Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chess philosophy. About the merits of playing stronger opponents.
29 views
Skip to first unread message
nastyho...@gmail.com
Dec 29, 2019, 10:39:03 AM12/29/19
to
Bs”d
Chess philosophy. About the merits of playing stronger opponents.
As we all know, we are told that we must play opponents who are better then us, so that we ourselves will become better players. And then, when on a rare occasion, it actually does work, and we do become better players, then we start playing even stronger opponents, who are still stronger then us, so we can become even stronger players.
So why is it that we want to become stronger players? Because we want to win. Because every normal person hates losing.
So thanks to that chess philosophy of playing stronger players in order to get better so that you can start winning, people turn out to be eternal losers.
This just doesn’t sound like sound philosophy to me. That’s why I take a shortcut, I only play opponents who are substantially weaker than I am. Therefore, a vast majority of the time, I win.
Maybe I don’t get stronger because of this. Maybe I even get weaker when playing weak opponents.
No problem. Then I start playing even weaker opponents, and I keep on winning. Which I like much better than losing.
And the ones going by accepted chess philosophy they are the eternal losers.
And I’m the eternal winner.
So who is the crazy one here?
Chess philosophy. About the merits of playing stronger opponents.
As we all know, we are told that we must play opponents who are better then us, so that we ourselves will become better players. And then, when on a rare occasion, it actually does work, and we do become better players, then we start playing even stronger opponents, who are still stronger then us, so we can become even stronger players.
So why is it that we want to become stronger players? Because we want to win. Because every normal person hates losing.
So thanks to that chess philosophy of playing stronger players in order to get better so that you can start winning, people turn out to be eternal losers.
This just doesn’t sound like sound philosophy to me. That’s why I take a shortcut, I only play opponents who are substantially weaker than I am. Therefore, a vast majority of the time, I win.
Maybe I don’t get stronger because of this. Maybe I even get weaker when playing weak opponents.
No problem. Then I start playing even weaker opponents, and I keep on winning. Which I like much better than losing.
And the ones going by accepted chess philosophy they are the eternal losers.
And I’m the eternal winner.
So who is the crazy one here?
Alan Mackenzie
Jan 1, 2020, 2:03:02 PM1/1/20
to
nastyho...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bs”d
What?
> Chess philosophy. About the merits of playing stronger opponents.
> As we all know, we are told that we must play opponents who are better
> then us, so that we ourselves will become better players. And then,
> when on a rare occasion, it actually does work, and we do become better
> players, then we start playing even stronger opponents, who are still
> stronger then us, so we can become even stronger players.
> So why is it that we want to become stronger players? Because we want
> to win. Because every normal person hates losing.
We want to win against strong opposition, thereby boosting our egos, which
tell us we are also strong players.
> So thanks to that chess philosophy of playing stronger players in order
> to get better so that you can start winning, people turn out to be
> eternal losers.
Yes, but that occasional win against Bobby Fischer more than makes up for
the multitude of losses against him and his equals.
> This just doesn’t sound like sound philosophy to me. That’s why I
> take a shortcut, I only play opponents who are substantially weaker
> than I am. Therefore, a vast majority of the time, I win. Maybe I
> don’t get stronger because of this. Maybe I even get weaker when
> playing weak opponents. No problem. Then I start playing even weaker
> opponents, and I keep on winning. Which I like much better than
> losing. And the ones going by accepted chess philosophy they are the
> eternal losers. And I’m the eternal winner.
Where's the fun in beating raw beginners all the time?
> So who is the crazy one here?
All of us who play chess. :-)
Happy New Year!
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
> Bs”d
What?
> Chess philosophy. About the merits of playing stronger opponents.
> As we all know, we are told that we must play opponents who are better
> then us, so that we ourselves will become better players. And then,
> when on a rare occasion, it actually does work, and we do become better
> players, then we start playing even stronger opponents, who are still
> stronger then us, so we can become even stronger players.
> So why is it that we want to become stronger players? Because we want
> to win. Because every normal person hates losing.
tell us we are also strong players.
> So thanks to that chess philosophy of playing stronger players in order
> to get better so that you can start winning, people turn out to be
> eternal losers.
the multitude of losses against him and his equals.
> This just doesn’t sound like sound philosophy to me. That’s why I
> take a shortcut, I only play opponents who are substantially weaker
> than I am. Therefore, a vast majority of the time, I win. Maybe I
> don’t get stronger because of this. Maybe I even get weaker when
> playing weak opponents. No problem. Then I start playing even weaker
> opponents, and I keep on winning. Which I like much better than
> losing. And the ones going by accepted chess philosophy they are the
> eternal losers. And I’m the eternal winner.
