Someone on these very boards has made the point that chess isn't really a game it's a directed thought exercise. There is no luck. There is only skill. When you lose there is no ball or field to blame, no team mates to berate, no referee to accuse of bias. Only yourself.
When you lose it can be no ones fault but your own. You didn't play well enough. All you can do is learn from your mistakes and play better next time. You can never deserve to win a game you lost. You can lose a game you should have won. But the point remains you lost.
We've all had our bad games. How about when I offered a draw in a won endgame? Then accepted a draw by perpetual with a large material advantage when I had an escape (granted a tactically difficult one, it seemed to lead to a mating net but not quite) the very next week. Both in competition games. Or losing to a B team player (me being board A1 and the only senior member) of my school team in an individual competition?
Ask any player here and they can probably relate these kind of stories. At times I've asked myself is all the work I put into chess worth it. But then I find a beautiful combination or win a close fought game and I feel that it is. If you find putting in the time means you can't enjoy chess then stop putting in the time. I know people who play chess pretty well socially but won't play anything but occasional casual games.
Just pack up your bags, leave the site, and go over to yahoo.
They have a good checkers/drafts game there which should suit your skills more.
It has taken me a lot longer than a lot of other users, but I'm sick to death of your constant whiney posts. Do you think we really care that much about whether you win games or not?
D
Originally posted by mateuloseThere is nothing in the rules of chess that says the person who studies most deserves to win.
Nah, this is how it should work:
Player A studies 6 hours a day
Player B studies 1 hour a day
Player A deserves to win, if this god who supposively exists, has any decentcy, but the opposite always happens to me, sheesh, many times I think I would be better off doing what person B does, but that makes things worse, so do I need to study 12 hours? This is the same as fricken school. . .
Studying doesn't win chess games. Good moves win.
Personally, I have no idea what he could possibly study for 4-6 hours a day; he shows no knowledge of opening principles or of positional play and seems incapable of defensive play of the most rudimentary kind at least in his posts. Nor does he seem terribly able to learn anything; his stubborn insistence that anybody who varies from what he expected is playing "crap" is indicative of a lack of flexibility and flexibility is vital to a good chess player. He needs to analyze his games not with a view of how "crappy" the other guys played, but with a view to how he can improve his game. As long as he refuses to do so and insists that there's nothing he can do to protect himself against blunders and unsound attacks, he won't improve; but then again, many players on the site would be happy to be playing at his level.
Originally posted by mateulosetry taking your head out of your ar$e - something you obviously havent tried before.
Until you use some innovation and mention something that hasn't been done before, I'll try it, but if you are going to offer me advice on <yawn>
don't thank me - just call me the innovator 😀
Originally posted by no1marauderNail. Head. You. Hit.
Personally, I have no idea what he could possibly study for 4-6 hours a day; he shows no knowledge of opening principles or of positional play and seems incapable of defensive play of the most rudimentary kind at least in his posts. Nor does he seem terribly able to learn anything; his stubborn insistence that anybody who varies from what he expecte ...[text shortened]... 't improve; but then again, many players on the site would be happy to be playing at his level.
Originally posted by no1marauderUgh, excuse me, it's my opponents who don't know their openings, not me, what do you mean by I show no knowledge of openings? No knowledge of positional play, then how come most of my wins are by playing a better endgame with even material? Isn't that positional prowess?
Personally, I have no idea what he could possibly study for 4-6 hours a day; he shows no knowledge of opening principles or of positional play and seems incapable of defensive play of the most rudimentary kind at least in his posts. Nor does he seem terribly able to learn anything; his stubborn insistence that anybody who varies from what he expecte ...[text shortened]... 't improve; but then again, many players on the site would be happy to be playing at his level.
I still find it rediculous you say I don't know my openings, like 50% of the time when I play the Taimanov, white players play the terrible Nxc6, where I get a free game in the center, how is this superior opening play Maruader, just awnser that.
I lose mostly because I fall pray to kingside attacks/attacks on the king, usually by queen or knight penetrations, I usually survive these, but sometimes the only way to survive is to lose a pawn or two, go down the exchange, etc, and we all know what happens in the endgame then no matter how good you are. . .
I wouldn't call falling victim to kingside attacks a positional flaw, more of a tactical one, as the player with the white peices does not really care about position, he just wants to mate fast or make black lose some material to stop the mate, stuff like pawn structure is irrelevant to the white player when he does this.
Originally posted by mateuloseI said you don't know or practice opening PRINCIPLES, at least in the games you lose. You might have a few openings memorized, but you seem unwilling to devote the time to UNDERSTAND the openings; your comments on the Sicilian are simply laughable to any experienced player who uses it. Tell Dave Tebb how much the Sicilian "sucks" and is "unplayable". If you're allowing Queens and Knights to have free rein on your Kingside, YOU'RE screwing up - the object of the game is to mate but you think player are "crap" for trying to do it and winning games doing it. If people were throwing their Queen and Knights onto my kingside and winning games against me doing it, I'd develop strategy and tactics to combat it, not whine about how they're playing like "crap" cuz they won't play the moves I prepared for!!! If players are developing strong attacking outposts for their pieces they ARE playing positionally and if you're allowing them to, you're not. Simple.
Ugh, excuse me, it's my opponents who don't know their openings, not me, what do you mean by I show no knowledge of openings? No knowledge of positional play, then how come most of my wins are by playing a better endgame with even material? Isn't that positional prowess?
I still find it rediculous you say I don't know my openings, like 50% of the ti ...[text shortened]... to stop the mate, stuff like pawn structure is irrelevant to the white player when he does this.
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, that's fine and dandy, but how, exactly, messiah, do you stop it? (the kingside knights and queen attack) I've spent hours pondering how to stop it with no success, it simply seems too easy for white to do, and it's going to come whether I like it or not. Read my latest thread, "Chess puzzler, a theoritical kingside assault", I await your awnser.
I said you don't know or practice opening PRINCIPLES, at least in the games you lose. You might have a few openings memorized, but you seem unwilling to devote the time to UNDERSTAND the openings; your comments on the Sicilian are simply laughable to any experienced player who uses it. Tell Dave Tebb how much the Sicilian "sucks" and is "unpla ...[text shortened]... their pieces they ARE playing positionally and if you're allowing them to, you're not. Simple.
Originally posted by mateuloseattacks on the wing can easily be countered by attacks in the center or on the other wing.
Ok, that's fine and dandy, but how, exactly, messiah, do you stop it? (the kingside knights and queen attack) I've spent hours pondering how to stop it with no success, it simply seems too easy for white to do, and it's going to come whether I like it or not. Read my latest thread, "Chess puzzler, a theoritical kingside assault", I await your awnser.
or even better, maybe you should stop playing chess and play something else. take up another game like tiddly winks............