Be encouraged if there's a slight chance that you will win or checkmate you opponent then go for it; however there's no harm in admitting a mistake, either way you are sure of a possible outcome no need to waste time, time is precious just like her royal highness the Queen.
Why do many people quit after losing their queen?
Sort:
They're Stupid
Sep 22, 2021
0
#124
JoeBleshon wrote:
Be encouraged if there's a slight chance that you will win or checkmate you opponent then go for it; however there's no harm in admitting a mistake, either way you are sure of a possible outcome no need to waste time, time is precious just like her royal highness the Queen.
yes I fully agree with you
Sep 22, 2021
0
#125
Arnaut10 wrote:
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!
I have never lost a game where an opponent has blundered there Queen. If you are a respectable player between 1200 and 1550, there is no reason for you to lose if your opponent blunders and your opponent is in within 200 elo points. (Generally Speaking) There is absolutely nothing wrong with a player resigning after they lose their Queen. They are at a very serious disadvantage and will likely be picked off piece by piece afterwards, so there is no disgrace or issue in resigning. I usually will not resign right away after blundering a Queen, as I have come back to win against lower rated players a couple of times, but not often. But there are always variables, so one must interpret the whole situation to determine if it's worth the time or not. And if someone chooses to resign after losing their Queen, it is perfectly acceptable and respectable.
Also, I only have been playing Daily chess as it is the closest thing they have on chess.com to classical chess. It's not that most people want to play blitz, it's just you can squeeze in a hundred more games of blitz in the time it would take to play a classical. I grew up playing regular chess, no time limits. I have never really gave myself an opportunity to get good at blitz or other speed games. And any game over 10 minutes is now considered a rapid game. So a rapid game could be 10 minutes per player or it could be 2 hours per player if both agreed. Chess.com should add something in between rapid and blitz, I feel anything over 1 hour per player should be considered as something different than rapid. I do not understand why chess does not add in more selections of longer games and give it a different classification than rapid. I don't care if players like speed chess, but the true champions of chess are classical players, not blitz players.
#167 buddy I think you quoted wrong thing xd. I agree with first part of your response. Have you ever won after blundering a queen? For the second part I don't know what to tell you. I read somewhere that they are working on new time control, but don't trust me too much. If anybody knows this, can you confirm it? Reason why there aren't long time controls is because simply almost no one plays them online. Strong players here don't even play rapid.
no the king that you think is is acshaly a queen
kids suck
what does that mean kids suck ? !
darkbrah7654 wrote:
SarvendraTS wrote:
AunTheKnight 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.
Welp, I guess grandmasters are unsportsmanlike. @Arnaut10 is correct.
it's not about the chances of you losing. It's about you fighting till the very end mate.
whats the point of fighting to the end when you're already losing? There's a very high chance that your opponent will probably checkmate you.
yes they sould not quite
I don't, because it really doesn't matter if I have a queen or not. Chances of winning are still quite slim....lol
they are trash bags full of crap
shut up don´t call any one that
Losing a queen usually is a sign of a rookie move/mistake, and out of respect to the opponent, they withdraw from the game,
shut up neverst ur dad left u
cheesey_dibbles how did you know that only me and my friends know that?
Sep 28, 2021
0
#137
Because Mr. Shaibel says so, and don’t go calling him a bad word for it because he gets mad and won’t play you for a while.
?
what are you talking about I was talking to chessey-dibbles
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.
that's not what resigning means. It is POSSIBLE for a 100 Elo to beat Magness Carlson. But REALLY? Nonono.