MyUSCFis1729 wrote:
if you cannot beat 1200s at blitz you are bad
...
If you cannot beat [Enter number 500 points lower than your own rating] at blitz, you are bad.
Chess strength is relative. To a 2300, a 1700 rated player is bad.
Why do I keep losing blitz to idiots?
Sort:
othert wrote:
With a better rating, lower ranking players seem more likely to resign after blundering a piece. When your ranking is similar to theirs they most likely won't and you may end up losing some of those games.
That's true. To a point. Especially if your rank is a couple hundred above theirs. But when slumming with players below 1100, you can expect the worst most, inappropriate/illogical behavior
I am of being a consistently strong player, even if I could set aside my other proclivities and really put my mind to it.
Now_and_would-like-to-be-more-Zenlike, that was a somewhat nicer response. "Proclivities" was a fine word to use.
Maybe still showing a little reluctance to face the truth of the matter with regards to your chess talent and supposed lack of willingness to fully invest yourself. The average bloke who had it explained to them you've spent aproximately 900 hours playing blitz would have a hard time accepting the claims you suggest about your indifference to really putting in the time.
Saw a saying one time that was along the lines,
"The one fault people are the most willingly to admit to having is being an underachiever."
I've drawn much animosity towards myself in life because things I think I'm saying non-seriously (i.e. in Jest) are taken as serious. It can be an unfortunate blind spot for us types.
Why would you even play "rated games" with a low rated player? That's where the issue is. It's always good to play with players +100 above your rating at any time.
VibrantMoves wrote:
Why would you even play "rated games" with a low rated player? That's where the issue is. It's always good to play with players +100 above your rating at any time.
That doesn't scale well if they feel the same :-)
now_and_zen wrote:
othert wrote:
With a better rating, lower ranking players seem more likely to resign after blundering a piece. When your ranking is similar to theirs they most likely won't and you may end up losing some of those games.
That's true. To a point. Especially if your rank is a couple hundred above theirs. But when slumming with players below 1100, you can expect the worst most, inappropriate/illogical behavior
"slumming" !?!?
Geez, another "jest" word that hints at which way the windmills of your mind are spinning.
The monsters of your Id are making a lot of racket rattling in their cages.
That means whenever you are playing a higher ranked player you see yourself as the Slumee.
You should work at forming a better self image.
That's it Grasshopper, I will leave you alone for now.
doppelgangsterII wrote:
I am of being a consistently strong player, even if I could set aside my other proclivities and really put my mind to it.
Now_and_would-like-to-be-more-Zenlike, that was a somewhat nicer response. "Proclivities" was a fine word to use.
Maybe still showing a little reluctance to face the truth of the matter with regards to your chess talent and supposed lack of willingness to fully invest yourself. The average bloke who had it explained to them you've spent aproximately 900 hours playing blitz would have a hard time accepting the claims you suggest about your indifference to really putting in the time.
Saw a saying one time that was along the lines,
"The one fault people are the most willingly to admit to having is being an underachiever."
I've drawn much animosity towards myself in life because things I think I'm saying non-seriously (i.e. in Jest) are taken as serious. It can be an unfortunate blind spot for us types.
I put in the time ad hoc, addictively, for the fun of it, and to procrastinate on other things, and sometimes with lucidity I wish I could achieve constantly. So if I made an organized, concerted effort to get better systematically, I probably could. Except, I have other things I feel more impassioned about investing time in. For example, I can sink enormous amounts of focused concerted time into iPhone app development and that's where I cherish skill more than chess.
But if it was easier to be great at chess, I certainly would be :-)
Having said that, in 18,000 games of blitz I'm much (by my dubious standards) better than when I started insofar as, I can actually hit and cross 1300 now (barely), which was impossible a couple of years ago, yet I haven't trained in any other way than by simply playing lots of blitz games in every state of mind.
I don't mind getting better. I want to get better, but I don't mind doing it by chasing windmills and having fun and I guess being a little reckless, bursty, but persistent about it.
Well, it's about the level of play between you and a low rated player against you and a high rated player. Your low rated opponent would definitely try to win anyhow but it can be possible that you wouldn't pay much attention to some of the moves considering his/her rating. That opens an opportunity for your opponent. It'd be good if you play unrated games when you're stressed.
...and it should be slumming it with., not slumming with
@doppelgangsterII - btw, my handle doesn't mean I'm bragging about being a Zen affcionado myself. It's just a play on words and the association of "now" and "Zen"ness. If I was Zen, would I be playing chess and futzing around in threads like this? Hell the f' no.
@ericuam:
That's Frank Lee Slummingwith, to you, sir! I said GOOD DAY!
now_and_zen wrote:
doppelgangsterII wrote:
I am of being a consistently strong player, even if I could set aside my other proclivities and really put my mind to it.
Now_and_would-like-to-be-more-Zenlike, that was a somewhat nicer response. "Proclivities" was a fine word to use.
Maybe still showing a little reluctance to face the truth of the matter with regards to your chess talent and supposed lack of willingness to fully invest yourself. The average bloke who had it explained to them you've spent aproximately 900 hours playing blitz would have a hard time accepting the claims you suggest about your indifference to really putting in the time.
Saw a saying one time that was along the lines,
"The one fault people are the most willingly to admit to having is being an underachiever."
I've drawn much animosity towards myself in life because things I think I'm saying non-seriously (i.e. in Jest) are taken as serious. It can be an unfortunate blind spot for us types.
I put in the time ad hoc, addictively, for the fun of it, and to procrastinate on other things, and sometimes with lucidity I wish I could achieve constantly. So if I made an organized, concerted effort to get better systematically, I probably could. Except, I have other things I feel more impassioned about investing time in. For example, I can sink enormous amounts of focused concerted time into iPhone app development and that's where I cherish skill more than chess.
But if it was easier to be great at chess, I certainly would be :-)
Having said that, in 18,000 games of blitz I'm much (by my dubious standards) better than when I started insofar as, I can actually hit and cross 1300 now (barely), which was impossible a couple of years ago, yet I haven't trained in any other way than by simply playing lots of blitz games in every state of mind.
I don't mind getting better. I want to get better, but I don't mind doing it by chasing windmills and having fun and I guess being a little reckless, bursty, but persistent about it.
Are you deliberately using big words out of context, with the occasional mis-spelling and inappropriate syntax ?
Are you being ironic, pretentious, or jocular ?
What does "bursty" mean ?
I know it can be amusing to make up words, and use words to make yourself appear intelligent....but there are limits.
If you are trying to be amusing...I take my hat off
If you are trying to sound clever...I'm going to have a word with your English teacher.
now_and_zen wrote:
@ericuam:
That's Frank Lee Slummingwith, to you, sir! I said GOOD DAY!
LOL
@eciruam - I'm flying by the seat of my pants here. And typing fast, and avoiding work, which I have to cut back to soon. It isn't my best effort and my editing is for sh*t, I know. I guess I don't feel a great need to be perfect. And this is 'good enough for who its for' Think of my writing as 30 second blitz. I'm having fun, and hopefully you are too. But if you stalk my English teacher, I'm calling a cop, because I have dibs.
Who said anything about stalking your English teacher ?
I just want a quite word ( or two )
Don't be sad, don't be blue, at one time I was just like you!
Guns'n'Roses ?
Dean Martin ?
With a better rating, lower ranking players seem more likely to resign after blundering a piece. When your ranking is similar to theirs they most likely won't and you may end up losing some of those games.