Only Chess
20 Jul 18
20 Jul 18
I'm curious as to what point you people get discouraged with losing, if going through that unpleasantness means you've been pushed in game?
Throughout I've been happy enough with scoring three out of ten points, assuming that I am learning from losing. But I do get down if I have a run of losses, not wanting to look at a board for a few days or so.
By definition the overall ratio is one point from two games, so there must be some guys that need to take seven (or more!) from ten to balance the ledger. Why?
Would you enjoy the game more or less if you won or lost more?
20 Jul 18
Originally posted by @wandermEveryone likes to win.
I'm curious as to what point you people get discouraged with losing, if going through that unpleasantness means you've been pushed in game?
Throughout I've been happy enough with scoring three out of ten points, assuming that I am learning from losing. But I do get down if I have a run of losses, not wanting to look at a board for a few days or so.
B ...[text shortened]... n to balance the ledger. Why?
Would you enjoy the game more or less if you won or lost more?
I don't mind losing if I am beaten by a better player and I don't mean a player with a superior rating but someone who has played better than me in the game.
The only time I get despondent is if I have made a really stupid mistake because I know that's just carelessness and I should be able to avoid that sort of play.
If my opponent makes a really good move I haven't seen then all credit to him
20 Jul 18
Originally posted by @vendaI agree 100%. If I lose because I've been outplayed then no big deal, but losing because I left a piece hanging or because I overlooked an obvious fork, skewer,or mate in 2 is what gets me down.
Everyone likes to win.
I don't mind losing if I am beaten by a better player and I don't mean a player with a superior rating but someone who has played better than me in the game.
The only time I get despondent is if I have made a really stupid mistake because I know that's just carelessness and I should be able to avoid that sort of play.
If my opponent makes a really good move I haven't seen then all credit to him
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
20 Jul 18
Originally posted by @mchillEven worse...blowing a clearly won position. Those losses sting the most.
I agree 100%. If I lose because I've been outplayed then no big deal, but losing because I left a piece hanging or because I overlooked an obvious fork, skewer,or mate in 2 is what gets me down.
22 Jul 18
Originally posted by @moonbusI had AQcc, we were five handed at Texas No Limit Hold'em, and someone had just been eliminated, it was a $1 buy-in 9 handed sit and go online, so there was no small blind. I had about a starting stack, I think the blinds were $30 - $60 and I had $1,500ish. I was under the gun and raised to $150. Hijack called as did button, the rest folded. The flop came something like Tc6c2h. So I flopped a flush draw and led for about 1/3 pot (maybe 1/2 I'm doing this from memory). Hijack folded and button called, leaving himself a pot sized bet. The turn was the marvellous K of clubs. That completed my flush, but it is a scare card twice over. I can easily have AK offsuit so I checked. My opponent went all in, obviously I called. He had Ah4h for nothing at all. I learned so much from that one hand. I was eliminated a couple of hands later as bubble boy going all in with 99 when someone woke up with aces.
"I learned more from the games I lost than from those I won." -- Capablanca.
So, start learning. Your goal in chess is to be defeated by stronger and stronger players.
Is this a fundamental difference between poker and chess, that you learn more from wins in poker and losses in chess?
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
22 Jul 18
Originally posted by @moonbusOne of my favorite chess quotes. Thanks Moon.
"I learned more from the games I lost than from those I won." -- Capablanca.
So, start learning. Your goal in chess is to be defeated by stronger and stronger players.
I haven't played Texas Hold'em in so long...
...which suit is trump?
😕
22 Jul 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughtYes, there are some fundamental differences between poker and chess. One is that there is nothing concealed in chess. You see exactly what your opponent sees, on the board; no pieces are hidden. What makes the difference between a strong chess player and a weak one is how they evaluate what they see on the board. In poker, on the other hand, you don't see what the others hold in their hands, and there is the added factor that you can win either of two ways: by holding objectively stronger cards and playing them well, or by bluffing your opponent(s) into thinking you have objectively stronger cards (assuming you have the reserves to out-bid them). I recall playing poker with a group of guys in college; one guy consistently won hands, but refused to show us his hands. Turned out he had not the slightest idea which hands were objectively strong or weak; he was playing solely on his reading other's faces and gestures. You won't get far in chess with that strategy, and nowhere at all in CC.
