chess online

Chess Online

Share and you will unmask!
Funny name, real passions
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
ccmcacollister 20 ( +1 | -1 )
To Win or not to Win? Just curious, a question of temperment?!
Would you rather Win a sloppy, double ugly, cheap win OR
make a rather brilliant draw ? Nothing at stake, but the game itself. Same opponent.
ccmcacollister 47 ( +1 | -1 )
My own choice ... after reflection, surprised me a bit. I find that if my opponent were lower rated, I'd prefer the win. But if significantly higher rated, I'd prefer the brilliant draw. I gurss because then I'd rather have the Game itself to show, with both players supposedly at their peak of play. Rather than just to say I'd had a win....but on showing the game, everyone might say; ah yes but GM Blitznitski was obviously off his head! Was it flu, intoxication, or perhaps distraction by a mysterious blonde kibitzer ?!
soikins 12 ( +1 | -1 )
draw I wouldn't mind even losing if I knew I had put up the best resistance I could, but my opponent just proved to be better.
ranger 26 ( +1 | -1 )
Results rule
If you mean a competitive game, my view is that results are everything that counts. A win is after all a win, even though there isn't titles at stake. The aim of the game is checkmate, and if you don't reach that aim, you shouldn't be too satisfied with the result, regardless of the way it was achieved.

ranger
qistnix 19 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree with ranger The aim of the game is to win. Ofcourse I prefer a beautiful played game over a sloppy one, but for me the result comes first.

qistnix
mormel12 11 ( +1 | -1 )
i'd go for that draw because my aim is to play a game and have fun.
and for me that draw is surely more fun then the cheap win.
greetings
bucklehead 174 ( +1 | -1 )
Hate the cheap win I'm fond of my rating, but not that fond. A few months back I was playing a tournament game against a strong opponent. Things were getting exciting--in a speculative frenzy I'd traded B+R+P for white's queen--and my opponent was doing a skillful job in keeping my Q from bursting into his backfield and raising havoc. Then, suddenly, he left a R hanging...I spent hours looking for the tactical subtlety, but found none; he resigned the next move.

I was furious that this game--which had kept me up nights, which got me really hitting the books, which helped bring out my best play--could just be over, finished, because of a casual error by my opponent. That my opponent was likely kicking himself over the same mistake was of no comfort. I learned to live with it, but I'm not really over it. Whenever I look at my record, I know that there are several games I won, but did not really *earn*. But this speaks to the heart and soul of CC play: I only play a few games at a time (mostly because of time constraints here in "meatspace"), but they are living things that impress themselves upon me, that "inspire" me in the fundamental sense by breathing their life into me.

I know blunders are a part of chess (I know this only too well, and ccmcacollister can attest that, in LCO [live chess online] my screen name should really be "Hang_O_Matic"), but they rob the game of challenge, of that pulse-quickening adrenaline rush you feel when your mind successfully works through that crushing combination. I will take the ugly wins, but I will not be happy about it.
honololou 64 ( +1 | -1 )
there are no ugly wins… only ugly losses. At my level, I expect that most of the moves that I or my opponent make are
mistakes of one kind or another.

gameknot.com/chess.pl?bd=1028045

The winner is the one that is most able to overcome is own
mistakes while taking advantage of his opponent's. I may feel bad for my opponent when he or
she makes a game-losing blunder, but I know that it could have just as easily been me. Let the
loser worry about the ugly games.

That said, I also enjoy snatching a draw (or a win) from the jaws of defeat.
daleman 20 ( +1 | -1 )
draw not necessarily a brilliant draw, but my opponent made 2 mistakes, so i offered him a draw.
gameknot.com/chess.pl?bd=2152686
qistnix 11 ( +1 | -1 )
Kasparov didn't become world champion because he plays beautiful games but because he wins games ;)
fmgaijin 68 ( +1 | -1 )
Dissatisfaction with Sloppy Wins . . . . . . helps to make you a better player, which in the long run means more wins (for those counting the points). While I enjoy winning, I enjoy a well-played draw more than a sloppy win. The willingness and ability to go back and look at your own games objectively (not annotating by result) leads to improvement because you discover your weaknesses. Look at the intellectual honesty of great annotators such as Fischer and Botvinnik. In the many years I've played chess and watched young players come up, the ones who got the best have almost always been the ones who were embarrassed rather than exultant over a poorly-played win.
roland_l 69 ( +1 | -1 )
Qistnix makes an interesting point ... ... which at first seems rather 'straight-forward', but I think goes much deeper.

There are lots of GM's for whom winning is everything, but a select few in history for whom it wasn't so, and I think its because of these kind of players, the game has become beautiful to me. I'm not experienced enough to name all of these kinds of guys, but Bronstein jumps into my mind as a guy for whom winning wasn't everything. Tal also seemed to be much like that (but won it all anyways :-)

Seems perhaps Reti was much like that also in my recent reading about him. He wanted to advance the strategy of the game, and thus scored lower as he experimented in high tournament level play
qistnix 73 ( +1 | -1 )
happy with draw? Maybe I should comment somewhat on my point of view.

