Vote and you will uncover!
Nutty name, real interests
Have you ever played Backgammon online? It is a lot of fun. So come play Backgammon online with us!
79 ( +1 | -1 )
I just went to my schools chess club tonight and I was on a hot streak( I won 3 rated games ), when I played a certain person who I know is better than me. I was so sure I was going to lose, when, he resigned after a well played game( I was black ). Now, soon after, he talked to another one of my good friends there( he's better than me too! ), and said he had a philosiphy about chess.
He thought that if you were playing someone who's better than you, you should play your best, if you play against a beginner( which I'm most certainly not! ) you should play like a beginner.
I do not feel that I deserved the win, and it's really bugging ME!
So, do you think this is an interesting philosiphy???
Oh, and by the way, Pavel( the guy he told earlier about it ) thought it was total bull-crap!!
20 ( +1 | -1 )
because you should always play at your best.
well, i've an exception. if i try to learn someone to play some chess, i'll not play my best game:)
but i doubt he meant that.
45 ( +1 | -1 )
i agree, that's a load of rubbish.
If you are playing someone weaker than you, they won't learn anything if you play less than your full strength. It's very rare to find someone who plays to lose! Is this his philosophy in tournaments as well, does he play like a beginner if someone is a half point behind him?
You deserved to win, and he's just trying to save face by belittling your performance. Well done!
43 ( +1 | -1 )
No, it's not crap
I recommend you read Lasker's Introduction to his "Manual of Chess", where he explains his philosophy of struggle.
Lasker was noted for playing to his opponent as well as the game. For instance, if he knew his opponent was a brilliant, combinative player, Lasker would close the position and allow him no chance of displaying his talent. But at other times he would let such a player have the open position he wanted in order to tempt him into overconfidence.
39 ( +1 | -1 )
You did your job
The only philosophy of a chess game is to win! It's your obligation like a player. If your oponent said that he loses against weaker players as a way to give them a lesson, he is lying, it is an excuse in advance.
The next time you play against him, WIN THE GAME, and tell him that your chess philosophy is to defeat liers as often as you can.
1 ( +1 | -1 )
is it? ask bbelle.
6 ( +1 | -1 )
To win is not a chess philosophy, it's just a desire. HOW to win is chess philosophy.
31 ( +1 | -1 )
He's just trying to make up an excuse for losing.
"I purposely played like a begginer"
Now who's gonna believe that?
I think you should play at your best. Because if you do, than you are guaranteed a win. If you don't than maybe your opponent is a little better than you thought. You could wind up losing.
7 ( +1 | -1 )
Could you tell me who is bbelle and how is she or he related with what I've said?
24 ( +1 | -1 )
Play your best and let game take care of it's self. If you do that you walk away from the game, win or lose, knowing it was well earned. The rest is talk. Just because someone is 'better' does'nt guarantee a win.
27 ( +1 | -1 )
I play a lot of chess over the past 50 years.
On occasion I've beaten some raelly great players, on occasion I've lost to some not so good players.
In my opinion, many games are lost by under estamating one's opponent / or letting your gard down
26 ( +1 | -1 )
Overestimating your opponent
As well as underestimating your opponent, there's a parallel failing of overestimating your opponent, that is, playing too timidly against a higher-rated player. This of course only makes it easier for him to increase his rating by another 8 points.
89 ( +1 | -1 )
Justification in the Philosophy of Chess
Your account reminds me very thoroughly of something I have observed often. Some players, after a loss, have a strong need for an explanation other than "I was outplayed, or I blundered, etc."
They instead like to have a justification for the performance. The justification almost always has no relationship whatsoever to the truth of what really happened. It's just a way to explain away a loss.
I sincerely doubt the person practices the stated philosophy of "playing weakly on purpose," and even if they did, it's just another example of a weak strategy. It would be smarter just to forfeit the game.
If you beat a higher rated player, it is far more likely that you were just sharper and more disciplined that day, both of which are as important as any other form of chess expertise.
So don't be tricked by any silly-sounding justifications, there are a million of them out there.
26 ( +1 | -1 )
bbelle is someone i play a lot of games with here.
i'll quote you:
If your opponent said that he loses against weaker players as a way to give them a lesson, he is lying.
my reply to that is, is it? ask bbelle.
it's done once here.
78 ( +1 | -1 )
I belive you, but your case is "rara avis". Let me quote a passage of Edward Lasker's "Chess for Fun & Chess for Blood":
"I am glad to say, however, that the disease of bad sportmanship is usually encountered in much less malignant form. It is true, you are almost sure to come up against the player who, no matter how often or how badly he loses, will always prove to you after the game is over that he could have won with ease; or against the player who after losing two or three games will discover a splitting headache which made it imposible for him to concentrate. Well, you need not be overly alarmed at the state of health of the latter, nor need you argue much with the former. Just beat him once more!"
14 ( +1 | -1 )
psychology of the game
The psychology of any game... not that i am a wizard but as you may already know, many games a won and lost before the actual game even starts.
18 ( +1 | -1 )
i never started that lesson to bbelle.
since that time she's beaten me more then once:)
p.s. don't worry isobelle, we'll play some more:)
49 ( +1 | -1 )
Hi there, I am bbelle, and I am related to this discussion as I am the opponent mormel12 has deliberately lost games to in order to let me practice an aspect of the end game that otherwise I wouldn't get! : ) Yes, you should play your best game so that weaker players can learn from it, but, in certain cases, losing is the only way to let the weaker opponent put a skill into practice!! Mormel12 is not a bad loser, he has helped me improve my game at the expense of his own rating and I would like to thank him for that! : ))
18 ( +1 | -1 )
Thats what happens when you help people..., if you do it properly they improve!! : ) Don't worry, I've still a long way to go before those scores are even! : ) But I'm gaining.....! : )
61 ( +1 | -1 )
I love this thread
there is one guy at my chess club who is an average player, but is convinced he is a master, whenever he loses, he gets mad and just says, "I played it badly."
The ongoing sarcastic joke about him is... 'obviously none of his opponent's ever play well, since he never congratulates them on a victory, but rather he just blames himself for bad play.'
Often my loss is due to bad play, but other times I play my best, but my opponent plays better, my usual response after resigning is "well played".
And if my opponent is really a great player and totally outplays me, I will even thank them for the 'lesson.'
8 ( +1 | -1 )
i only save all my loss games for review. i don't care about victories.
22 ( +1 | -1 )
Saving only lost games
is a form of laziness; I always save all of my game and in the won games ask how my opponent could have played better, if the plan I chose was the best one, etc.
2 ( +1 | -1 )
I HAVE ONLY TWO WORDS ON THIS SUBJECT!