Anybody have advice on my end game? It was close, my opponent played very strong at the end. - Chess Forums - Page 3

jskukms4

Nov 12, 2024

0

#41

1. You have never explained what advanced endgame tactics you were learning from K+B+R+c pawn+c pawn vs K.

2. You still haven't elaborated on you claiming that you were "toying" with your opponent, reason you won't elaborate further on that claim is because it directly contradicts your earlier claim that you were learning endgame tactics from the K+B+R+c pawn+c pawn vs K game.
3. You still didn't explain why you were lying about what I said and directly contradicting your earlier words of "1300's regurarely stalemating said position".
4. You still haven't shown the rules which say you can't "resign when you're ahead" or you can't "resign very early".
For me to take you serious I'd like for you to address all these arguments which you previously chose to ignore.
If you do not address these arguments you lose the argument by default because you aren't willing to argue in good faith.

1. i was being sarcastic. all i'm learning from these people is the lengths some people will go to avoid ever resigning. the only thing that seems to reliably work is to let my clock run down. then it gets boring for them and probably around 25% do resign.

2. i'm not sure what elaboration you are asking for. i find it fun to mess with people by promoting a bunch of pawns to knights and donating all of my pieces to them and then slowly delivering a rook checkmate. i think what you mean is you don't agree, that you don't agree does not mean i have not explained myself.

3. i was speaking to 'them' not you. more people will join this thread and a lot of them are going to be talking about stalemates. i was pre-empting those arguments.

4. never in my life have i seen a website say something is against the rules and give you a bright big button you can press to break the rules. and i'm quite confident, i will never see that. and that there is not one on this site. yet you claim there is. ok.

PlayMeLawyer

Nov 12, 2024

0

#42

jskukms4 wrote:

1. i was being sarcastic. all i'm learning from these people is the lengths some people will go to avoid ever resigning. the only thing that seems to reliably work is to let my clock run down. then it gets boring for them and probably around 25% do resign.

3. i was speaking to 'them' not you. more people will join this thread and a lot of them are going to be talking about stalemates. i was pre-empting those arguments.

4. never in my life have i seen a website say something is against the rules and give you a bright big button you can press to break the rules. and i'm quite confident, i will never see that. and that there is not one on this site. yet you claim there is. ok.

It is funny that in your first argument you admit to breaking another one of chess.com's rules, purposely prolonging the game for no reason and stalling are both not allowed.
For your third argument, I attached an image just so you can reread what you said and decide wether or not you want to stick with that obvious lie.

For your fourth argument I suggest you reread what I said because that clearly wasn't what I was talking about, you mentioned 2 rules during this argument and I'd like for you to show where on chess.com it says that what you claimed to be rules are actual rules.

jskukms4

Nov 12, 2024

0

#43

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

Man what are these games that you linked, chess is a game of elegance and sportsmanship.
You possess neither skill.
Please stop disrespecting your opponent in games.

They are disrespecting me by thinking I can't mate them - after watching me dismantle them in a game.

ah yes the person playing out the game till checkmate (like chess.com's fair play rules tell people to do) is the one who is disrespectful and not the person wasting opponents time who like previously mentioned is following chess.com's fair play rules.
I am pretty sure the only thing being dismantled here is your intelligence.

They are both disrespectful. The difference is, they started it. I am merely giving them back what they gave me.

And once again, can you just remind me, in which way were your opponents disrespectful?

When I have a queen, a rook and 3 pawns and they only have a king, and they do not resign, they are implying that I am a horrible chess player. this after watching me destroy them to get into that position in the first place. That's very disrespectful.

You might not agree - but that's ok. I find it disrespectful. And nothing you say will ever convince me it isn't.

I imagine you aren't the type of guy to read the chess.com fair play rules, which is fine I will just tell you them now.
In the fair play rules it says to play every game to the end and not resign.
You find it disrespectful that people are following the TOS of chess.com?

You either aren't reading those rules very carefully or those are some kind of tips for noobs, not rules. Nobody gets punished for resigning and it would be absurd if they did.

(Resigning after getting beaten badly. Resigning when you're ahead or it's very early is against the rules. That's not what is happening here.)

Please show me the rules which say you can't "resign when you're ahead" or you can't "resign very early".
Attached is also an image of the fair play rules you agreed to when you first opened chess.com, it clearly states to play out every game you play and just for you I drew a big red circle around it.

If you get your rules from pop-ups in 32 point font, you are doing it wrong. Read the actual rules. It's not against the rules or they'd have to ban most of this site.

what???
This is the first thing you see when you open this app, you agreed to those 3 rules otherwise you wouldn't be able to play chess on here, the pop up literally says that these are rules and it also states that if you don't follow these rules and I quote "your account may be closed and labeled publicy as Fair Play violator".
I have shown you the rule that you are violating and your response is claiming that that specific rule somehow doesn't exist.
Interestingly you still haven't responded to any of my other points or shown any proof for the rules you claim to exist.
Almost like your entire argument is being run from the bs you can string together at the moment.

