@SNS48 said in #21:
> That's why you SHOULD promote to rooks. With rooks the odd for stalemate gets far far lower. It's 1 stalemate every 20 games. Is it worth it? ABSOLUTELY!! Is it worth the time? ABSOLUTELY!! I'm having a euphoria torturing my opponent, why should I kill them quickly?
>
> From your story. I bet he's a chess beginner, maybe rated 700 or 900 at max. Only pro players promote to rooks to avoid stalemate.
He's actually rated around 2300 on lichess.
As for the rest - whatever floats your boat, I guess.
> That's why you SHOULD promote to rooks. With rooks the odd for stalemate gets far far lower. It's 1 stalemate every 20 games. Is it worth it? ABSOLUTELY!! Is it worth the time? ABSOLUTELY!! I'm having a euphoria torturing my opponent, why should I kill them quickly?
>
> From your story. I bet he's a chess beginner, maybe rated 700 or 900 at max. Only pro players promote to rooks to avoid stalemate.
He's actually rated around 2300 on lichess.
As for the rest - whatever floats your boat, I guess.
i am sick of this
Beating them in chess
@SNS48 said in #1:
> - Checkmate at last 2 second
what if your wifi stops for 2 seconds?
just bad luck.
> - Checkmate at last 2 second
what if your wifi stops for 2 seconds?
just bad luck.
I hope you can change your thinking on this. Respect your opponent and the contest is more worthwhile and chess is more fun.
I don't consider the things you mentioned as a sign of arrogance.
1. is the opposite in my view. Someone who quits as soon as they win are happy the got a win and want to quit 'while they're ahead'. It means they think you are a strong opponent, and run instead of fighting on until its clear who's stronger. Either that or they just want to move on and play someone else or even just do something else. Its not always about you.
2. Not quitting is a sign of tenacity and optimism. They want to fight even when in a worse position. Noone is perfect, and you might make a mistake allowing them to obtain equality or even win. Its up to you to show you can win a won game.
3. Playing fast might be a viable strategy in a short time format. And playing hard is good. It tests your ability. I assume you also play hard. Doesn't mean you're arrogant.
4. Exchanging pieces when a pawn up is just a standard way to win a game where your up material. By simplifying the player with an extra pawn can make it easier to win. This doesn't always work, however. You could avoid trades and have more active pieces and eventually win the pawn back. That's also up to you. The strategy to trade down is not a sign of arrogance.
I don't consider the things you mentioned as a sign of arrogance.
1. is the opposite in my view. Someone who quits as soon as they win are happy the got a win and want to quit 'while they're ahead'. It means they think you are a strong opponent, and run instead of fighting on until its clear who's stronger. Either that or they just want to move on and play someone else or even just do something else. Its not always about you.
2. Not quitting is a sign of tenacity and optimism. They want to fight even when in a worse position. Noone is perfect, and you might make a mistake allowing them to obtain equality or even win. Its up to you to show you can win a won game.
3. Playing fast might be a viable strategy in a short time format. And playing hard is good. It tests your ability. I assume you also play hard. Doesn't mean you're arrogant.
4. Exchanging pieces when a pawn up is just a standard way to win a game where your up material. By simplifying the player with an extra pawn can make it easier to win. This doesn't always work, however. You could avoid trades and have more active pieces and eventually win the pawn back. That's also up to you. The strategy to trade down is not a sign of arrogance.
@mkubecek said in #16:
> I'm tempted to say that such video might have much higher educative value than its author originally wanted. :-)
> (Unless it was done on purpose, of course.)
You might be right but I don't think it was done on purpose, at least judging by his reaction. Video immediately cut out and later he said he almost destroyed his computer he was so mad.
> I'm tempted to say that such video might have much higher educative value than its author originally wanted. :-)
> (Unless it was done on purpose, of course.)
You might be right but I don't think it was done on purpose, at least judging by his reaction. Video immediately cut out and later he said he almost destroyed his computer he was so mad.
"What's your favorite way to punish arrogant players?"
Are you saying about yourself?
Are you saying about yourself?
@kajalmaya said in #30:
> So it seems that a lot of things annoy somebody or the other:
>
> - if you ask for a rematch after losing, it annoys them
> - if you refuse a rematch after winning, it annoys them
> - if you take too much time on a move (particularly when you are down), you must be stalling
> - if you take your time to move (even in a correspondence game), it annoys them
> - if they lose on time 'in an obviously drawn position', they are annoyed
> - if you play fast (in a position that your opponent considers critical), you are not being a sportsman
> - if you take roughly the same time on each move, you must be consulting an engine
> - if you play with high accuracy, then of course you are cheating
> - if you blunder, you must be purposefully losing
> - if you do not resign a (supposedly losing) position, you are wasting their time
> - if you don't deliver a quick checkmate, you must be teasing them
> - if you under promote, you must be teasing them
> - if you promote more than one queen, that is also teasing
> - if you turn off the chat during the game, it annoys them
> - if you play an unconventional opening, they abort immediately
> - if you play positionally, you are boring
> - if you trade pieces when you are up, it annoys them
> - if you challenge someone strong, it annoys them
> - if you don't accept a challenge from a low rated player, it annoys them
> - last but not the least, if you play the London, it annoys them
>
>
You couldn't find a better way to describe the situation. It's funny, but that's exactly how it is.
However you play, whatever you do, it annoys someone.
> So it seems that a lot of things annoy somebody or the other:
>
> - if you ask for a rematch after losing, it annoys them
> - if you refuse a rematch after winning, it annoys them
> - if you take too much time on a move (particularly when you are down), you must be stalling
> - if you take your time to move (even in a correspondence game), it annoys them
> - if they lose on time 'in an obviously drawn position', they are annoyed
> - if you play fast (in a position that your opponent considers critical), you are not being a sportsman
> - if you take roughly the same time on each move, you must be consulting an engine
> - if you play with high accuracy, then of course you are cheating
> - if you blunder, you must be purposefully losing
> - if you do not resign a (supposedly losing) position, you are wasting their time
> - if you don't deliver a quick checkmate, you must be teasing them
> - if you under promote, you must be teasing them
> - if you promote more than one queen, that is also teasing
> - if you turn off the chat during the game, it annoys them
> - if you play an unconventional opening, they abort immediately
> - if you play positionally, you are boring
> - if you trade pieces when you are up, it annoys them
> - if you challenge someone strong, it annoys them
> - if you don't accept a challenge from a low rated player, it annoys them
> - last but not the least, if you play the London, it annoys them
>
>
You couldn't find a better way to describe the situation. It's funny, but that's exactly how it is.
However you play, whatever you do, it annoys someone.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.