18 Jan 06
Why do some people seem to not want to learn anything about this game? Sometimes I review games of really, really low rated players and I see them doing the same stupid things over and over again. Most of them are just ignoring good form - failing to develop toward the center, always leading with the queen's pawn as opposed to the king's and for no good reason, exchanging pieces for no reason at all or entering exchanges that compromise their pawn structure.
I wonder this not just about chess but about life in general.
Some people just don't seem to place any priority on learning. Is it that they don't care, that they enjoy losing, or that they don't realize that simple good habits can improve one's game? Normally I don't worry about it because I accept that people in general are just stupid, but it surprises me that someone would play hundreds of chess games without making any effort to correct prior mistakes.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by acedwardsI sometimes wonder about that myself. Then I figured it out. They're here more to spend time jibber jabbing in the general/spirituality/and debates forums!
Why do some people seem to not want to learn anything about this game? Sometimes I review games of really, really low rated players and I see them doing the same stupid things over and over again. Most of them are just ignoring good form - failing to develop toward the center, always leading with the queen's pawn as opposed to the king's and for no good ...[text shortened]... e would play hundreds of chess games without making any effort to correct prior mistakes.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by acedwardsOne can't learn anything until one knows there is something to learn.
Why do some people seem to not want to learn anything about this game? Sometimes I review games of really, really low rated players and I see them doing the same stupid things over and over again. Most of them are just ignoring good form - failing to develop toward the center, always leading with the queen's pawn as opposed to the king's and for no good ...[text shortened]... e would play hundreds of chess games without making any effort to correct prior mistakes.
I used to play chess without a clue, until I read my first chess book. Before that, I didn't know I was as bad as I was. It just takes time.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by acedwardsYes but this could all be relative couldn't it, maybe a 2000 player looks at your game and thinks the same thing? and of course a 2200 player also looks at my game and shakes his head in disbelief at how (comparatively) stupid I am
Why do some people seem to not want to learn anything about this game? Sometimes I review games of really, really low rated players and I see them doing the same stupid things over and over again. Most of them are just ignoring good form - failing to develop toward the center, always leading with the queen's pawn as opposed to the king's and for no good ...[text shortened]... e would play hundreds of chess games without making any effort to correct prior mistakes.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by stevetoddI realize that I'm a much better player when I compare myself to lower rated players. For some reason, comparing myself to higher rated players doesn't give the correct picture of my strength.
Yes but this could all be relative couldn't it, maybe a 2000 player looks at your game and thinks the same thing? and of course a 2200 player also looks at my game and shakes his head in disbelief at how (comparatively) stupid I am
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by stevetodda friend of mine played otb against an old drunken, incomprehensibly muttering strong carcass-eater. he couldn't even understand what It spoke, but played on nevertheless. my friend is a solid player, around 1700 FICS, and took his time thinking about his moves thoroughly. the carcass-eater moved instantly. grunting, shaking his head, airing disappointment in the form of deep sighs of disbelief every time my friend made his move. replied instantly, and of course crushed him with ease.
Yes but this could all be relative couldn't it, maybe a 2000 player looks at your game and thinks the same thing? and of course a 2200 player also looks at my game and shakes his head in disbelief at how (comparatively) stupid I am
if we could see the things those stronger players are shaking their heads for, we'd be as strong. but we can't.
18 Jan 06
In my experience, many new players think about checkmate and little else. Things like pawn structure and control of the center are trivial in their mind, and to some extent that attitude is probably accurate at the lower levels. Having doubled pawns is hardly going to be the decisive factor in a game between players rated 1100. At their level, an early Qh5 can start a devastating attack. If they have a couple of games where it works, they are likely to keep trying it. Chess is so complex that it is often difficult, especially for beginners, to identify the cause(s) of a defeat.
I do take one issue with your original statment - I don't think that opening with the queen pawn should be grouped in with the other problems that you mention.
Scott
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by acedwardsEasy. Learning takes time and effort. Chess offers few rewards other than the sheer enjoyment of the game, and that can be had by beating players of your own strength (weakness?!). Ignorance is bliss.
Why do some people seem to not want to learn anything about this game? Sometimes I review games of really, really low rated players and I see them doing the same stupid things over and over again. Most of them are just ignoring good form - failing to develop toward the center, always leading with the queen's pawn as opposed to the king's and for no good ...[text shortened]... e would play hundreds of chess games without making any effort to correct prior mistakes.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by acedwardsIf people enjoy chess as it is then I think just let them play if they want to learn then let them learn. Some people may play chess just for fun I know I do I don't really want to read books on chess, or review games as I would rather read about something else or just play instead of reveiw. When I lose a game I accept that the player was better then me or I made a mistake.
Why do some people seem to not want to learn anything about this game? Sometimes I review games of really, really low rated players and I see them doing the same stupid things over and over again. Most of them are just ignoring good form - failing to develop toward the center, always leading with the queen's pawn as opposed to the king's and for no good ...[text shortened]... e would play hundreds of chess games without making any effort to correct prior mistakes.
If you told me you could make me a 2000 rated player but drain all the fun out of chess I would say no thanks (after checking what kind of prize you could start to win with that rating)
In a way it is like trials (what i am doing in my display pic) I would rather ride a hard section and gain a few points then clear an easy one there is fun in the challenge and knowing that next time you ride it you might do better, but no problem if I fall off on the log again.
18 Jan 06
2 edits
This is a good answer - I'll take this one.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Easy. Learning takes time and effort. Chess offers few rewards other than the sheer enjoyment of the game, and that can be had by beating players of your own strength (weakness?!). Ignorance is bliss.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by smrex13Definitely advancing the queen's pawn is a valid opening - I was referring to opening with it without knowing why, and then suffering from the development problems they create for themselves in doing so. Sometimes I see players who struggle to get their bishop and queen into play immediately after opening thusly, and I just wonder why it doesn't occur to them that the queen's pawn may not have been the best choice after doing the same thing three hundred times in a row.
In my experience, many new players think about checkmate and little else. Things like pawn structure and control of the center are trivial in their mind, and to some extent that attitude is probably accurate at the lower levels. Having doubled pawns is hardly going to be the decisive factor in a game between players rated 1100. At their level, an early Qh ...[text shortened]... ing with the queen pawn should be grouped in with the other problems that you mention.
Scott
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by stevetoddI have no doubt that the majority of players on this site could be astounded by my own mistakes and bad technique - I'm just talking more about lacking any desire to move from one set of stupid mistakes to a slightly less stupid set.
Yes but this could all be relative couldn't it, maybe a 2000 player looks at your game and thinks the same thing? and of course a 2200 player also looks at my game and shakes his head in disbelief at how (comparatively) stupid I am
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by acedwardsYou would think after playing the same dumb moves over and over
This is a good answer - I'll take this one.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
[b]Easy. Learning takes time and effort. Chess offers few rewards other than the sheer enjoyment of the game, and that can be had by beating players of your own strength (weakness?!). Ignorance is bliss.
[/b]
against the same strength player would begin to show how bad they
are eventually but you see them playing almost the same game
forever, opening with a4 or h4 and knights out to a3 or h3.
You would think they would realize they could get much better results
just playing to the center but no. They just like to have fun with
their old style of play and thats that. Learning is a dirty word.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by acedwardsLooking at this game, I find it hard to see how you can make such criticisms...
I have no doubt that the majority of players on this site could be astounded by my own mistakes and bad technique - I'm just talking more about lacking any desire to move from one set of stupid mistakes to a slightly less stupid set.
Game 1697270