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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 20 Jul '18 04:55
    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?
  2. Subscriber venda
    Dave
    20 Jul '18 13:03
    Originally posted by @wanderm
    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?
    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
  3. 20 Jul '18 13:09
    If I feel like playing I play. If I am not struck with the desire I don't. I hate losing so I play for a short bit then quit playing for long periods of time.
  4. 20 Jul '18 21:24
    Originally posted by @venda
    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
    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.
  5. Subscriber WOLFE63
    Fair and Balanced
    20 Jul '18 23:13
    Originally posted by @mchill
    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.
    Even worse...blowing a clearly won position. Those losses sting the most.
  6. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    21 Jul '18 20:35 / 1 edit
    "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.
  7. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    22 Jul '18 00:51
    Originally posted by @moonbus
    "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 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.

    Is this a fundamental difference between poker and chess, that you learn more from wins in poker and losses in chess?
  8. Subscriber WOLFE63
    Fair and Balanced
    22 Jul '18 13:41
    Originally posted by @moonbus
    "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.
    One of my favorite chess quotes. Thanks Moon.

    I haven't played Texas Hold'em in so long...
    ...which suit is trump?
    😕
  9. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    22 Jul '18 14:16
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    One of my favorite chess quotes. Thanks Moon.

    I haven't played Texas Hold'em in so long...
    ...which suit is trump?
    😕
    lawsuit
  10. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    22 Jul '18 20:12
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    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?
    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 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.
  11. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    22 Jul '18 20:56
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    Even worse...blowing a clearly won position. Those losses sting the most.
    "Chess is a struggle against your own errors." -- S. Tartakower
  12. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    22 Jul '18 23:59
    Originally posted by @moonbus
    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.
    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 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.
  13. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    23 Jul '18 13:58
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    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.
    Yes, 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.
  14. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    24 Jul '18 14:29
    Originally posted by @wanderm
    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?
    If I get your post correctly the real question is : How many losses can I congest?

    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...
  15. 25 Jul '18 00:17
    Originally posted by @ponderable
    as Long as I have some reasonable good games I am fine
    It'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!

    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.