- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16951
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by EladarEspecially for an American as they don;t have ties 😉
I'd say the problem is the difference between the average person and people who play in tournaments.
To the average person you play to win. A loss or a tie mean the same thing. You did not win. If you play for a tie you play to lose.
Although I do believe the OP is from the UK, haven't checked yet.
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by Eladaryup, thats exactly my line of thinking. i grew up playing baseball as a kid/teen and if it was the last inning, down by 2, we weren't thinking lets get 2 runs to tie, we were thinking lets get 3 to win. but i understand the chess tournament line of thinking. obviously in that scoring system and draw means something. in normal games, yeah i guess a draw makes you lose less overall points then losing outright, so if you really care about that score then i can see a draw as being something worth playing for.
I'd say the problem is the difference between the average person and people who play in tournaments.
To the average person you play to win. A loss or a tie mean the same thing. You did not win. If you play for a tie you play to lose.
anyways i'd like to thank those of you who added to this convo and/or gave advice without jumping on me like a lion on a fresh kill. for you, i just offered a draw to my opponent...but i still don't like it hahaha.
also, to an outsider of the chess culture/RHP forum culture, you guys do seem pretty hardcore, whether you realize it, or want to admit it. i didn't think my initial question would raise such a backlash, though i do lurk on metal forums from time to time, so i guess it was to be expected.
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by Trev33did you just call me american? i'll take being called a Brit any day of the week though, especially since Canadians are tied to the UK.
Especially for an American as they don;t have ties 😉
Although I do believe the OP is from the UK, haven't checked yet.
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by greenpawn34
Flaw in your tactical play mate. There is a wee trick you are missing.
As pointed out, earlier in this game here
[fen] 8/R3bkp1/5pqp/1p2p3/2p1Q3/P5P1/1P3P2/6K1 [/fen]
You had a choice of three good moves. (all with a check...Check ALL Checks).
White played 31.Qb7?
31.Rxe7+ leaves White a whole Queen up.
31.Qxg6+ and after Rxe7 White is a Rook ...[text shortened]... d]
i can't believe i missed ALL those...maybe i should just delete my account hahaha wow...
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by fatherdeathI did you more good than any of the 'polite' responses. This is what happens when you combine ignorance with arrogance - you end up looking the fool.
yup, thats exactly my line of thinking. i grew up playing baseball as a kid/teen and if it was the last inning, down by 2, we weren't thinking lets get 2 runs to tie, we were thinking lets get 3 to win. but i understand the chess tournament line of thinking. obviously in that scoring system and draw means something. in normal games, yeah i guess a draw m ...[text shortened]... backlash, though i do lurk on metal forums from time to time, so i guess it was to be expected.
Oh, and you're still in one piece, BTW. You're welcome.
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by fatherdeathEspecially in Corr. Chess.
why not resign if you won't try to win? you spend the entire game trying to win, then the second you have 1 less piece then your opponent you go for a draw?? thats more cowardly then anything else to me.
Maybe in blitz keep going.
When people don't resign just wait till the last possible minute to make each move in Corr. Chess.
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Originally posted by fatherdeathI hate to break it to ya, but you just offered a draw in a winning position. It was only a draw if your opponent kept putting you in check, as there is no way to escape those checks.
i just offered a draw to my opponent...but i still don't like it hahaha.
Your opponent played Kh5, you were in the clear, you were winning now. The move you played (Rd7) was an excellent move as it prevented your opponent from the perpetual check idea.
Here's how the game might have finished
18 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by fatherdeathChess players love to kibitz; it's part of the chess-playing mind-set to analyze other's games and comment on them. No offense intended.
anyways i'd like to thank those of you who added to this convo and/or gave advice without jumping on me like a lion on a fresh kill.
to an outsider of the chess culture/RHP forum culture, you guys do seem pretty hardcore, whether you realize it, or want to admit it. i didn't think my initial question would raise such a backlash.
Edit: some contributors to these forums drift towards polemic sometimes. You find out who they are when you read three or four threads. Some of them are fairly strong players, so take their advice, if you find it sound, and disregard their cant.
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by KnightStalker47And that's why games in progress should not be commented on.
I hate to break it to ya, but you just offered a draw in a winning position. It was only a draw if your opponent kept putting you in check, as there is no way to escape those checks.
Your opponent played Kh5, you were in the clear, you were winning now. The move you played (Rd7) was an excellent move as it prevented your opponent from the perpetu ...[text shortened]... or Qe3 is met with Rg1 winning the queen and Kh2 with Rd2} 7. Rg1 Qh3 8. Qh6 {Checkmate} [/pgn]