Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member Jie
    04 Sep '08 12:45
    My opponent who will remain nameless sent me a p.m titled Perfect Record saying :-

    I'm amazed how you brag about your perfect record of successes in chess. Sure, it looks very credible but one can only imagine how you were able to do this all by yourself without suspicions. I like playing those kind of opponents. It makes me want to give them a lesson in patience and integrity.

    Hehe what a joke, after donating free of charge 2 minor pieces and Queen to stave off mate? What cheek?

    - RHP is not a swiss system, where after winning the first few games you are paired against strong players and your rating comes crashing down. You meet lots of p1200s who after beating, you still lose points.
    - If I would have met 1700s -2100 in my first 20 games I would have lost a few.
    - I play on other sites mostly fast games and lose plenty of games especially when tired. I had a nice friendly win over a strong player on PlayChess yesterday at 16 mins each but the player was probably tired.
    - I regularly sharpen my claws on Chess Tactics :- as a guest I can solve most of the problems. Chess Tactics is bad training for OTB because they are mostly one-movers to win something.
  2. Standard member Jie
    04 Sep '08 13:05
    My opponent has just resigned Game 5373429. I would say he looks 1200-1400 on the strength of that performance.

  3. 04 Sep '08 13:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Jie
    My opponent who will remain nameless sent me a p.m titled Perfect Record saying :-

    I'm amazed how you brag about your perfect record of successes in chess. Sure, it looks very credible but one can only imagine how you were able to do this all by yourself without suspicions. I like playing those kind of opponents. It makes me want to give them a less ems. Chess Tactics is bad training for OTB because they are mostly one-movers to win something.
    For the life of me, I can't understand why you decided to take this issue to the forums - Unless you really do like bragging about your perfect record.

    What do you care what someone said in a PM? If you want to respond to him or put him on your ignore list, then fine, but why start a thread about it? Sounds like much ado about nothing to me.
  4. Standard member Jie
    04 Sep '08 13:28
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    For the life of me, I can't understand why you decided to take this issue to the forums - Unless you really do like bragging about your perfect record.

    What do you care what someone said in a PM? If you want to respond to him or put him on your ignore list, then fine, but why start a thread about it? Sounds like much ado about nothing to me.
    So let me get this right. You want me to keep quiet when my opponent after donating pieces for free and then instead of resigning sacs the Queen on g2 and then sends me a funny p.m.? Isn't this hilarious?

    What did you want me do to? Start donating pieces back? Or send a rude p.m. in reply?
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Sep '08 13:35 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Jie
    So let me get this right. You want me to keep quiet when my opponent after donating pieces for free and then instead of resigning sacs the Queen on g2 and then sends me a funny p.m.? Isn't this hilarious?

    What did you want me do to? Start donating pieces back? Or send a rude p.m. in reply?
    Actually, I think what MR wanted was for you to do whatever you want regarding your game and your opponent but not to take it to the forums. I think we'd all agree though that your opponent's PM was silly and uncalled for (aside from his using poor grammar).
  6. Standard member Jie
    04 Sep '08 13:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    Actually, I think what MR wanted was for you to do whatever you want regarding your game and your opponent but not to take it to the forums. I think we'd all agree though that your opponent's PM was silly and uncalled for (aside from his using poor grammar).
    I would consider it more relevant than your post asking whether your position is a win. MR and yourself are still provisional players so you need to do a lot more playing and less posting.
  7. 04 Sep '08 13:50
    Originally posted by Jie
    I would consider it more relevant than your post asking whether your position is a win. MR and yourself are still provisional players so you need to do a lot more playing and less posting.
    There's no quota system here stating that one must play x games for every y posts.
  8. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    04 Sep '08 13:58
    Originally posted by Jie
    I would consider it more relevant than your post asking whether your position is a win. MR and yourself are still provisional players so you need to do a lot more playing and less posting.
    pot, meet kettle.



    I'm amazed that you're still here.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Sep '08 13:59
    Originally posted by Jie
    I would consider it more relevant than your post asking whether your position is a win. MR and yourself are still provisional players so you need to do a lot more playing and less posting.
    Wow.

