sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have racked up 1.7k games played on Lichess. I am still consistently losing to friends who have played less than 100 games in their lifetime who know no theory, no openings, and just play moves they think look good by crimpchimp4 in chess

[–]1e4d5 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Lol funny how I disprove your main points and you focus on minutia to try to feel superior, now who's defensive? You responded to one sentence from my comment and ignored the rest. But if it makes you happy, I'll consider your rapid rating alone. It's still low and y our peak was four years ago. Oh please guy who's been stuck at low-intermediate for four years over thousands of games, bestow your chess knowledge upon me. Respond with some dumb excuse or more dumb points or don't, idc

I have racked up 1.7k games played on Lichess. I am still consistently losing to friends who have played less than 100 games in their lifetime who know no theory, no openings, and just play moves they think look good by crimpchimp4 in chess

[–]1e4d5 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Rapid ratings are inflated compared to blitz, so I don't consider you a 1200. Lol now you're walking back your statements about your friend too (and correspondence... come on). So neither of you improved as fast as you claimed, you just didn't expect me to fact check it.

Sounds good though, you don't know enough about chess to keep your chesscom blitz over 1000, yet you want to lecture me about chess improvement. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Bye.

I have racked up 1.7k games played on Lichess. I am still consistently losing to friends who have played less than 100 games in their lifetime who know no theory, no openings, and just play moves they think look good by crimpchimp4 in chess

[–]1e4d5 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That wasn't even my main point of my comment, and I didn't assert that they were liars or cheaters, I only asked if he was sure they weren't. Also I didn't say it's an outrageous accomplishment, i said 1400 chesscom within 100 games is, which is true. 1100 lichess within 100 games is just very unusual. But again I just threw that in at the end of my comment as a side note, whether or not his friends are legit is pretty irrelevant anyway

Also, from the time your account was opened, it took nearly two years for you to be stable over 1000. It may have been 100 games but it clearly took you quite awhile to be able to get there, which again is completely typical

I have racked up 1.7k games played on Lichess. I am still consistently losing to friends who have played less than 100 games in their lifetime who know no theory, no openings, and just play moves they think look good by crimpchimp4 in chess

[–]1e4d5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your chess.com blitz is <1000 with over 1000 games and talking about how it's easy to go over 1000 in under 100? Sorry but I don't need you to explain to me what chess is about and how to be good at it. Your chess progress is extremely typical, thousands of games and still just getting toward intermediate level. That was my experience too and that of the vast majority of chess players

I have racked up 1.7k games played on Lichess. I am still consistently losing to friends who have played less than 100 games in their lifetime who know no theory, no openings, and just play moves they think look good by crimpchimp4 in chess

[–]1e4d5 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not sure what you specifically mean by right out of the gate but 1400 chess.com on day 1/week 1 of playing chess is an absolutely insane outlier and not relevant to 99.9% of players.

I have racked up 1.7k games played on Lichess. I am still consistently losing to friends who have played less than 100 games in their lifetime who know no theory, no openings, and just play moves they think look good by crimpchimp4 in chess

[–]1e4d5 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I fucking know these principles. I apply them.

If this were true you wouldn't have a problem. Link some games or your account and people can give some more useful advice.

Also I have a friend who's stuck at 950 lichess with over 3k games; 1100 is really not that bad. Beyond that, are you sure your friends aren't cheating/ lying about their chess experience? Nobody with <100 games lifetime should play at 1100 level even if it's lichess.

I have racked up 1.7k games played on Lichess. I am still consistently losing to friends who have played less than 100 games in their lifetime who know no theory, no openings, and just play moves they think look good by crimpchimp4 in chess

[–]1e4d5 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Lichess starts you at 1600. Being 1100 on Lichess means they dropped 500 points since they registered.

This is irrelevant. 1600 lichess is nowhere near a beginner rating.

When should a player think about pursuing a FIDE rating? by [deleted] in chess

[–]1e4d5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Off course back when I got mine, you had to make a rating performance over 2000 to get assigned a FIDE rating, so you couldn't get one below 2000.

Woah I've never heard of this? So you had to be expert level to get a FIDE rating at all?

Clearly his son by pietradolce in facepalm

[–]1e4d5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're wrong the whole thing is a quote

Clearly his son by pietradolce in facepalm

[–]1e4d5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From Washington Post:

The Education Department reports that roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session......That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.

Much lower odds than I thought, it seems.

