I was playing on uchess, and this
ewbie, a provisional with a whoping 1700 rating, literally kicked my butt as expected. In 13 moves, he came up with their weird, obviously self invented, opening that made me lose an entire minor peice. I then hit the resign button and left. I saw no point to playing on a game on move 13 were you lose an entire bishop AND you cannot castle.
Guess what he did? After the game, he was babbling on in the chat room about how I am a cowardly runner, and I should of played the game on like a man. He wouldn't quit braging and calling me a gutless coward. Then he said other rediculous stuff, such as, it's because of pu$$ies like you that terrorists exist.
The next time I came across him, he again whined how his opponent resigned in under 15 moves. My guess is, he again used that silly opening. I suggested to him if you want a better challenge, try not using that hard to beat opening with no known theory, in which he told me to shut up, and stated he should be allowed to play what he wants. Indeed, he is allowed to play what he wants, but if it's so good that it kills people in under 15 moves, don't whine if the game isn't challenging enough.
Is it just me, or did I, have every right to resign in that situation? What's the big deal? This guy is a prime example of a BAD WINNER.
Originally posted by mateuloseAbsolutely, you have every right to resign whenever you want to. That's a very unusual problem; most people complain about opponents who don't resign when they're losing. He sounds like a poor ambassador of the game, and I just wish I'd have been in that chat room when he made the "terrorist" comment!
I was playing on uchess, and this
ewbie, a provisional with a whoping 1700 rating, literally kicked my butt as expected. In 13 moves, he came up with their weird, obviously self invented, opening that made me lose an entire minor peice. I then hit the resign button and left. I saw no point to playing on a game on move 13 were you lose an entire bishop AN ...[text shortened]... to resign in that situation? What's the big deal? This guy is a prime example of a BAD WINNER.
As for his choice of opening, I have no idea what he played, but if, as you say, it has no theory behind it, it probably is a horribly unsound opening that he uses to catch people off-guard. There's probably an easy refutation, but it's relatively easy to miss in a blitz game, and that's why he uses it.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceI agree, it's probably a very unsound opening indeed.
Absolutely, you have every right to resign whenever you want to. That's a very unusual problem; most people complain about opponents who don't resign when they're losing. He sounds like a poor ambassador of the game, and I just wish I'd have been in that chat room when he made the "terrorist" comment!
As for his choice of opening, I have n ...[text shortened]... y refutation, but it's relatively easy to miss in a blitz game, and that's why he uses it.
mateulose: Do you have a PGN you can post here? Or does uChess store PGNs after the game has ended yet?
Well, I don't have the move sequence, but basicly he plays a Queen's Gambit, I reply with a QGD, then he absolute pins with one bishop, then he relative pins with the OTHER bishop, then he moves his knights up, attacking the pinned peices. Very hard to stop, because the movement of my peices are restricted until I can castle and move my queen off it's starting block, and by the time I do that, it's too late anyways. I lost a peice cuz I couldn't castle quick enough and the pins were exploited, even though, I tried to castle ASAP and recognized the danger. Very cheap opening though.
Originally posted by mateulosesorry, an opening that wins can not be cheaper than the losing party. And I know what I am talking about, it happens to me too (to be the losing party)....
Well, I don't have the move sequence, but basicly he plays a Queen's Gambit, I reply with a QGD, then he absolute pins with one bishop, then he relative pins with the OTHER bishop, then he moves his knights up, attacking the pinned peices. Very hard to stop, because the movement of my peices are restricted until I can castle and move my queen off it's s ...[text shortened]... oited, even though, I tried to castle ASAP and recognized the danger. Very cheap opening though.
Mateulose,
I was on uchess earlier today and I nearly took a screen capture cos of what you were saying in there. Didn't look like you had much justification to go shouting cusses at somebody cos they didn't know that moving a bishop to a certain place during a certain opening wasn't good.
D
An opening that overwhelms you with development, wins a piece, prevents you from castling, and leaves you with a cramped position is not what I would call a "cheap" opening. If somebody played an opening like that against me, I certainly wouldn't lecture him that he needs to play a different opening. I'm reminded of a cartoon I once saw where a man was telling his wife after a chess game, "I would have won if you had played right."
Originally posted by dpressnellThat's one heck of an opening... I'm going to take a guess and say that the opening in question doesn't do all of those things though. I mean if it did we'd all be playing it right? Actually that would be kind of boring if you could get all of those advantages in the first few moves. The game would almost be over at that point.
An opening that overwhelms you with development, wins a piece, prevents you from castling, and leaves you with a cramped position is not what I would call a "cheap" opening.
So I agree with Natural Science and a few others above. I'm pretty sure it's one of those off-beat openings that only allows one or two correct moves in response to it early. If a player misses one of those good moves then he gets in trouble.
As for the winner's attitude afterwards, he certainly could have chosen much better statements in regards to his opponent.
The opening and the game aren't in question. Neither are the abilities of either player. Personal attacks ("gutless, cowardly, etc.) have no place on a site like UChess, if they were made public. I haven't read the messages, so im taking somebody's that that is what it actually read. It's ok to think whatever you want, but as soon as you start typing it into UChess you've entered a different domain. Unfortunately, a lot of people haven't figured out the difference between talking and thinking. This is one reason i don't play blitz much on icc, because of the epidemic of immature people who can't stop badmouthing their opponents and icc's toleration of the practice.
Guys, I'm not saying he isn't the better player, he is, although it would be nice if the good players actually treated me like another good player, and played common openings, so I could learn better and put my knowledge to the test, but that will probably never happen until my rating jacks up. That's mostly what I am upset about, when you play nothing but unsound openings that you will never see in OTB tournies, it doesn't help your play. There's only so much good that can come from seeing an early Qh5 or Bc4 so many times, and I also hated his attitude after the game simply because I resigned. I'm not saying I didn't retaliate and cuss against the dude right back, but he had no right to be upset over me simply resigning to begin with.
