Originally posted by EladarEladar, I don't think it makes you a poor sport. I don't think anyone likes losing. I just think that you should consider your opponents strength and think that he had to capitalize on what you did wrong to beat you.
[b]Then you are a poor sport.
In general, I do hate to lose. I guess that makes me a poor sport.
But then again, it also gives me a desire to get better. So I guess there is something good about being a poor sport.
Gen Patton was a bad sport, as were some of the best chess players in the world.[/b]
I know that someone has know what he is doing to capitalize on a blunder. The more obscure the blunder the better the person needs to be inorder to see it and take advantage of it.
I do not ever make the claim that when I lose my opponent didn't win. I just generally see the outcome as a result of my mistake and that I should not make the same mistake again, although I eventually will.
Originally posted by EladarQuite different to hate losing than to think you only lose because you beat yourself. No one is invincible. I think of myself as playing to win more than hating to lose. We all lose. Winning is quite hard. Nothing seems harder than winning from a won position. I always give credit to my opponent. I never lose without an opponent being able to exploit mistakes. A good friend on this site recently played a 2200 player and lost. His mistakes were only very subtle blunders. The higher ranked player set traps my friend did not see very well. Never stood a chance. Perhaps you should reflect and focus on your striving to improve as the reason you hate losing and take it from there. Otherwise you sound whiney and a sore loser. You're a decent enough player, but in the end we're all patzers. I was looking at a video od Alexandra kosteniuk explaining how she won a game. Her chess mind is brilliant. she sees things I would not see even with annotations. Could I ever be that good? probably not. I played someone on yahoochess once. Three games. Tried my best. Never made a dent. Furious attacks were refuted ably and brilliantly. Opponent seemed to know my next move. In the end I was just outplayed. Never made it even to drawing chances. I offered congrats, prounounced myself unready for such lofty play, but learned enormously.
[b]Then you are a poor sport.
In general, I do hate to lose. I guess that makes me a poor sport.
But then again, it also gives me a desire to get better. So I guess there is something good about being a poor sport.
Gen Patton was a bad sport, as were some of the best chess players in the world.[/b]
Quite different to hate losing than to think you only lose because you beat yourself.
When did I ever say "only"?
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth, especially if you are going to then take the words you attribute to me and try to bash me over the head with it.
Originally posted by Eladarallright, so is it accurate to say that if you lose and don't make your opponent work hard for it, but instead hang a piece to a 3 move combo, you defeated yourself. but if the opponent had to put all he's got or just outplayed you right from the beginning and made it look simple, then your opponent defeated you?
Philidor,
Usually people view it one way or the other. I beat a guy and I told him why I think I beat him and he replied that I didn't beat him, he defeated himself. I many times I have the same attitude. I was just wondering if others have the same point of view.
heinzkat,
There doesn't have to be a winner or loser. Sometimes there's a tie that resulted from an interesting game.
in that case, it's probably 30 (beat by opponent) to 70 (by myself) for me.
Originally posted by EladarNot bashing at all, simply correctly interpreting your own words as a manner of explanation as to why you may lose. I also never intended to insult you and if I did I am sorry. After all your thread says it all. What must one interpret from a thread titled what you titled yours? Surely you don't take umbrage at your own thread being taken as what you mean?
[b]Quite different to hate losing than to think you only lose because you beat yourself.
When did I ever say "only"?
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth, especially if you are going to then take the words you attribute to me and try to bash me over the head with it.[/b]
Originally posted by EladarAgain, I had no intention of saying anything you might take umbrage for in any way. Indeed I may have overstated my case somewhat, but certainly not trying to pick a fight. As you said, enough said! please accept my apology.
I hear you. My thread speaks for itself. Your posts speak for themselves. I think that's all that needs to be said.
In sum I feel a combination of factors leads to victory or a loss. Certainly opponent has to somewhat cooperate at the very least by unsound refutation as sound refutation usually leads to draws. Losses are the same in reverse, but require inability on our part to refute by failing to detect opponents intentions, unsound openings, imbalances of position or plain old leaving pieces en prise. Do you feel you play at your best when trying to recover from any of the above?