    I have to say, I think that reply is a little rude.

    I thought I was basically defending you with with my post by blasting your opponent's message, and that's how you respond? I hate to think about what you would have said had I not taken your side...

    Anyway, to respond to your points:

    1) My thread was about chess; your thread was about a PM from another person. Enough said.

    2) I'll do as much posting as I please, thank you. I'm on RHP as much for the forum as for the playing. Chess is a hobby... something I do for fun. Discussing chess and positions and games is fun for me. I'm not here solely as a means to an end of becoming a better player; although that's part of it.

    Thanks for the suggestion, though.
  10. 04 Sep '08 14:06
    Originally posted by Jie
    I would consider it more relevant than your post asking whether your position is a win. MR and yourself are still provisional players so you need to do a lot more playing and less posting.
    MR and yourself are still provisional players so you need to do a lot more playing and less posting.

    I didn't want to respond but couldn't help it...

    1. This is your post in the thread 'What is OTB?' (Yes, This thread was started by me )
    Those of you who don't know what OTB is and are over 1500, are welcome to send me challenges. I'm looking for people to bash on the board with one of my eyes closed, and they would do nicely.

    2. Your post in this thread:
    MR and yourself are still provisional players so you need to do a lot more playing and less posting.

    Remember that each of us are one in a billion when it comes to the wide world of playing chess...

    And don't even think about replying rude to my message... Because your moves are only 591... If you still plan to post a reply, I would give you a taste of your own medicine:

    "You need to do a lot more playing and less posting."

    No offense
  11. 04 Sep '08 14:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Jie
    My opponent who will remain nameless sent me a p.m titled [b]Perfect Record saying :-

    I'm amazed how you brag about your perfect record of successes in chess. Sure, it looks very credible but one can only imagine how you were able to do this all by yourself without suspicions. I like playing those kind of opponents. It makes me want to give them a less ems. Chess Tactics is bad training for OTB because they are mostly one-movers to win something.
    I remember you PM'd me asking for a "quick game" because you were "sick of 1200's taking all your open invites".

    I also remember my reply:

    Won 19 & lost 0?
    I don't think you'd learn much from beating me!
    Besides, I am about to watch some tv.
    Regards,
    Steve
  12. 04 Sep '08 14:18
    I see it is played 21 won 21.
    Are you trying to outdo Elliot Ness... err I mean Weyerstrass?
  13. Standard member Jie
    04 Sep '08 14:57
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    I see it is played 21 won 21.
    Are you trying to outdo Elliot Ness... err I mean Weyerstrass?
    That's because all of my opponents are below 1700. It is possible to create open invites and select max rating as 1700, meaning I could easily bash most of my opponents and gain rating points. If I'm not mistaken on at least one other site, your rating selector includes your current rating. The current system means someone ranked say 2000 could select as max rating 1600 and comfortably take all his opponents to the cleaners. Provided he did not meet strong beginners or provisional players who are 2000+ in reality he could soon be on top of the rating list.
  14. Standard member gambit05
    Mad Murdock
    04 Sep '08 15:28
    Originally posted by Jie
    That's because all of my opponents are below 1700. It is possible to create open invites and select max rating as 1700, meaning I could easily bash most of my opponents and gain rating points. If I'm not mistaken on at least one other site, your rating selector includes your current rating. The current system means someone ranked say 2000 could select as max rat ...[text shortened]... rs or provisional players who are 2000+ in reality he could soon be on top of the rating list.
    That doesn't work.
    First, with a certain difference in rating you would not get any points for a win.
    Second, a rating difference of, say 400, means that you have a certain probability to win the game. There are tables somewhere on the net, but I am too lazy. So let's say 95%. That means that it is expected that on avarage every 20th game is a loss; and that costs a lot of points. Same for draws which will occur here and there.
  15. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    04 Sep '08 15:38
    Originally posted by wormwood
    pot, meet kettle.



    I'm amazed that you're still here.
    "ditto"