> So who is the crazy one here?
Happy New Year!
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
nastyho...@gmail.com
Jan 1, 2020, 3:34:22 PM1/1/20
to
On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 9:03:02 PM UTC+2, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> wrote:
> > Bs”d
>
> What?
Bs"d
You can safely ignore that.
> > So thanks to that chess philosophy of playing stronger players in order
> > to get better so that you can start winning, people turn out to be
> > eternal losers.
>
> Yes, but that occasional win against Bobby Fischer more than makes up for
> the multitude of losses against him and his equals.
Not for me. Besides the fact that I'm NEVER going to win against Bobby Fisher, (wel, maybe now he is dead) or Magnus. It is just not in the works.
>
> > This just doesn’t sound like sound philosophy to me. That’s why I
> > take a shortcut, I only play opponents who are substantially weaker
> > than I am. Therefore, a vast majority of the time, I win. Maybe I
> > don’t get stronger because of this. Maybe I even get weaker when
> > playing weak opponents. No problem. Then I start playing even weaker
> > opponents, and I keep on winning. Which I like much better than
> > losing. And the ones going by accepted chess philosophy they are the
> > eternal losers. And I’m the eternal winner.
>
> Where's the fun in beating raw beginners all the time?
You must of course not play raw beginners, you need a challenge, and it needs to be exciting, so sometimes, usually when I blunder too much, then I lose.
That keeps it interesting.
> wrote:
> > Bs”d
>
> What?
Bs"d
You can safely ignore that.
>
> > Chess philosophy. About the merits of playing stronger opponents.
>
> > As we all know, we are told that we must play opponents who are better
> > then us, so that we ourselves will become better players. And then,
> > when on a rare occasion, it actually does work, and we do become better
> > players, then we start playing even stronger opponents, who are still
> > stronger then us, so we can become even stronger players.
>
> > So why is it that we want to become stronger players? Because we want
> > to win. Because every normal person hates losing.
>
> We want to win against strong opposition, thereby boosting our egos, which
> tell us we are also strong players.
I discarded my ego years ago. One of the best things I've ever done. Life is much more pleasurable without it.
> > Chess philosophy. About the merits of playing stronger opponents.
>
> > As we all know, we are told that we must play opponents who are better
> > then us, so that we ourselves will become better players. And then,
> > when on a rare occasion, it actually does work, and we do become better
> > players, then we start playing even stronger opponents, who are still
> > stronger then us, so we can become even stronger players.
>
> > So why is it that we want to become stronger players? Because we want
> > to win. Because every normal person hates losing.
>
> We want to win against strong opposition, thereby boosting our egos, which
> tell us we are also strong players.
> > So thanks to that chess philosophy of playing stronger players in order
> > to get better so that you can start winning, people turn out to be
> > eternal losers.
>
> Yes, but that occasional win against Bobby Fischer more than makes up for
> the multitude of losses against him and his equals.
>
> > This just doesn’t sound like sound philosophy to me. That’s why I
> > take a shortcut, I only play opponents who are substantially weaker
> > than I am. Therefore, a vast majority of the time, I win. Maybe I
> > don’t get stronger because of this. Maybe I even get weaker when
> > playing weak opponents. No problem. Then I start playing even weaker
> > opponents, and I keep on winning. Which I like much better than
> > losing. And the ones going by accepted chess philosophy they are the
> > eternal losers. And I’m the eternal winner.
>
> Where's the fun in beating raw beginners all the time?
That keeps it interesting.
> > So who is the crazy one here?
>
> All of us who play chess. :-)
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eliyahu, originally from Holland.
>
> All of us who play chess. :-)
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Eli Kesef
Sep 22, 2020, 7:30:34 AM9/22/20
to
Now lichess has messed up BIG TIME. Before when looking for a game, you could set the lowest and the highest rating of your seek for an opponent on any number you want. But now, the highest of your opponent can not be lower than your own rating, which is really horrible. That means that all the time I risk that I play somebody of my own rating. And that means that my chance of losing is about 50%. Who wants to play chess when you have a 50% chance of losing?? I prefer my opponents to be at least 200 points lower than me. I just HATE losing.
But now that is not possible any more.
I might have to move back to FICS.
http://tinyurl.com/will-be-fun
0 new messages