PDA

View Full Version : How to get someone to give up chess



qpawn
01-07-2006, 10:19 PM
To get someone to give up over the board chess do this:

1. Treat them like a leper who does not know the difference between a bishop and knight.
2. Tell other people what a "beginner" they are. Do not tell the person that.
3. Do both [1] and [2] even after you have played a few games with the person in which, at the very least, the "beginner" has shown some grasp of basic strategy such as the centre, pawn thrusts to get space etc. All this understanding that the player shows must be ignored; instead, impose your definition of a "beginner" upon them by concluding that just becuase he or she can not bang out moves at a million miles an hour then you are dealing with a patzer.

***************

That's why I have had it with over the board chess. All of the above 3 points have been chucked in my face at Elwood CC. Nobody on this BB has done anything - it is just one or two individuals at the club.

I will playing chess in cyberspace and by correspondence. A zone free of contempt and belittlement is all I seek. Somewhere to climb the chess mountain without someone making it all harder.

Mischa
01-07-2006, 10:21 PM
At Elwood?...explain!

Basil
01-07-2006, 10:26 PM
All of the above 3 points have been chucked in my face at Elwood CC.
Very sorry to hear that.

May I suggest you avail yourself of a pocket Howard. On a serious note, did you raise this with the club officials?

Mischa
01-07-2006, 10:27 PM
I find this hard to believe

WhiteElephant
01-07-2006, 10:34 PM
qpawn, you have so far mentioned 3 chess clubs (Frankston, Bayside and Elwood) where you have had problems and I think you said the same thing about bridge clubs. Could it just be a coincidence that you have been to the unfriendliest bridge and chess clubs in Melbourne or could there be another common element?

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2006, 10:36 PM
qpawn, you have so far mentioned 3 chess clubs (Frankston, Bayside and Elwood) where you have had problems and I think you said the same thing about bridge clubs. Could it just be a coincidence that you have been to the unfriendliest bridge and chess clubs in Melbourne or could there be another common element?Dont be silly, it is obvious that no other explanation is possible. ;)

Rincewind
02-07-2006, 12:18 AM
I will playing chess in cyberspace and by correspondence. A zone free of contempt and belittlement is all I seek. Somewhere to climb the chess mountain without someone making it all harder.

Sorry to read of your decision and I wish you all the best in your quest for chess mastery in cyberspace. I played a lot of correspondence chess in the late 80's and found it a good way to go. I was travelling a couple of hours to and from work on a train at that time and it certainly helped the journey to pass more swiftly. (Though I lost many travel sets on the train due to my absent mindedness and habit of occasionally falling asleep.) Almost without exception, I found my correspondence opponents were amicable and true sports, who treated me with respect, win, lose or draw.

The online environment I'm less sure of. I usually play with friends or only in tournaments and rarely have any problems. However some friends of mine play more random opponents, just seeking one-off games, and they have occasionally received gloating tells from their opponents. If you are greatly concerned by this sort of thing I would avoid such games.

However, my experience is that while correspondence and online play are good alternatives, over the board chess is really what this game is all about. Two opponents across a table moving pieces according to mutually understood rules with the aim of bringing about a certain condition on the board: the checkmate of the opponent king. I believe it just doesn't get any better than OTB play. I hope you have not given it up for good.

four four two
02-07-2006, 12:29 AM
The Rolling Stones have advice on this question....:lol: ;) .....

Going to a go go, everybody
Going to a go go, c'mon now

Well there's a brand new place I found
People coming from miles around
They come from everywhere
If you drop in there
You see everyone in town

Going to a go go, everybody
Going to a go go, c'mon now
Don't you wanna go
And that's alright tell me

Going to a go go, everybody
Going to a go go

It doesn't matter if you're black
It doesn't matter if you're white
Take a dollar fifty
A six pack of beer
And we goin' dance all night....

qpawn
02-07-2006, 01:22 PM
I add that the person at Elwood who called me a beginner is a player over 1900 rated who should know better.

If I had to come up with a definition of a "beginner" other than someone who had only learnt the moves, I would find it a very difficult task.

At least in cyberspace I can have an incremental process of improvement; I see every 50 rating points as another spot to get to on the mountain. I took a long time to get past 1650 to 1700 on the net. Now I am at 1700 to 1750 so the next point will be 1750 to 1800 etc. It is my honest belief that 1700 to 1750 is my real ELO strength at playing any chess, including OTB, with the exception of blitz that I cannot play. I have seen a lot of chess and played through a lot of games. Hence I have a very accurate idea about where someone's "strength" at chess can be marked down. I am no expert and definitely nowhere near 2000 ELO but I will get there at some point. I really need to work on the endgame. Hence I am going over the 120 games approx that I have played on playchess and reading books by Fine and Nunn. I add that I go out of my way to play strong players who are 1900 plus; any rating I get will never be got by playing someone 1500 countless times.

