@ARO123456 Sweet
Great job! You didn't have any inaccuracies, mistakes or blunders! Good game :)
after one year you're still 1200!? literally the only thing you need to get out of 1200 is not blunder your pieces on move 10
Nice Game! Funny line: 25. Qf8+ Rg8 26. Ne6! (If Rxf8 Rxf8#) a5 27. Qf6+ Rg7 28. Qxg7#
Edit: Wow, I didn't notice that you played that a few moves later. The queen "sacrifice" is really fun!
Edit: Wow, I didn't notice that you played that a few moves later. The queen "sacrifice" is really fun!
I forgot where, but there is a weekly statistics plot somewhere that shows the rating distribution per time control of the whole weekly lichess population.
One will notice that the rating obsession seems to be only afflicting those 2000 and above to the point of showing there.
There are funny bumps at each hundredth from there.
Please don't ruin the spirit by distracting from chess to rating the focus that seems to still be that of us below 2000 (no offense to the 2000+, even those afflicted, not your fault). We have the right to blunder, talk about it, and learn from it, if not this time, the next time. No point in shaming the blunderer. This is an art, the art of learning from you blunders. It means you have imagination, that you can blunder. You can put a step forward and test the ground. Ratings will follow if it is the destiny of the ratings, chess is more important.
One will notice that the rating obsession seems to be only afflicting those 2000 and above to the point of showing there.
There are funny bumps at each hundredth from there.
Please don't ruin the spirit by distracting from chess to rating the focus that seems to still be that of us below 2000 (no offense to the 2000+, even those afflicted, not your fault). We have the right to blunder, talk about it, and learn from it, if not this time, the next time. No point in shaming the blunderer. This is an art, the art of learning from you blunders. It means you have imagination, that you can blunder. You can put a step forward and test the ground. Ratings will follow if it is the destiny of the ratings, chess is more important.
@dboing Actually the bumps start at about 1300. lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz. Your point remains though. It's also somewhat ironic for me to comment on this matter because the whole point of this account is to achieve a rating goal.
Nice game!!
#7 It is the manner in which you achieve that goal that I was criticizing. I don't remember the early bumps though.
And I guess I may be trying to put some mass on chess versus rating, even if rating is a legitimate stimulant. It can't be the whole point of playing chess, it is just a measure of how ones play chess, averaging over many skills, as many as there can be chess patterns or groups of positions (and patterns don't have to be just tactical either).
Because there is so much to figure out, one number is likely to be very boring game. I just find that the emotional (social) overblown focus on one rating, is detrimental to a productive learning attitude, given the complexity of the game that is chess. There are other simpler games where rating is closer to defining the game.
In any case, shaming and using individual rating as added commentary to an otherwise useful comment about where there is a blunder, is not something I find useful, it kind of destroys the meat of the post. An engine might be more helpful (for its lack of pathos).
Edit: I streamlined my point. took off the playing dart contrasting analogy (yes that can happen). moved to my personal draft space (team forum I use for that, anybody can do that if they ramble a lot, it can serve as overflow).
And I guess I may be trying to put some mass on chess versus rating, even if rating is a legitimate stimulant. It can't be the whole point of playing chess, it is just a measure of how ones play chess, averaging over many skills, as many as there can be chess patterns or groups of positions (and patterns don't have to be just tactical either).
Because there is so much to figure out, one number is likely to be very boring game. I just find that the emotional (social) overblown focus on one rating, is detrimental to a productive learning attitude, given the complexity of the game that is chess. There are other simpler games where rating is closer to defining the game.
In any case, shaming and using individual rating as added commentary to an otherwise useful comment about where there is a blunder, is not something I find useful, it kind of destroys the meat of the post. An engine might be more helpful (for its lack of pathos).
Edit: I streamlined my point. took off the playing dart contrasting analogy (yes that can happen). moved to my personal draft space (team forum I use for that, anybody can do that if they ramble a lot, it can serve as overflow).
Great game! If you keep playing like that, your easily going to get a much better rating!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.