I had AQcc, we were five handed at Texas No Limit Hold'em, and someone had just been eliminated, it was a $1 buy-in 9 handed sit and go online, so there was no small blind. I had about a starting stack, I think the blinds were $30 - $60 and I had $1,500ish. I was under the gun and raised to $150. Hijack called as did button, the rest folded. The flo ...[text shortened]... difference between poker and chess, that you learn more from wins in poker and losses in chess?
22 Jul 18
Originally posted by @moonbusWell, it's possible to win in a worse position in chess either by having your opponent run out of time, or by managing to convince them their position is losing and getting them to resign. The latter is possible (assuming we can't just talk them into it) by entering a complex combination which doesn't really gain much but looks convincing to the opponent, there are some players who will make a "grandmaster" resignation, sort of trying to show how clever they are. In practice it's better just to play it out. Let your opponent demonstrate his win, just in case it's not a win.
Yes, there are some fundamental differences between poker and chess. One is that there is nothing concealed in chess. You see exactly what your opponent sees, on the board; no pieces are hidden. What makes the difference between a strong chess player and a weak one is how they evaluate what they see on the board. In poker, on the other hand, you don't see w ...[text shortened]... r's faces and gestures. You won't get far in chess with that strategy, and nowhere at all in CC.
23 Jul 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughtYes, there is a psychological element in chess, more so OTB than in CC. That is why I get so little satisfaction from playing computers, regardless whether I win or lose; the psychological element is gone.
Well, it's possible to win in a worse position in chess either by having your opponent run out of time, or by managing to convince them their position is losing and getting them to resign. The latter is possible (assuming we can't just talk them into it) by entering a complex combination which doesn't really gain much but looks convincing to the oppone ...[text shortened]... better just to play it out. Let your opponent demonstrate his win, just in case it's not a win.
24 Jul 18
Originally posted by @wandermIf I get your post correctly the real question is : How many losses can I congest?
I'm curious as to what point you people get discouraged with losing, if going through that unpleasantness means you've been pushed in game?
Throughout I've been happy enough with scoring three out of ten points, assuming that I am learning from losing. But I do get down if I have a run of losses, not wanting to look at a board for a few days or so.
B ...[text shortened]... n to balance the ledger. Why?
Would you enjoy the game more or less if you won or lost more?
In fact I think as Long as I have some reasonable good games I am fine even when losing more than winning.
I am not really learning a lot by plaing the vastly superior Player, but some lessons I have learned throuugh the years I have been on this site. In fact when I look at my early games I cringe...
25 Jul 18
Originally posted by @ponderableIt's easy to digest losing to a stronger player: I certainly can tell when I am being swatted off the board. But how can one tell in these losses when one is playing to the best of their ability? Obviously losing to a one-move cheapo stings, but my horizon may not stretch to a four-move combination? And even if I am happy with tactical play, there still is the likelihood there will be a result. Given the probability of a game-changing blunder, a draw is all too rare!
as Long as I have some reasonable good games I am fine
I get that the ratings are but a guide. What tolerance would be reasonable? I'd think a range of ± 100-150 points would gauge the true "strength" of a player from her online "rating". But precision here is helpful in compiling statistics. Hence I can argue three from ten points is appropriate given my opposition, and go from there.
Another tool for assessing whether I've played to my best may be calculating and averaging centi-pawn loss, but this is even less reliable. A game I thought I played OK can turn out to have an average CPL 50 points higher than some others: do positional considerations prevail here?
Of course this all is superseded by whether I enjoyed myself? Winning where my opponent simply drops a piece is about as much fun as being swatted off the board (that is, not such a thrill). But I suppose I could have pressured the board enough to enable the blunder? I can also lose in overreacting to a phantom threat. Psychology is wonderfully human.
Anyway I'm babbling. Thanks for the input.