I like correspondence chess because anything that I have learnt or read at any time becomes relevant. I am patient enough to spend whatever analysis is needed. In some ways correspondence chess is the most challenging type of chess ; you will seldom win by your opponents' blunders and genuine understanding of a position is all that will suffice.

Elwood is not a bad chess club. My positional way of playing chess just goes over the heads of "bang bang mate in 4" merchants.

Jesse Jager
02-07-2006, 03:30 PM
I have found that elwood is the "warmest" of clubs

Bill Gletsos
02-07-2006, 04:11 PM
Elwood is not a bad chess club. My positional way of playing chess just goes over the heads of "bang bang mate in 4" merchants.However if they are winning and you are not then it may well be their tactical prowess is going way over your head.

Ian Rout
02-07-2006, 09:23 PM
Stories of disrespectful, unsavoury and downright psychotic behaviour in on-line chess are plentiful. If you enjoy playing on-line then that's fine, if you expect to meet a better class of person than in OTB chess then it's probably the one place you wouldn't.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2006, 09:36 PM
At least in cyberspace I can have an incremental process of improvement; I see every 50 rating points as another spot to get to on the mountain. I took a long time to get past 1650 to 1700 on the net. Now I am at 1700 to 1750 so the next point will be 1750 to 1800 etc. It is my honest belief that 1700 to 1750 is my real ELO strength at playing any chess, including OTB, with the exception of blitz that I cannot play.

It's extremely unlikely that your online rating accurately measures your real strength since online ratings tend to be inflated compared to OTB as noted in another thread.

It's possible that players perform best in the environment they're most familiar with and your poorer performances OTB may be partly caused by less experience playing OTB under tournament conditions.

Tournament chess has quite a few characters who believe they understand chess very well but do not demonstrate it in their results. This is possibly because psychology is an important part of OTB chess success.

Garvinator
02-07-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally Posted by qpawn
At least in cyberspace I can have an incremental process of improvement; I see every 50 rating points as another spot to get to on the mountain. I took a long time to get past 1650 to 1700 on the net. Now I am at 1700 to 1750 so the next point will be 1750 to 1800 etc. It is my honest belief that 1700 to 1750 is my real ELO strength at playing any chess, including OTB, with the exception of blitz that I cannot play.
qpawn, do you play in internet tournaments at all?

Mischa
02-07-2006, 09:41 PM
Elwood is a pretty casual club with absolutely no pressure except that brought by the player.
I have witnessed qpawn play and communicate there...if it is as he says and it was one player rated over 1900.....he must mean only one person.......... whom I have not seen him play

WhiteElephant
03-07-2006, 12:17 AM
I don't see what is the big deal about being called a beginner if you are actually a beginner (that is, if yout haven't played much OTB chess). If it happened to me, it would probably inspire me to play more and improve.

MichaelBaron
03-07-2006, 12:19 AM
That's why I have had it with over the board chess. All of the above 3 points have been chucked in my face at Elwood CC. Nobody on this BB has done anything - it is just one or two individuals at the club.

I will playing chess in cyberspace and by correspondence. A zone free of contempt and belittlement is all I seek. Somewhere to climb the chess mountain without someone making it all harder.

1) Chess is an addiction - it is really hard to give up. I will be giving up time after time...then making a comeback
2)Given that the last time i went to Elwood they had 7 players or so present..i can easility guess which particular person you have in mind. Do not worry about him...Elwood has a lot of friendly faces that i can think of (Goldenberg, Emodi, James Morris and Phillip Drew) Play with them instead :)
3) There are always other chess clubs to try...coming saturday there is an allegro tournament at MCC (2 pm)

Duff McKagan
03-07-2006, 01:48 AM
It's extremely unlikely that your online rating accurately measures your real strength since online ratings tend to be inflated compared to OTB as noted in another thread.

ICC blitz - 400 = ACF
FICS blitz = ACF

Alan Shore
03-07-2006, 01:53 AM
ICC blitz - 400 = ACF
FICS blitz = ACF

I second that assessment.

(except Comrade appears to be quite underrated on FICS right now!)

qpawn
03-07-2006, 01:12 PM
It is good to have to understand the position .

