostile with someone like me who has genuinely being trying to help you and offer constructive advice, you dial straight into Real FM (it is available on digital too now, in metropolitan areas - check the website) , and turn the volume up to 11:
Looking at the way you express yourself, I am guessing you're pretty bad at most things - everything? - that you try; and there is a very good reason for that, you're the type of person who has an extraordinary number of failings, but you have an equal number of excuses and other people to blame; your capacity for excuses and reasons why you fail is like Hilbert's grand hotel, there's always room for another bus load of infinity to turn up.
When you're bad at chess, you're bad at expressing yourself, you're bad at relating to people, you're bad at asking for advice....sooner or later a few brain cells should spark and highlight a common denominator* - YOU.
(*Don't tell me, you don't know what a common denominator is because your maths teacher didn't like you, the other kids in class were cheating, it was raining that day and the rain was conspiring against you, maths is solely an adjunct of a society that is designed to oppress you.....)
CooloutAC wrote:
[basically, everything he wrote]
First I took you seriously, then you were kind of funny, then annoying, now I feel kind of sorry for you. I used to know people like you IRL, that kind of mindset doesn't make for a happy life.
Anyway, do this. Lose a few games on purpose, get your ELO down to let's say 200 and set your match to -400 to +25, unrated. You won't ever improve, but hey, you'll get a satisfying experience of mostly competitive games matching your skill level.
Cookout: “Rating rating rating rating rating why are you always talking about rating I said many times it’s not about rating rating rating rating rating rating”
CooloutAC wrote:
When you don't retort any of my points, you concede them. My definition of competitive is what competitive means. Werid that close games to you mean nice and easy, to me thats the opposite. I don't think you know what competitive even is. I don't like any of these streamers that speedrun.
You already admitted I am improving...lol
You already admitted I am improving...lol
I did retort your points, it's not my fault, you don't get it. Anyway, I know what competitive means, you apparently don't, so here:
competitive
/kəmˈpɛtɪtɪv/
adjective
1.
relating to or characterized by competition.
"a competitive sport"
2.
as good as or better than others of a comparable nature
Similar: ruthless, merciless,aggressive, fierce, dog-eat-dog, cut-throat
Opposite:
gentlemanly
Note specifically number 2, where it says "as good or better", emphasis on better.
Also note the synonyms under the section Similar and feel free to stop at the opposite meaning of the world competitive, because apparently, that is what you want.😂
This guy is a clown that skipped school. Don't give him any more attention.
nTzT wrote:
This guy is a clown that skipped school. Don't give him any more attention.
I suppose you might very well be right, in your assessment and advice too😂
CooloutAC wrote:
n0time4chess wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
[basically, everything he wrote]
First I took you seriously, then you were kind of funny, then annoying, now I feel kind of sorry for you. I used to know people like you IRL, that kind of mindset doesn't make for a happy life.
Anyway, do this. Lose a few games on purpose, get your ELO down to let's say 200 and set your match to -400 to +25, unrated. You won't ever improve, but hey, you'll get a satisfying experience of mostly competitive games matching your skill level.
Why would I do what I'm against and consider cheating? The fact you think that is satisfying and suggest I do it, is despicable and i'm not surprised. I already said you were suspect. You simply confirm it more and more. wow.... Look at this thread chess.com. This is the community you have created. The other site seems not only more mature, but more honest.
Leave if you don't like it here, no one will miss you, your poor grammar or lack of logic. Then again, you will probably keep crying about being a victim of some sort of matchmaking when you are just a lousy player with an inability to assess the world around him.
"Comparable nature" here means people wanting to play chess. As good or better means they're going to be challenging, especially if they are better than you.
What I suggested was for you to play unrated games against 200 rated players. That way you'd get nicely competitive games of your skill level, that's what I meant by satisfying experience. But I'm starting to suspect, you're not ok in many ways, that don't have much to do with chess and this topic, so I'm done here. Good luck to you.
CooloutAC wrote:
comparable nature meaning even playing field. as good are better for progression. What you told me was to sandbag my rating. Shame on you.
read, I told you to play unrated games
CooloutAC wrote:
n0time4chess wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
comparable nature meaning even playing field. as good are better for progression. What you told me was to sandbag my rating. Shame on you.
read, I told you to play unrated games
look at what I quoted. You told me to lose games on purpose.
yes, lower your rating and start playing unrated games. that's not sandbagging, it will keep your rating low forever, you'll play at that level forever, will never improve and have an enjoyable competitive experience. get it?
n0time4chess wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
n0time4chess wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
comparable nature meaning even playing field. as good are better for progression. What you told me was to sandbag my rating. Shame on you.
read, I told you to play unrated games
look at what I quoted. You told me to lose games on purpose.
yes, lower your rating and start playing unrated games. that's not sandbagging, it will keep your rating low forever, you'll play at that level forever, will never improve and have an enjoyable competitive experience. get it?
This isn't allowed though. So it's not a good idea. The 1 thing I agree with him on.
Oct 25, 2021
0
#76
In all seriousness- there are good things about it too. You can see how top players beat people of your rating level and if you’re serious enough you’ll analyze what happened and in what case did the GM outclass your rating range on the most.
Did he use tactics? Or was it mostly positional? Or was it just thinking a lot?
GM Naroditsky’s speedruns are highly instructive as he goes over each game he plays.
You could learn a thing... or twelve.
nTzT wrote:
n0time4chess wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
n0time4chess wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
comparable nature meaning even playing field. as good are better for progression. What you told me was to sandbag my rating. Shame on you.
read, I told you to play unrated games
look at what I quoted. You told me to lose games on purpose.
yes, lower your rating and start playing unrated games. that's not sandbagging, it will keep your rating low forever, you'll play at that level forever, will never improve and have an enjoyable competitive experience. get it?
This isn't allowed though. So it's not a good idea. The 1 thing I agree with him on.
It was mostly tongue in cheek advice. In his case wouldn't matter anyway. With that mindset, he'll stay under 400 forever.
B1ZMARK wrote:
In all seriousness- there are good things about it too. You can see how top players beat people of your rating level and if you’re serious enough you’ll analyze what happened and in what case did the GM outclass your rating range on the most.
Did he use tactics? Or was it mostly positional? Or was it just thinking a lot?
GM Naroditsky’s speedruns are highly instructive as he goes over each game he plays.
You could learn a thing... or twelve.
Yes, please, start talking to him. You're in for a treat😂
Oct 25, 2021
0
#79
n0time4chess wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
In all seriousness- there are good things about it too. You can see how top players beat people of your rating level and if you’re serious enough you’ll analyze what happened and in what case did the GM outclass your rating range on the most.
Did he use tactics? Or was it mostly positional? Or was it just thinking a lot?
GM Naroditsky’s speedruns are highly instructive as he goes over each game he plays.
You could learn a thing... or twelve.
Yes, please, start talking to him. You're in for a treat😂
Look forward to entertainment...
Wise words, you are a nice person crocodile👌 I guess I don't belong to the group of good people you were referring to😂, although I think I and others have answered his questions before this thread turned into a bloodfest. But yes, he should do as you say. Thanks for being the voice of reason.👍