@wbaxterbones - I'm not, as you say "attacking everyone...". Show me the evidence of that? That poster posted the same kind of taunt three times without addressing any of the salient specifics of any of my replies, so I think it was reasonable to challenge him back. Otherwise, so far, I'm cool with everyone and everything in this thread. I've just developed my position on the topic more, and look forward to thoughtful responses. But I'm okay with playful responses too, as long as I get to play back.
Why do I keep losing blitz to idiots?
Sort:
kleelof wrote:
One of the things I LOVE about chess that, at the end of the day, you cannot blame your opponents, pooling techniques and other conditions for your lose.
You alone are responsible for winning or losing.
It's a game AND a life lesson.
I am not blaming other people for me losing. I don't mind losing that much, otherwise I'd have quit a long time ago, or would craft my approach more carefully. I play blitz because it's fun. Also, I think I've played enough to know the difference and have developed a nuanced view of the modalities of the chess.com blitz experience, at least near my fluctuating rank. My win ratio isn't great but it's above 50%. I know how it goes, but I do think there's an aspect of ratings filtering as I've clarified in previous responses in this thread that creates the illusion of some players ratings being more reflective of their extemporaneous rank than their rating really is.
kleelof wrote:
Is that Robert Blake in your profile pic?
Close, but no coconut....It's the one and only ( and sadly missed )....
.......Peter Falk.
Is a phenomena ok or not? And why idiots? One guy once wrote to me that he didn't want to lose to idiots like me. It was a bit offensive.
@Omega_Doom, oh, come on, mock sour grapes. I don't really mean they're idiots, just that I might be momentarily flabberghasted to lose at someone at a lower ELO I expected to beat. I'm not all *that * serious, as you can probably guess by my other threads/responses. I admit in the heat of a game, if I lose I might swear and say damn or something, or be pissed about losing a game I fought hard on or was on the verge of winning, but the frustration is very short lived.
"extemporaneous rank" ?
Extemporaneous means to speak or act without notes or a script...to make things up on the spot.. a bit like ad-libbing
Using big words without knowing their meaning is asking for a modicum of ridicule and debasement....stay off the psilocybin mushrooms
MyUSCFis1729 wrote:
if you're losing to idiots
you may be a bigger idiot than you realize
At least you realize I realize I'm an idiot, and now that I realize I'm an even bigger idiot than I realize, I must persist in some of the really good questions and points I've raised in this thread that no one seems to be able to respond to directly point by point. :-)
eciruam wrote:
"extemporaneous rank" ?
Extemporaneous means to speak or act without notes or a script...to make things up on the spot.. a bit like ad-libbing
Using big words without knowing their meaning is asking for a modicum of ridicule and debasement....stay off the psilocybin mushrooms
Oh, calm down; it might not have been the ideal word, but it wasn't that far off. It was used in the connotation of ad hoc, or spur of the moment, as in not having the preparation or cultivated constraints of filtering out challengers by rank.
Apr 16, 2015
0
#30
Losing streaks to lower opponents happens to me from time to time. In fact, it just happened to me recently.
I recommend playing at a slower time control until your game gets back on track since bullet and blitz can be detrimental to your game if abused.
because you don't think properly when playing a lower rated opponent
Last two replies: great! thanks.
@SwiftBreeze - It isn't my first rodeo either. On a reaaaaally bad week once I think I plummeted to below 1000, and had to fight my way back to above 1200, and eventually 1300. And holding out at/above 1200 used to be the cap for me. I haven't been able to hold too far above 1300 so far, for long. I can move up to and above 1200 with relative ease now, with some focus and determination. So 1300+ is the my level of maximum competence so far. But it is good to know that simply through playing a lot of games, I've gotten stronger. I'm sure simply playing blitz alone is not the key to substantial mastery, though.
I do the same sometimes...or maybe often. When I'm at my worst, I find myself almost totally ignoring what move they make and just carrying on with whatever I was planning regardless.
@I_Wear_Socks - I think that's a pretty accurate depiction of what gets me into trouble too.
What in Satan's name is a "cultivated constraint " ?
When you call people "Idiots" because they have lower ratings than you but beat you, it says so much more about you than it does them.
eciruam wrote:
What in Satan's name is a "cultivated constraint " ?
It is a constraint that has been cultivated for a specific purpose. Ergo, a constraint that was not ever-present nor arose spontaneously, but, rather, was crafted and set in place through an act of design and deliberation.
now_and_zen wrote:
@I_Wear_Socks - I think that's a pretty accurate depiction of what gets me into trouble too.
Voila !!....There's your answer, no ?
now_and_not-very-zenlike this thread and the other recent one in which you vent your emotions about having to wait 120 seconds to claim a win does not paint a very pretty picture of you.
For whatever reason you remind me of the steer angrily trying to push its way further ahead in the line of cattle entering the chute to a slaughter plant.
* - I should add, it's an affliction brought on by an inflated sense of self importance. Most people, including moi, have it to some degree. Best countered by being mindful of something that would make the world a better place for everyone - Kindness is the beginning of wisdom.
You luz cuz u cant play obviouslu