I don't think that there is a better test of evaluative abilities than CC.

qpawn
03-07-2006, 01:30 PM
I played Yuri three times. He should have known better than to have called me a beginner that time when I was playing Dennis. If Yuri went through the score of that game it was definitely not a game between beginners. Sure, it had errors. But it also showed some reasonable positional and tactical acumen from both of us.

I don't play at a million miles an hour. I haven't been coached for weeks on end by a procrustean Russian ex-boxer covered in tatoos. I make mistakes when I get nervous. But all that being said I do know what I am doing some of the time.

I get nowhere near as nervous on the net. Hence I play quite a bit better there. Do I play in net tournaments? I don't tend to play in them on playchess. But I have played in them on ICC. I did ok in them though it hard to gauge ratings there because they are USCF ratings witha customised rating system. But I played in one of those 15 min each elimination events once and beat some good players [ plattner, chess rh ] to get to the final. I lost the final to someone who played in heaps of chess leagues who was about 2050 . On playchess I have drawn I have drawn all my games in the simuls given by titled players such as xhrg [ dennis wang].

I see little point in continuing chess OTB if I play so much better on the net.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-07-2006, 02:04 PM
Hic Rhodus, hic salta (Here is Rhodos, here is to jump).

Dozy
03-07-2006, 02:19 PM
. . .coached for weeks on end by a procrustean Russian ex-boxer Well, QP, you've certainly got a way with words. Without this thread I could have gone through life thinking a procrustean Russian was a Muscovite who put off till tomorrow whatever he couldn't get somebody else to do today.

Or perhaps somebody who puts off boasting until they have something to boast about?

Instead I find he's a Russki of brobdingnagian aspect.

WhiteElephant
03-07-2006, 02:27 PM
I get nowhere near as nervous on the net. Hence I play quite a bit better there. Do I play in net tournaments? I don't tend to play in them on playchess. But I have played in them on ICC. I did ok in them though it hard to gauge ratings there because they are USCF ratings witha customised rating system. But I played in one of those 15 min each elimination events once and beat some good players [ plattner, chess rh ] to get to the final. I lost the final to someone who played in heaps of chess leagues who was about 2050 . On playchess I have drawn I have drawn all my games in the simuls given by titled players such as xhrg [ dennis wang].

I think the tension and nerves is what makes OTB chess so exciting. Particullarly seeing your opponent cowering in fright when you play a devastating movve :)


I see little point in continuing chess OTB if I play so much better on the net.

To challenge yourself?

Duff McKagan
03-07-2006, 02:56 PM
I second that assessment.

(except Comrade appears to be quite underrated on FICS right now!)

Nah mate, just stressed with stuff at work, been sick a lot and playing shit chess.

Duff McKagan
03-07-2006, 02:57 PM
It is good to have to understand the position .

I don't think that there is a better test of evaluative abilities than CC.

To save the hassle just play against Fritz.

Duff McKagan
03-07-2006, 02:58 PM
I played Yuri three times. He should have known better than to have called me a beginner that time when I was playing Dennis. If Yuri went through the score of that game it was definitely not a game between beginners.

Depends what standard you set. For me, anyone who's not at least an IM is a rabbitoh.

bergil
03-07-2006, 04:01 PM
qpawn are you an adult? :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
03-07-2006, 04:33 PM
qpawn are you an adult? :hmm:He previously stated on here that he is 30.

bergil
03-07-2006, 05:46 PM
He previously stated on here that he is 30.
Then why would he carrying on like an over sensitive tart with delusions of grandeur bitching about his so called chess abilities? :wall:

I have no or very little ability in chess myself but don't moan like a professional successfully plying her trade! It sounds like the guy at Elwood did us all a favour. :owned:

WhiteElephant
03-07-2006, 06:03 PM
Then why would he carrying on like an over sensitive tart with delusions of grandeur bitching about his so called chess abilities? :wall:

Haha bergil, you have a way with words :)

Mischa
03-07-2006, 10:11 PM
Yuri is rated over 1900?
really???
first I heard of this
Yuri is just Russian Andrew...show some tolerance.
Are you really sure you are better than all of them?
If you are then well and good ...if you are not then maybe listening would do you some good

