FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Some people just sit there and block the position up, play really boring moves and wait for you to get frustrated and lash out, and then take advantage and mop you up. They do it on purpose, they are not playing for the draw, they are playing for the win by means of getting under your skin.
I had this done to me a couple of times last season by people rated 200pts below me but with more years experience, and clearly tuned into my emotions of frustration well enough to exploit them!
Solution is simple really. Don't get frustrated and try to force it. Just keep finding the best move. He's rated lower than you. He will make a mistake eventually.
Note to self: If you get a chance to play vs. madhacker, bottle board :)
Usually when I win it's because I made a dumb mistake (perhaps I'm too self-critical).
I always get a good laught out of your comments
While Nimzowitsch gained notoriety for this outburst, most of us can sympathize with the frustration. What are some reasons we lose to players who aren't as good as us?
First rule when you have gained an advantage especially a material advantage:
One way to kill counterplay is what Capablanca use to do. Simplify by exchanging. In a battle of 99 vs. 100 the advantage is imperceptible. But, an advantage of 2 vs.1 is very real. It also prevents your opponent from complicating the position and thereby create counterplay.
because it was internet blitz and/or bullet. a video game. some people are better at video games than others.
yeah, 2 vs. 1 would be real threatening.
agreed on simplifying, but very much I disagree with playing capablanca style as soon as you get the advantage. Too much eagerness of working towards the endgame or playing passively when ahead are terrible mistakes.
Reminds of a thread i wrote awhile back called " The injustice of Chess ". I got the idea from a chess book i have read. When i have kicked my opponents butt across ranks and down files ,from the kingside to the queenside and i make one little miscalculation then Boom the tide turns, of course since my forces are over-extended due to my attack it is very difficult to defend myself. How in the hell does one Bad move cancel out 20 Good ones ? That makes no sense i mean it is not like your battered opponent made a great counter-move or even put up a credible defence otherwise he would not be in the predicament he is in. That is the reason many a chessplayer will tell you they HATE this friggin game !!
I like to blunder away won-games often to remind me to respect opponent & not rush things.
Psychology is effective too yet only fair by the chess-moves you make & manner of playing them.
Bombarding your opponent with verbal-rubbish or loud & brash red-text in chat or notes is unnaceptable, if you get onto the mind-set of thinking your playing against an idiotic-inferior player then you deserve to lose...
The point about exchanging down is generally correct but there are exceptions. For a start, you have to make sure the advantage is sufficient - to use a simple example, if you have R+P vs N+P then you obviously don't want to exchange the pawns. Plus, it's sometimes better to keep the pieces on to be able to press home an initiative or direct attack. If the pieces are exchanged, this kind of dynamic advantage usually dries up. It depends on the nature of your advantage, what approach you should take.
Some people think faster than others:
Carlsen - 1 min
Other Guy - 9 minutes
I happened to play someone in 3 minute chess the other day who was relatively new to the game, and he played a lot like I used to... it reminded me of what playing speed chess was like back then, and how truly little I saw.
I can see how a new player might think of speed games at pretty random, with no time to calculate.
Good one pacifique! I'll have to use this line next time some "idiot" beats me...
"The very first and the very last in your life!"
Heh, actually that was said to me (in so many words) once online after I luckily pulled a win out of a totally lost position. The rematch was accepted and all I said back was "it sure would be embarrassing for you to lose this one then"
It must have had some affect because they played pretty badly
It's simple: you are only as good as how you actually play at a given moment. That means if you're a 2000 player, and play like an 1800 one day (be lazy), you will get an 1800's results.
Even against players 200-400 points lower than me, I just play the best moves I can think of, and I should, eventually, win the vast majority of the time unless my opponent is underrated.
On the other hand, if I play moves lower than my rating suggests, because I think I can, then all of a sudden my 1900 rating, and thus my "superiority on paper," doesn't mean so much, because I'm not actually performing like a 1900. I always play with the goal of at least staying true to my rating, prove that my rating is where it belongs.
Indeed, in my quest to raise my rating, I have to think about not just beating those higher than me, but also beating all those people, just like me, who are looking for major scalps. If I'm higher rated than somebody, I'm the scalp they want, so I have to be very alert :)
If you want to lose a bunch of games unnecessarily just focus firmly on your evaluation of how good you are and how good/bad your opponent is. Your ego considers this a vitally important question so work at it: study, practice and employ as much mental energy on it as you can.
If you want to win your fair share of games maybe there is something else you could try evaluating and focusing on.
be up a pawn and exchange like crazy until all that is left is that one pawn and the two kings turn that pawn into a queen and win the game
What #3 said. If I'd had been the one called an idiot, I would have punched him out.
No, I don't think so, he was reported to have been standing on the table, perhaps on has knees, you wouldn't have been able to reach his head either way.