First of all I am a perfectionist when it comes to chess. The times that I am really pleased with my game I can count on one hand.

Secondly I always analyse my own games, and try to be as objectively as possible. So I agree that the dissatisfaction over a sloppy win (fmgaijin) helps improve my game, but on the other hand I am just as dissatisfied with that beautiful draw because I didn't win the game. Obviously my previous sloppy play let my opponent get away with a draw. Right? So how can you be happy about achieving a draw ?

qistnix
fmgaijin 42 ( +1 | -1 )
Because . . . . . . the starting position is not a win (to the best of our knowledge), and neither are the most standard openings. So I can only "let the opponent get away with a draw" if the opponent has already made a mistake and given me a larger edge. The best games seem to be those where the mistakes made are so small that most of us would not even perceive them as losing errors but brillilant play demonstrates that they were.
qistnix 7 ( +1 | -1 )
fmgaijin I'm sure you're trying to make a point but in relation to this discussion I don't get it... ?
fmgaijin 58 ( +1 | -1 )
It's a Simple Answer to Your Question You (qistnix) wrote, "Obviously my previous sloppy play let my opponent get away with a draw. Right? So how can you be happy about achieving a draw?"

You suggested that one couldn't be happy with a well-played draw because that meant your previous play had been inferior. However, that does not necessarily follow. If you never had a winning position (because the starting position is not a win), why must "previous sloppy play" precede the beautiful play by both players leading to a draw? If it did not, then I can be quite happy about the draw.
qistnix 38 ( +1 | -1 )
sloppy play I don't know about you but I never in my life played a chessgame where no mistake was made by either one of the players. You're talking about GM-level here. The discussion was: what would you prefer, the sloppy win or the beautiful draw. In my opinion there are no beautiful draws when your primary goal is to achieve a win. But I guess that's a matter of opinion and we'll never get an agreement there ;)
fmgaijin 50 ( +1 | -1 )
Good Draws Well, in some of my international tournaments, I played draws in which neither I, my opponent, nor Fritz identified any serious mistakes. We could all have been wrong (as God or some as-yet-unbuilt computer may tell us), but it appeared that they were free of any MAJOR mistakes (those that gave one side or the other a winning position at some point in the game). A few of those games I regarded as "beautiful," but that certainly is a matter of opinion--you might find them "ugly"!
ormus 94 ( +1 | -1 )
Good Q...

I find that a lot of my games lost have come because I was trying to create something that wasn't on the board. In effect I was trying to make an 'beautiful' finish to a game in place of possibly winning a sloppy endgame. I think this way of thinking is a plague to class-level players everywhere... I'm no exception. The balance between how/when to attack and how/when to defend is the big mystery that separates the Class-? player from the master, IMO.

To answer the question given, I think I'd rather find a spectacular draw in a game than mop up a sloppy game when I have two rooks and a bishop vs. a knight and my opponent seems to think it honorable to "never resign under any circumstances". I find games like that totally boring and not at all instructive. Part of the reason I play is yes, to win, but the greater reason for my continued interest in chess is the never-ending learing process that comes with it.
spurtus 21 ( +1 | -1 )
The more I look like I'm losing the more I want to find brilliant wins!...

But if I'm clearly winning I still want a fight over it.

I suppose I just like the mind exercise.

Spurtus
sr_ajedrez 1 ( +1 | -1 )
test bd=sr_ajedrez
sr_ajedrez 1 ( +1 | -1 )
test id=sr_ajedrez
sr_ajedrez 2 ( +1 | -1 )
test3 sr_ajedrez=user_id
sr_ajedrez 1 ( +1 | -1 )
bd=2152686
maykx 36 ( +1 | -1 )
The question is simple. And the answer is simple too. The main objective of playing chess or any other sports or games is to what? TO WIN, obviously. A win is a win however you won it. And a draw is not a win. But of course, maybe we are referring to the amount of glory in the win. Yes, the glory of winning or just forcing a draw against a grandmaster is incomparable against a win against a lower rated player....but still it is a win! And that counts!

Greetings!
-Mike
i_play_slowly 71 ( +1 | -1 )
truth vs. beauty Your question reverberates with the timeless conflict between those who seek truth and those who seek beauty. Victory is based on truth:
*
"On the Chessboard lies and hypocracy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite." (Lasker)
*
Brilliance is based on beauty:
*
"Oh! This opponent, this collaborator against his will, whose notion of Beauty always differs from yours and whose means (strength, imagination, technique) are often too limited to help you effectively! What torment, to have your thinking and your fantasy tied down by another person!" (Alexander Alekhine)
i_play_slowly 43 ( +1 | -1 )
It sounds as if Frank Marshall and Judit Polgar would go for the draw:
*
"Probably no American champion took more pleasure out of playing chess, as opposed to winning games, than did Frank Marshall. He would rather lose the game than lose the chance for brilliancy." – Andy Soltis
*
"If there is a nice option, I sacrifice even if it's risky because I like the beauty of the game. But I do try to win too." – Judit Polgar

mormel12 4 ( +1 | -1 )
sr_ajedrez try putting a space first:)
greetings