@Jade-1 said in #6:
> If you lose, it objectively means you are not as spatially intelligent as your opponent. Those are the sad, brutal facts.
Sorry but that's not a fact. A single game is not an indication of your chess intelligence (let alone general spatial intelligence).
> Chess is a perfect information game. There's no chances.
Chess does effectively have some chance involved, when it's played between imperfect players. Unbeknownst to both players, the game can sometimes head in a direction that makes the position easier for one player than the other. From a mathematical perspective it's a perfect information game, but from a practical perspective there's luck involved too (although less than in many other games).
Sounds to me like a long-winded boast disguised by an admission of a silly mistake in a game way back in time, a blunder that a genuinely strong person would let fade out of memory rather than cringe over it years ago. The story doesn't justify claims to a strong character, but more to a silly, fussy one.
Great story. But shouldn't the pawn in the final diagram already be on a4 and not on a2?
Well nice story - i liked it :)
But
i wanted to reprimend you - You GM - that there is NO 10. Kf2 - there is for example 10. Kxf2 possible - earlier i was also imagining Kf3 but didnt find any special issue with that.
IF you thought , moved and wrote 35 Rxh4 then probably you would win :) - try to use the x for capture...
I don't understand the climax of your story. There's something wrong with those diagrams, I suggest you reread your post and correct it because I can't make heads or tails of what's going on in the end.
@PanRedd said in #15:
> I don't understand the climax of your story. There's something wrong with those diagrams, I suggest you reread your post and correct it because I can't make heads or tails of what's going on in the end.
By putting the white pawn on a4 instead of a2 it makes all sense. In a blackout white moved a2-a4 and black captures the white rook in the next move.
"The weak"
"But quitting it because of a failure or a painful defeat is a sign of weakness, not in chess only, but in life overall."
way to talk about people.
"It’s okay to quit chess if you don’t enjoy it anymore. "
Thanks for your permission.
"very tragic story"
Maybe the 'week' are those who use the word "tragic" to talk about one bad loss, and write an epos about it :D
"I was in absolute shock and was experiencing one of the most stressful moments of my life."
if this is one of the most stressful moments of your life, then you are really lucky, and don't have a lot to say about weakness/strength.
Seriously though, this whole post uses a narrow and outdated wiew of weakness/strength. It's nice that you got over your loss and kept playing. this obviously worked for you.
But it doesn't make you strong or special. and it doesn't make other people weak.
Have some perspective and respect.
yes,sir
I feel very grateful to read this blog.
To play chess, a person needs a sharp eye for detail. It has nothing to do with weak or strong personalities. I have never heard of a crowd of people making sounds to a move played. and for the fall and get up approach, I've heard about that from a boxing movie.
The blog has a nice story, and it's in a way advertising a web site.
People try things to discover their talents. Not everyone has the same talents. Some are artists others are not. It has nothing to do with not made for the weak in spirit or mind or what ever the author was trying to imply with the subject title. When something is too easy and you reached the top third, maybe it's time to try another game.
I wonder how it feels for a GM playing against a weaker player. Are they bored, or just figure that chess is not made for the weak?
I really don't like the subject title.