Watto
04-07-2006, 10:11 AM
Hi qpawn, I’ve had a look at your graph and you’ve only had two ratings. As a starting rating 1271 is good, don’t be so hard on yourself, be patient. From what I’ve observed, a lot of people start off with ratings below 1000 and then zoom up after lots of playing experience or stay on a rating for a few years, even go back a step or two, and then suddenly move up a notch. Some start out higher but they’ve usually had lots of playing experience. Everyone has their own journey to make. I've found OTB chess nervewracking too (I find it better after a year of playing) and early on I might even have stopped if I’d been entering tournaments on my own and hadn’t been given encouragement… mainly because I have never experienced so much failure in my entire life- not an easy thing for a proud person to deal with!
I also think it’s really important to not get affected by other people, their comments, their behaviour. Paranoia can drive you mad (I know… give me some caffeine and I can tell you all about it… ;)) and it’s a total waste of mental and emotional energy. Not to mention that most of the time you get it wrong.
People in chess have been great to me but even so I’ve had the occasional intentional or unintentional put down … I’m sure we all have… it’s just part of a competitive environment. It’s the chess that matters; you can’t afford to dwell on every unthinking comment that is made to you. I had a spectator tell me ‘you’re getting worse!’ after I’d blundered a rook in a strong position against a much stronger opponent recently. Didn’t help me with the next game (I allowed myself to get upset and almost perversely played the opening badly) but the fact is he was only joking (trying to be matey I think) and even if he wasn’t, it was up to me to deal with it by ignoring it.

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that I’d suggest you persevere and concentrate on the chess and enjoy it. Don't get sidetracked by all the personal stuff. Otherwise, best of luck with the correspondence and the online chess.

Southpaw Jim
04-07-2006, 11:53 AM
Watto echoes my thoughts - Yuri (?) may not realise he's being offensive and may not mean anything by it.

If he's bothering you, tell him so. Ask him in a loud but polite voice to leave you alone (i.e. embarrass him a bit). If he keeps bothering you and doesn't get it, then have a word to one of the club officials.

I had one guy make me mad in a similar way a few months back, but I realised that I could improve my chess but he was stuck with his looks :lol: fortunately that's the only time I've seen him there. FWIW, I don't think he realised he was being rude anyway.

qpawn, I wouldn't let one person (whether he's doing it intentionally or inadvertently) stop you from playing at the club. He's only 1 guy.

qpawn
05-07-2006, 07:05 PM
I am getting far more out of correspondence chess than anything over the board. Some positions defy exact analysis and that's where the real fun starts! :D I have one game at the moment that is a real mess. Even a week of going through it hasn't come up with a certain answer so I have to play what I "think" is best.

I have a joke that online chess is a bit like gambling.

Online player a: had a bad night last night.
online player b: wha happened?
online player c: blew 50 rating points. Gotta find some gullible person to get them back from real quick.

:lol:

qpawn
05-07-2006, 07:15 PM
Miscah:

Yuri is rated over 1900?
really???
first I heard of this
Yuri is just Russian Andrew...show some tolerance.
Are you really sure you are better than all of them?
If you are then well and good ...if you are not then maybe listening would do you some good

*********

If you read my posts a bit more carefully you will see that I was very circumspect about whatever ches s abilities I have or don't have. I even said that there are areas I could get better in like endgames. If evereything that I know about chess is put into a box and used to play chess then it comes to 1700 to 1750 ELO . No more and no less. I do the things, good and bad, that are about 1700 level. Sometimes I can play very well with good tactics but at other times I let my opponenet off the hook, drift into planlessness etc. Clearly when someone is getting an otb rating about 1200 there is some impediment to their abilities being actualised: nerves, playing somewhere new etc. I even had one game where I lost points because the clock was set without the stipulated increment.

Correspondence chess will, I am sure, produce a better correspondence between what my strength is and its rated output .

Basil
05-07-2006, 07:25 PM
:eek:

qpawn
05-07-2006, 07:41 PM
the fact that I am prepared to take a week at a move in correspondence chess?

Or did seventeen Mexican dancing girls suddenly flutter across your PC screen? In which case I suggest that either [a] you have a computer virus or [b] that you are reading sexual innuendo into my posts that just isn't there :D

Igor_Goldenberg
06-07-2006, 09:46 AM
If evereything that I know about chess is put into a box and used to play chess then it comes to 1700 to 1750 ELO . No more and no less. I do the things, good and bad, that are about 1700 level. Sometimes I can play very well with good tactics but at other times I let my opponenet off the hook, drift into planlessness etc.

If everything you know about chess comes to 1700-1750 ELO, you'd be scoring at that level. When you have a consistent performance at that level, I'll beleive you.

As I said in my earlier post, "Hic Rhodus, hic salta"

qpawn
06-07-2006, 12:19 PM
You are free to play a friendly game against me in correspondence and you will swallow that last bit of nonsense.