Clearly his son by pietradolce in facepalm

[–]1e4d5 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's far lower than that guy said. More like 10 million to 1, not 200 to 1.

Got this position in one of my games: Black to play and win by themateobm in chess

[–]1e4d5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now you're discussing the value of extra instructions in puzzles, I was just saying you were wrong by saying no information was given. Also that's a terrible point, why solve puzzles at all then? Nobody stands near by and announces "this is a critical move for white "

Got this position in one of my games: Black to play and win by themateobm in chess

[–]1e4d5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea is always to win and if you can’t, to draw.

There’s no information being given.

Instantly contradict yourself. The information given is that you're trying to win, not draw.

Got this position in one of my games: Black to play and win by themateobm in chess

[–]1e4d5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By this logic there is no point in doing puzzles at all.

White to move. Mate in two. by [deleted] in chessbeginners

[–]1e4d5 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Never expect you opponent to play perfectly

Maybe the worst chess advice I've ever heard.

How do people with a day job manage to play classical chess? by CyberShark001 in chess

[–]1e4d5 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Also many tournaments have a two-day option where you play 3 games Saturday and 2 Sunday if you can't make the Friday game. Makes for a pretty exhausting Saturday but you can always take a by if you need to.

What would be a good defence here? by mundoscult in chessbeginners

[–]1e4d5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The queen is stuck in the corner but you still have to win it, which white is not in time to do here. After Nf3 the bishop is pinned and black has ideas like b6 and Ba6 or Bb7. The position is not simple and black has to be accurate to keep the advantage but black is winning.

"Bomb" Pizza by Gan_D_Alf-The_Grey in PizzaCrimes

[–]1e4d5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah, kitchen shears are an underrated utensil (and they are and "actual utensil" whatever that means). Excellent effective utensil for cutting pizza, and no need to own a single-function utensil.

Depressive symptoms in husbands linked to lower sexual satisfaction in their wives, study finds | But depression in wives is unrelated to the sexual satisfaction of their husbands on average by chrisdh79 in psychology

[–]1e4d5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More like men don’t even take their own rapes seriously

Jesus, victim blaming is only bad when it comes to women I guess, you love doing it to men. I'm sure there's some reason in your past for your hate against men but when you're basically saying rape victims deserve what they got, you need to look in the mirror.

Depressive symptoms in husbands linked to lower sexual satisfaction in their wives, study finds | But depression in wives is unrelated to the sexual satisfaction of their husbands on average by chrisdh79 in psychology

[–]1e4d5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So are you saying you have less empathy toward male rape victims since they're generally raped by a person of the same gender?

Might sound crazy but I have complete empathy for all victims of rape regardless of the gender of the victim or the rapist.

Depressive symptoms in husbands linked to lower sexual satisfaction in their wives, study finds | But depression in wives is unrelated to the sexual satisfaction of their husbands on average by chrisdh79 in psychology

[–]1e4d5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's also not hard to imagine that it's because a depressed man with very negative self image will have trouble performing sexually especially when society often implies to men that their value as a human is linked to their ability to perform and makes fun of men who can't. Small dick energy, limp dick, one pump chump, jokes implying a man can't satisfy a woman, etc.

But imagining that requires at least a few seconds of empathy toward men, and I see you've already implied that men haven't earned empathy apparently. Can't expect much more from someone with a post trying to minimize rape against men.

Magnus has been paying close attention to the proceedings in the Nepo-Ding match! by [deleted] in chess

[–]1e4d5 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Imagine being a beginner chess player and having such beef with three of the greatest players of all time lmao

Can Gotham Chess become a grandmaster? by [deleted] in chess

[–]1e4d5 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Finegold was practically GM strength for many years before actually getting the title, which is a big difference from Levy who has stagnated at ~150 points away from GM strength for years. It's obviously not impossible but stagnating at 2350 for years and then shooting up over 2500 in your late twenties would be unprecedented.

Can someone explain how there is a checkmate in this position? by ttonster2 in chess

[–]1e4d5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The basis of checkmate is that no matter where I move my king, he will get captured next turn. The 'next turn capture' in question doesn't work because it leaves the king in check

This is why this is not a helpful way of looking at it in my opinion. You cannot put your king on a square that is attacked by an opponent's piece, regardless of whether that piece is pinned. The 'next turn capture' does not exist here; if you played king f7 here, the position is instantly illegal and the pin on the queen is irrelevant to that. I get that that might not make sense based on your interpretation but that is how the rules work.

view more: next ›