I have noticed this a few times. Once being told I was a beginner as I had made a beginners mistake. I am not a total beginner although I would be the first to admit I have a lot to learn, but I found that rude. I have other skills that I may have put that person to shame with but I would never try and make someone feel small.
why do ALOT of superior players talk down to the less skilled?
Sort:
jonnyjupiter wrote:
It's the same in every walk of life - there are people who need to boast about how good they are at something. Take comfort in the fact that if they need to belittle others to get their kicks then they are pretty empty inside on at least one level.
Whatever you do, don't play people who boast and belittle others - you'll just give them ammunition and get stressed by having to deal with them. If you lose and they rant then you will just get angry. Become friends with the higher rated players who give you good advice and help you become a better player, challenge them to a few unrated games and ask for feedback - this way you improve AND stay chilled.
Well said.
I never understand when someone boasts about their ability. I believe that in any skill there is always someone better and always someone to look up too. This is the way to approach your passions and if you look at people all around the world that have mastered a skill then they have generally gotten there by constantly being self-critical, observant and always willing to improve.
Yeah Reb mate i understand your frustration at that i know a player or 2 who are over 1800+ here but OTB more like 1100. I find personally i play a lot better turn based because i get a lot more time to work out what to do for one thing, and an analysis board which helps a lot to confirm my moves which i don't get OTB style and of course u get to look at masters games or opening explorer stuff like that which again u don't get OTB. I like the fact that if I'm tired or sick or just don't feel like playing i don't have too, i don't get that luxury over the board though to bad if ur sick or tired or anything else u payed ur fee now u play or quit and give them ur points anyway. But i have drawn with 2000+ players and stuff like that just lack consistency in my play over the board more then this one....
P.S. Don't worry about the rude ones no one here is a world champion or anything so they have nothing to boast about, someone can always look at their chess and say much the same things I'm sure. Just ignore the rude ones and enjoy the friendships of the ones that matter. 
Turn their chat off. End of thread.
Jan 27, 2009
0
#66
I guess people become rude to lower rated players when they start playing chess for ratings and not for the sheer pleasure of just stretching your brain cells and making strategies trying to outsmart your opponent.
I'm not a high rated player. I generally hover between 1600 and 1700 but I play whoever sits down and that results in a few less than happy moments. I have been treated to some really idiotic trash talk by a few 1100-1300 types generally after they lose. I really don't get that... I suspect that they are either sandbaggers who failed and get nasty or they are just immature.
likesforests wrote:
boots9548> you higher rated players should encourage the lower ranked players
A higher-rated player has zero obligation to encourage lower-rated players. But many will if you ask nicely, and almost everyone will if you pay them enough.
I disagree with this. A higher rated player does have an obligation to encourage lower rated players. For the game to continue to survive and strengthen, all players especially higher rated players have an obligation to encourage others within the game.
I think jerks and inflated egos are inevitable when you deal with chess players. Think about it... if you are able to win it's because you could think better than your opponent. If you win consistently, you will have the strong urge to believe you are much smarter than most people and you become mega-jerk.
Jerks and inflated egos are inevitable when you deal with people.
In David Lees' book he describes and exchange with Boris Spassky who gave up a draw at a simul event when Lees thought he could have won. Pointing out the continuation to Spassky, Lees was met with the response: "Perhaps, but it is not necessary to win every game." I really think that Spassky is a class act.
because no one else would do it for them. its ego dying for confirmation that it is good at something. on the average though, the ones who humor me with a game even though they are way superior player.. were quite decent and ethical.. and i enjoyed their game. even at the expense of reducing my average points to the dogs. lol
I just got WIPED in a tourney, and the opponent gave me an encouraging sign off. So, there are good people out there too.
If someone does speak down to you, just take it and accept the moral highground .
Jan 27, 2009
0
#75
It's arrogance in the extreme to talk down to someone for any reason. The guy that you crush at chess might crush you at tennis, the point is that everyone has strengths and weaknesses in life and we are all different.
boots9548 wrote:
SOME of the higher rated chess players
Alot turns into SOME 10 words into your post XD
No but seriously, you have to sort of expect that from some of the better players of chess. Like how you can with other interactive games. Muhammad Ali for instance, obviously was one of the greatest boxers, and knew that. So he became one of the most rudest faces on TV of his time... BUT he could back it up!
