Why do many people quit after losing their queen? - Chess Forums - Page 5

AunTheKnight

Sep 21, 2021

0

#81

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

I won't argue, because all I need to know is that at my level, I lose a majority of games due to a mistake (losing my advantage and giving black a lead of -2, or losing a pawn or two.)

Thanks for defining a blunder and contradicting yourself.

AunTheKnight

Sep 21, 2021

0

#82

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

ChesswithNickolay escreveu:

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

ChesswithNickolay escreveu:

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

ChesswithNickolay escreveu:

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

ChesswithNickolay escreveu:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Arnaut10 wrote:

@ChesswithNickolay please cut the crap. What levels are you talking about? Calm down, being 1800 equals zero with behaviour like that. Dont act like know it all, better than all of you and stuff like that. Because we have the same rating now I have to say people I play and me myself still blunder and by that I mean A LOT. Simple tactics, free pieces, #M and what not. I have missed so many opportunities and also created some for my opponents. Only difference between anyone rated below is that I do it once in 5 games and they do it once in 2 games wheter or not it's taken adventage of. I myself am I believer that you should do whatever you want (&is allowed) in a chess game and nobody should tell you to resign or not. Its your own choice what to do, I can only give an advice based on my experience to lower rated guys and my opinion to higher rated ones. We may agree, we may not it doesn't matter at the end.

Dude at 1800 a mistake loses the game most of the time, not a blunder. lmao

If 2000s (FIDE) blunder, you do too.

Does a 2000 FIDE blunder in more than 50% of their games? NO!

You have a statistic on that? Source please.

50% of their games are wins.

Okay? And wins can have blunders in them? Still haven’t given me a source. Give me a source for that, too.

Give me a source saying that 2000 FIDE blunder and have their blunders punished and have at least 51% of their games like that.

You are the one saying they don't blunder so you are the one who has to prove that

Where's your logic?

I never told they do blunder, I told that a majority of their games are lost due to mistakes. The logic and IQ?

You said they don't blunder in most of their games

So you are the one to prove that...

Yes, they don't blunder in most of their games, and if they do, the opponent doesn't punish some of them. My proof is that most of my games lost due to a mistake, not blunders that are punished. I am even willing to play 5 unrated games to prove that. (I already played one.) Now prove that a 2000 has most of their games lost due to punished blunders.

This is not actual proof and I have to prove nothing as you are the one coming up with the statement.

Your statistics say nothing about 2000 FIDE.

They do. If I am an 1800 and most of my games are lost due to mistakes, more than certainly this would be the same for 2000 FIDE. I swear I am not trolling. Give me your source.

I have no source I'm literally giving you arguments based on logical elements

And so am I.

No, you aren't.

Immaculate_Slayer

Sep 21, 2021

0

#83

usernameone escreveu:

Immaculate, if you are rated 1800 you should be able to make quick work of me, I'd like to play and see what happens if you want?

If you want to play me just send a challenge, I'll accept it

usernameone

Sep 21, 2021

0

#84

Immaculate, I just tried to send you a challenge but chess.com won't let me, it tells me to choose an equal opponent :/

Immaculate_Slayer

Sep 21, 2021

0

#85

usernameone escreveu:

Immaculate, I just tried to send you a challenge but chess.com won't let me, it tells me to choose an equal opponent :/

Ok I'll send you one

usernameone

Sep 21, 2021

0

#86

I'll wait for you.

AunTheKnight

Sep 21, 2021

0

#87

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

I won't argue, because all I need to know is that at my level, I lose a majority of games due to a mistake (losing my advantage and giving black a lead of -2, or losing a pawn or two.)

Thanks for defining a blunder and contradicting yourself.

That's not a blunder... Go analyse more of your games, your only half way through. A blunder is an immediate advantage to the other side that would be very hard to come back through. A mistake is when your opponent is winning, but they still have some work to do, or when you lose your advantage (+1 to -0.8 or +3 to +1).

Nyet. This is the definition:

In chess, a blunder is a critically bad move. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether it be from time trouble, overconfidence or carelessness. Although blunders are more common in amateur games, all players make them, even at the world championship level. Wikipedia

AunTheKnight

Sep 21, 2021

0

#88

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

I won't argue, because all I need to know is that at my level, I lose a majority of games due to a mistake (losing my advantage and giving black a lead of -2, or losing a pawn or two.)

Thanks for defining a blunder and contradicting yourself.

That's not a blunder... Go analyse more of your games, your only half way through. A blunder is an immediate advantage to the other side that would be very hard to come back through. A mistake is when your opponent is winning, but they still have some work to do, or when you lose your advantage (+1 to -0.8 or +3 to +1).

Nyet. This is the definition:

In chess, a blunder is a critically bad move. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether it be from time trouble, overconfidence or carelessness. Although blunders are more common in amateur games, all players make them, even at the world championship level. Wikipedia

Great! See, a critically bad move. Not a slight advantage to the opponent, not a mistake that changes -3 to -0.8.

Giving away all the advantage is a critically bad move.