I am relatively new to the site, and I would say that most of the games I have won were because the other guy beat himself and I was lucky enough to be there when it happened. I should not have won several of the games I have so far, and my draws were swindles of wins from my opponents.
I think this is because I played lower rated players when I was new to the site, and at some point I will "reach my level" as I play more.
Paul
Originally posted by Paul LeggettBut if you did not lay down a good foundation despite your opponents' cooperation it is unlkely you could win. If you lose your oppoenent is able to exploit your position/play/mistakes/ ommissions, etc. you don't just win or just lose. I find most players are not gracious losers and believe they lost the game and did not get beaten.
I am relatively new to the site, and I would say that most of the games I have won were because the other guy beat himself and I was lucky enough to be there when it happened. I should not have won several of the games I have so far, and my draws were swindles of wins from my opponents.
I think this is because I played lower rated players when I was new to the site, and at some point I will "reach my level" as I play more.
Paul
Philidor,
My question was not a general truth about chess. My question was one of personal point of view. When you personally get beaten do you personally see it as a blown game or do you think you were just out played?
Of course there will be both kinds of games. I'm just speaking in general terms.
It comes down to how much you're able to learn from a given loss.
There are games where you make blunders out of sheer carelessness. You know you're better than that. You just weren't paying attention and missed something obvious. (of course, people differ in what is "obvious" for them). But the only thing you learn from this to slow down and pay more attention. But you probably already knew this.
But there are other games where your position just kind of crumbled and you're not sure why. Or you clearly had the better position and it somehow dissolved. Or your opponent sacrifices his rook and you know you never would have seen it. Or you later realize there was a point where you could've sacrificed your rook. In all of these, you find all sorts of stuff to learn from and in a weird kind of way, you're actually happy you lost the game -- because the pain of losing really drives the lessons home.
But regardless of how you lose, it's generally bad form to belittle your opponent by overtly claiming it was just your own blunder that caused you to lose. Of course, if your opponent is interested in doing an honest post-game analysis with you, you should then be honest.
Originally posted by MelanerpesVery well said indeed! Yet even in blunders if you blunder against someone who has no idea of how to capitalize on your blunder you may yet emerge relatively unscathed. Indeed there are those players who will hit you hard out of nowhere (seemingly) and tear you to bits with great plays. Others put a stranglehold on the position and leave you few options. Failing to admit defeat by claiming the game was thrown away is bad form. Post-mortems are really helpful in lost games. Honesty is paramount without being dismissive or willfully hurtful. Even the worst patzer (myself included) can have occasional flashes of brilliance. Sometimes we pull off wins against higher rated players, sometimes we're victims to a flash of brilliance. Even when careless opponent has to be able to exploit the blunder.
It comes down to how much you're able to learn from a given loss.
There are games where you make blunders out of sheer carelessness. You know you're better than that. You just weren't paying attention and missed something obvious. The only thing you learn from this to slow down and pay more attention. But you probably already knew this.
But there ar ...[text shortened]... is interested in doing an honest post-game analysis with you, you should then be honest.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoSubconsciously, I think I also play harder when I am worse, and play a little slack when I have a plus. It's a character flaw that makes me a good swindler!
But if you did not lay down a good foundation despite your opponents' cooperation it is unlkely you could win. If you lose your oppoenent is able to exploit your position/play/mistakes/ ommissions, etc. you don't just win or just lose. I find most players are not gracious losers and believe they lost the game and did not get beaten.
Paul
Originally posted by Paul LeggettWe all do! That's how we end up losing to players rated well below and scare the heck out of higher rated players. Human nature. Part of what makes chess so enjoyable. I cannot imagine the pressure of playing against an equally rnaked player for hihg stakes like the recent anand Vs Kramnik championship. I'd sweat bullets!
Subconsciously, I think I also play harder when I am worse, and play a little slack when I have a plus. It's a character flaw that makes me a good swindler!
Paul