Ok, so explain why there is a resign button. It's against the rules to click it, but they feature it prominently in the UI. Explain that one.

It's a rule but they don't actively enforce it, furthermore if someone has to leave all of a sudden without a resign button opponent would have to wait the clock out before being able to play another game.

They would not have it large and bright right there in front of you, if it were for unique circumstances. It would be buried some place with warning pop-ups and disclaimers and notifying you it's against the rules. And they would put limits on it.

You're taking this random pop-up way too literally.

jskukms4

Nov 12, 2024

0

#44

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

1. i was being sarcastic. all i'm learning from these people is the lengths some people will go to avoid ever resigning. the only thing that seems to reliably work is to let my clock run down. then it gets boring for them and probably around 25% do resign.

3. i was speaking to 'them' not you. more people will join this thread and a lot of them are going to be talking about stalemates. i was pre-empting those arguments.

4. never in my life have i seen a website say something is against the rules and give you a bright big button you can press to break the rules. and i'm quite confident, i will never see that. and that there is not one on this site. yet you claim there is. ok.

It is funny that in your first argument you admit to breaking another one of chess.com's rules, purposely prolonging the game for no reason and stalling are both not allowed.
For your third argument, I attached an image just so you can reread what you said and decide wether or not you want to stick with that obvious lie.

For your fourth argument I suggest you reread what I said because that clearly wasn't what I was talking about, you mentioned 2 rules during this argument and I'd like for you to show where on chess.com it says that what you claimed to be rules are actual rules.

You have to be trolling. I finally checked your rating. No way someone 1441 rapid actually believes the things you are saying.

PlayMeLawyer

Nov 12, 2024

0

#45

jskukms4 wrote:

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

1. i was being sarcastic. all i'm learning from these people is the lengths some people will go to avoid ever resigning. the only thing that seems to reliably work is to let my clock run down. then it gets boring for them and probably around 25% do resign.

3. i was speaking to 'them' not you. more people will join this thread and a lot of them are going to be talking about stalemates. i was pre-empting those arguments.

4. never in my life have i seen a website say something is against the rules and give you a bright big button you can press to break the rules. and i'm quite confident, i will never see that. and that there is not one on this site. yet you claim there is. ok.

It is funny that in your first argument you admit to breaking another one of chess.com's rules, purposely prolonging the game for no reason and stalling are both not allowed.
For your third argument, I attached an image just so you can reread what you said and decide wether or not you want to stick with that obvious lie.

For your fourth argument I suggest you reread what I said because that clearly wasn't what I was talking about, you mentioned 2 rules during this argument and I'd like for you to show where on chess.com it says that what you claimed to be rules are actual rules.

You have to be trolling. I finally checked your rating. No way someone 1441 rapid actually believes the things you are saying.

I have never before seen someone flee an argument by calling their opponent smart, this is a first.

checkmated0001

Nov 12, 2024

0

#46

You were losing in the opening and early middlegame, before your opponent blundered that away.

sleepyzenith

Nov 12, 2024

0

#47

all this arguing over what bro

jskukms4

Nov 12, 2024

0

#48

GooseChess wrote:

the way you won was embarrassing because it was slow.

These are end games IMO, and the skill you want to practice is called 'technique',

Your mistake is thinking I do not understand technique or that I was trying to win. The game was already over in my mind. There was no challenge left. It was 100% going to result in a checkmate, as it did. I was messing with them. Deliberately.

A reasonable person can disagree on whether that is justified. A reasonable person cannot read what I just said and continue the argument that my technique was bad.

jskukms4

Nov 12, 2024

0

#49

GooseChess wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

GooseChess wrote:

the way you won was embarrassing because it was slow.

These are end games IMO, and the skill you want to practice is called 'technique',

Your mistake is thinking I do not understand technique or that I was trying to win. The game was already over in my mind. There was no challenge left. It was 100% going to result in a checkmate, as it did. I was messing with them. Deliberately.

A reasonable person can disagree on whether that is justified. A reasonable person cannot read what I just said and continue the argument that my technique was bad.

That's literally what I was saying?! I was literally disagreeing with other people who said your technique was too slow and you quoted me as if I was saying it? Is this why everyone in the thread is upset with you?

No, you examined what I did on a technical skill basis. I am not even playing chess. I am poking a poor baboon with a stick, pushing him into a cage, and then urinating on him. And then shooting him in the head when I've had my fun.