AunTheKnight

Sep 21, 2021

0

#89

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

AunTheKnight wrote:

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

I won't argue, because all I need to know is that at my level, I lose a majority of games due to a mistake (losing my advantage and giving black a lead of -2, or losing a pawn or two.)

Thanks for defining a blunder and contradicting yourself.

That's not a blunder... Go analyse more of your games, your only half way through. A blunder is an immediate advantage to the other side that would be very hard to come back through. A mistake is when your opponent is winning, but they still have some work to do, or when you lose your advantage (+1 to -0.8 or +3 to +1).

Nyet. This is the definition:

In chess, a blunder is a critically bad move. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether it be from time trouble, overconfidence or carelessness. Although blunders are more common in amateur games, all players make them, even at the world championship level. Wikipedia

Great! See, a critically bad move. Not a slight advantage to the opponent, not a mistake that changes -3 to -0.8.

Giving away all the advantage is a critically bad move.

Not a slight advantage, it still can be a draw. Gosh, let me just send you an example game.

Right… drawing in a winning position is a sign of bad play. Losing the advantage and going into a draw is caused by a blunder. Thanks for not addressing anything.

AunTheKnight

Sep 21, 2021

0

#90

ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Position is not really good, but pay attention to the last move.

Thank you for not proving anything.

MoveNotToMove

Sep 21, 2021

0

#91

That's funny: people complaining for those who don't resign in lost position and other people complaining for those who resign after losing their queen...

Ubik42

Sep 21, 2021

0

#92

All chess history supports resigning in lost positions. People who say otherwise are just ignorant of chess culture. No offense.

usernameone

Sep 21, 2021

0

#93

Ubik42, define "lost position "...do you mean no chance of winning, or no chance of winning, stalemate or draw?

SarvendraTS

Sep 21, 2021

0

#94

Ubik42 wrote:

All chess history supports resigning in lost positions. People who say otherwise are just ignorant of chess culture. No offense.

however, what if you still have a chance of winning? No matter what, unless you're completely losing, you keep going on until you win or lose. Who knows, maybe you could scrape out a draw or a win?

Kudakitoy

Sep 21, 2021

0

#95

SarvendraTS wrote:

Arnaut10 wrote:

Outcome of the game when you lose your queen almost always favors your opponent and will happen 99%. They just resign to not waste time since them losing is more likely than anything else.

sure, they have a higher chance of losing, but you can't just quit a game like that, its unsportsmanslike.

Resigning is actually seen as being a good sportsmen. In lower Elo situations, losing a queen doesn't mean much, but 1000+ Elo players should have no trouble winning a game while up a queen!

Kudakitoy

Sep 21, 2021

0

#96

I feel like all that matters is the player's Elo. Because if one 500 blunders their queen, the 500 other might blunder a simple ladder mate 2 moves after. 1,000+ Elo players should resign after blundering their queen unless they are confident in their position and time control.

SarvendraTS

Sep 22, 2021

0

#97

Kudakitoy wrote:

SarvendraTS wrote:

Arnaut10 wrote:

Outcome of the game when you lose your queen almost always favors your opponent and will happen 99%. They just resign to not waste time since them losing is more likely than anything else.

sure, they have a higher chance of losing, but you can't just quit a game like that, its unsportsmanslike.

Resigning is actually seen as being a good sportsmen. In lower Elo situations, losing a queen doesn't mean much, but 1000+ Elo players should have no trouble winning a game while up a queen!

resigning means letting go of a game where you could win.

Arnaut10

Sep 22, 2021

0

#98

@ChesswithNickolay you want to say that you don't blunder at all, just make mistakes? And also everyone else rated 1800? That is simply not true and there are plenty of games that can prove what I'm saying.

Arnaut10

Sep 22, 2021

0

#99

I have looked at last five rapid games of yours (only games where both players are rated 1800+) and in every single one of them there was ATLEAST one blunder made either by you or your opponent. Based on this statistica would be that 1800 make atleast one blunder 100% in their games. It's insane to think like that, right? Sample size is small ofcourse but it still proves my point. So you believing that most of the games are decided by mistakes not blunders when I have solid arguments to disprove your point makes me think that either you don't know what blunder means or you have ego so big that you can't admit you make blunders. I don't care wheter or not games were rated, but if it matters to you send me your last five rated games to prove me 1800 dont make blunders that often. When was the last time you played rated game? I have a feeling you are scared to play because you may drop few points and won't be able to insult lower rated players on forums anymore. I may be wrong about this, but I don't think so. If I am right than I feel sorry for you. Also one person can't be up 5+ points of material (when position doesn't favor side with less material ofc) if his opponent didn't blunder. How would you explain that with your way of thinking? Mistakes only lead to slight adventages and with correct play (without blunders) it's still hard to win. Which means that most of our games (1800 range) would be drawn if we use your logic and yet if you go to anyones statistics procent of won/lost/drawn games are pretty much >90 for decisive result and that makes draw only less than 10 percent. I dont expect solid answer from you but some things needed to be said. You won't ever realise (admit hahahah) you may be wrong about this and you can't prove you are right (because you aren't) and any further discussion would be a waste of time for both of us. I will respond to only valid arguments. Have a nice day!

Arisvita25032010

Sep 22, 2021

0

#100

hai