Igor, if you have ever studied basic computer science you will know that when computers are tested there is a "start up error". For instance when comparing the operating power of two systems it may not become clear which one is better at handling information until a certain period of time has passed. I have no doubt that my chess rating is the same: adjusting to Elwood, Vic open etc were sound reasons to have the onset of one's real abilites delayed.

But you can believe what you like. And nyou can throw in a misunderstanding of the ratings sytem to boot. I know what I can and cannot do based upon a large number of internet games [ about 200].

Bill Gletsos
06-07-2006, 12:33 PM
Correspondence chess will, I am sure, produce a better correspondence between what my strength is and its rated output .No, all your correspondence rating will show is how good you are at correspondence chess. It will have no meaning with regards how you perform OTB.

Kevin Bonham
06-07-2006, 02:16 PM
I have no doubt that my chess rating is the same: adjusting to Elwood, Vic open etc were sound reasons to have the onset of one's real abilites delayed.

In that case if you play more OTB your rating will go up. Any new rating is based on a small sample size; you just cannot expect a rating based on so few games to be perfectly accurate.

If your comments here are any indication, you're one of the most rating-obsessed players I've ever encountered online or off. The only one I've met offline who gives you a run for your money is a certain leading Tassie player of about 15 years ago. The guy used to show up to events just before they started, scan the list of entries, and then carry out some complex calculations about what would likely happen to his rating in the event. If he didn't like what he saw, he would decline to enter, or, if he had already entered, withdraw.

WhiteElephant
06-07-2006, 03:43 PM
You are free to play a friendly game against me in correspondence and you will swallow that last bit of nonsense.


My God, this qpawn guy is unbelievable. In the other thread, he tells us that he knows more about chess (with a rating of 1100-and-something) than FIDE Masters Bill Jordan and Igor Goldenberg. Then, when various posters (some of them strong club players and upward) give him some friendly advice, he shoots his mouth off in an aggressive and condescending manner. Now he is doing it again here, with the above quoted response to Igor.

Looks like it's quickly becoming qpawn Vs the entire chess community. But maybe that is the way he wants it? So he can turn around and play the victim, and blame everybody else for his lack of improvement at chess.

qpawn
06-07-2006, 08:24 PM
Your comments are just absurd and deserve no further response from me.

Kevin Bonham is to be congratulated for making some intelligent contributions to this thread. Yes. Maybe I am more concerned with ratings than what I should be. But the irony of that is tha in a way I don't care about ratings; I can see past a 1200 OTB rating and see that I have more abilty .

ElevatorEscapee
06-07-2006, 08:45 PM
....As I said in my earlier post, "Hic Rhodus, hic salta"

Breathing in and out of a paper bag can help you get rid of those hiccups Igor. :)

Dozy
07-07-2006, 03:49 PM
I've found the solution! This was from the personal info supplied by a 17 y-o boy on chessgames.com:


My rating is between 1200 and 1800, and when I have a big cup of coffee I can take on a 1850.

This is the secret we've all been looking for. If you want to improve your chess rating you just have to drink more coffee.


This post has been sponsored by Nescafe who guarantee forty-three beans in every cup,
and remember -- Mother's Choice Flour in every home.

MichaelBaron
07-07-2006, 04:39 PM
You are free to play a friendly game against me in correspondence and you will swallow that last bit of nonsense.

Igor, if you have ever studied basic computer science you will know that when computers are tested there is a "start up error". For instance when comparing the operating power of two systems it may not become clear which one is better at handling information until a certain period of time has passed. I have no doubt that my chess rating is the same: adjusting to Elwood, Vic open etc were sound reasons to have the onset of one's real abilites delayed.

But you can believe what you like. And nyou can throw in a misunderstanding of the ratings sytem to boot. I know what I can and cannot do based upon a large number of internet games [ about 200].


The very reason that we have a rating system is to be ableto evaluate one's playing level.

All the talk about players being rated 1200 when their "real level" is 1700 is ridiqulous....I too can say that on a good day I play like an IM...but unless i manage to get my rating up to the IMs level, score the required IM norms and get the title, any talk of me being an IM is laughable.

I have heard millions of excuses why one is not performing up to his "potential": nerves, underrated oposition etc. There is a huge gap between 1200 and 1700. 500 rating points worth of excuses...is alot :lol:

P.S. I am by no means trying to discourage you from working on your game and fulfilling your potential to the full. I sincerely hope that your devotion to chess will pay off and you will fulfill all your ambissions. Message me if you have any question related to studying chess and improving tournament performances, I will do my best to help.