Heh, its kinda like saying to us weaker chess players that they aren't here to make friends. They aren't here to help anyone. They just want to beat you, and if possible, get some kicks out of making you feel so stupid in the process. Really, chess is about intelligence and you move based partly on how collected you are. So just play the game with them, or resign and move on. If you let em into your head, you've let them defeat yourself, and you don't learn anything from your game.
I got this tulip saying before I could even say hello " please don't start cussin " what the hell is going on? 
thegab03 wrote:
I got this tulip saying before I could even say hello " please don't start cussin " what the hell is going on?
yeah and some people just disable chat right away. Its can't thank them for a great game
Hello, Boots ... not to correct you or anything , but if you use this adage again, I want you to use it properly so you don't stand out in a crowd: when something wrong is done to you, people say you should just "eat the loss," that is: taste the hurt, swallow it and get over it. I think the old adage, to take a wrong done to you with "a grain of salt" ties into this concept so that the wrong doesn't "taste" so bad and it can be forgotten more easily.
A chess nemesis of mine, who goes by the name: run_along_now_honey wrote a blog concerning the same topic entitled: "Silent but Deadly."
Here is the response I wrote for his blog, and I think it holds true here:
Of course, civility and courtesy are the hallmarks of great individuals as well as great chess players ... perhaps that is why one might encounter very few of either in one's lifetime. However, regarding chess players and the conduct intended for the game, let me summarize my point of view in this manner:
You see, there are three types of chess players:
1. the first chess player is intrigued by the game, they play and they learn but then they tire and seek other passions. The battle of chess is soon forgotten though the fire of battle may easily and quickly be rekindled in this first type of chess player.
2. the second chess player is intrigued by the game, as well, but this chess player has learned more of the game and the skill that is needed to win and --- being filled with pride and confidence for this small treasure of knowledge and ability --- this chess player becomes a bully, the nag who says "you are taking too long" when clearly there are tens of minutes to be played, and also this type of chess player is the big mouth who says "move!"
3. then ... ... well, then there are the WARLORDS.
Yes, this category includes Masters and Grandmasters, but even they can be bullies, too ... no, it is the Warlord personality who sees chess not as a game to be played and won ... but as an experience --- an experience of ancient Mortal Combat --- where life and death gives way to alliances and nemesi (i.e. to relationships and friendships both warlike and un-warlike). It is the Warlord who is restless after victory (not celebratory and lethargic) and it is the Warlord who lookes for new battles, not necessarily new victories ... but they are always battle-hungry.
Yes, the Warlords ... ... ... beware of this type of chess player and God damn the Warlords, God Damn the Warlords to Hell !! ... .... ... .... because there is no one else who can.
If you look at the history of chess, most of the best had huge egos about it.
Isnt this true in almost every human endeavor ? What bothers me even more though is when someone under 1600 ( otb ) crushes me on the net and then proceeds to try and tell me where I went wrong...... fritz and other programs have made everyone a master it seems
So, are you saying that if a player rated lower than you points out your mistakes in a game, they must be using an engine?
Uhhh.....if that player is 600 points lower rated ......yeah , I would say the chances are very good that he/she is. It would be like me pointing out Kasparov's mistakes to him after smashing him online......what would he think you reckon ? His otb rating about 600 points higher than mine.
Another way you could accomplish this feat is to play a new player. Say a master joins the site, the provisional rating everyone gets is 1200. The master plays a random opponent and gets a Glicko adjustment of 400 points for a total of 1600. The guy challenges Reb ...
Of course, if a master has a bad day, a much less qualified opponent could theoretically win, though this is much less likely with masters. If someone who is really that much lower rated vanquishes some super-foe. It would be tacky to make comments to the master. When I played tournaments I did have some 400+ point upsets, but I would agree that there is a world of a difference between 1400/1800 and 1600/2200. Also, this probably would not hold for Reb, but in those 400 point upsets, the high rated guy would do goofy things like experiment with new openings or try risky attacks.
Another way would be to achieve a low rated good player--overlook the time. Remember that here every move is a time control and if several games go in the dumpster at the same time, to outward appearances you are a much stinkier player. I managed to do this recently too.
All that said, it would be possible to cheat by using a computer. However, I bet that if this were the case, the cheater would probably cheat on all games and therefore have a rating somewhere between Reb and Kamsky.
Oh well, no time to fret about it. I hope there was no cheating. If you think about it there are several ways to obtain the result of a big upset.