If I cared at all about technique, I would deliver checkmate one of the countless times it's there and I see it, and I instead advance a pawn.

PlayMeLawyer

Nov 12, 2024

0

#50

jskukms4 wrote:

GooseChess wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

GooseChess wrote:

the way you won was embarrassing because it was slow.

These are end games IMO, and the skill you want to practice is called 'technique',

Your mistake is thinking I do not understand technique or that I was trying to win. The game was already over in my mind. There was no challenge left. It was 100% going to result in a checkmate, as it did. I was messing with them. Deliberately.

A reasonable person can disagree on whether that is justified. A reasonable person cannot read what I just said and continue the argument that my technique was bad.

That's literally what I was saying?! I was literally disagreeing with other people who said your technique was too slow and you quoted me as if I was saying it? Is this why everyone in the thread is upset with you?

No, you examined what I did on a technical skill basis. I am not even playing chess. I am poking a poor baboon with a stick, pushing him into a cage, and then urinating on him. And then shooting him in the head when I've had my fun.

If I cared at all about technique, I would deliver checkmate one of the countless times it's there and I see it, and I instead advance a pawn.

Are you by chance 11 years old?

jskukms4

Nov 12, 2024

0

#51

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

GooseChess wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

GooseChess wrote:

the way you won was embarrassing because it was slow.

These are end games IMO, and the skill you want to practice is called 'technique',

Your mistake is thinking I do not understand technique or that I was trying to win. The game was already over in my mind. There was no challenge left. It was 100% going to result in a checkmate, as it did. I was messing with them. Deliberately.

A reasonable person can disagree on whether that is justified. A reasonable person cannot read what I just said and continue the argument that my technique was bad.

That's literally what I was saying?! I was literally disagreeing with other people who said your technique was too slow and you quoted me as if I was saying it? Is this why everyone in the thread is upset with you?

No, you examined what I did on a technical skill basis. I am not even playing chess. I am poking a poor baboon with a stick, pushing him into a cage, and then urinating on him. And then shooting him in the head when I've had my fun.

If I cared at all about technique, I would deliver checkmate one of the countless times it's there and I see it, and I instead advance a pawn.

Are you by chance 11 years old?

Are you by chance someone who never resigns?

It seems like you are someone who never resigns. Which explains why you take this so personally. As you should, I'm talking about you. I torment players just like you.

lanaiya_A

Nov 12, 2024

0

#52

maybe do like a hard move so the person you are going against will lose and you will win?

PlayMeLawyer

Nov 12, 2024

0

#53

jskukms4 wrote:

PlayMeLawyer wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

GooseChess wrote:

jskukms4 wrote:

GooseChess wrote:

the way you won was embarrassing because it was slow.

These are end games IMO, and the skill you want to practice is called 'technique',

Your mistake is thinking I do not understand technique or that I was trying to win. The game was already over in my mind. There was no challenge left. It was 100% going to result in a checkmate, as it did. I was messing with them. Deliberately.

A reasonable person can disagree on whether that is justified. A reasonable person cannot read what I just said and continue the argument that my technique was bad.

That's literally what I was saying?! I was literally disagreeing with other people who said your technique was too slow and you quoted me as if I was saying it? Is this why everyone in the thread is upset with you?

No, you examined what I did on a technical skill basis. I am not even playing chess. I am poking a poor baboon with a stick, pushing him into a cage, and then urinating on him. And then shooting him in the head when I've had my fun.

If I cared at all about technique, I would deliver checkmate one of the countless times it's there and I see it, and I instead advance a pawn.

Are you by chance 11 years old?

Are you by chance someone who never resigns?

It seems like you are someone who never resigns. Which explains why you take this so personally. As you should, I'm talking about you. I torment players just like you.

I am not taking anything personally, I just can't fathom anyone over the age of 11 writing "I am poking a poor baboon with a stick, pushing him into a cage, and then urinating on him. And then shooting him in the head when I've had my fun.".
It was a genuine question, not meant as an insult.

lanaiya_A

Nov 12, 2024

0

#54

what happened

lanaiya_A

Nov 12, 2024

0

#55

that was really heated

Kaeldorn

Nov 12, 2024

0

#56

Most ridiculous thread.

AndyTheProdigyKing

Nov 12, 2024

0

#57

hi

lanaiya_A

Nov 12, 2024

0

#58

WHAT?

AndyTheProdigyKing

Nov 12, 2024

0

#59

this is my yt channel btw https://www.youtube.com/@andytheprodigyking

lanaiya_A

Nov 12, 2024

0

#60

Hi Andy The prodigy King we were talking about to players they started fighting over how you should play the game and who is better and talking about shooting some animal for fun it is all Messed up.