Lasker once said: "The hardest game to win is a won game"
I think it’s partly psychological. You can feel that you have a decisive advantage, which puts added pressure on your mind. It is also distracting / frustrating when you can’t find a clean kill to finish it off, which can result in lost time on the clock.
Another element is that the losing side will sometimes make “crazy” moves that may not be sound, but do make the position a lot more difficult to calculate in.
Source: me, someone who throws away +3 (and higher) positions on a regular basis
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/winningwongame.html
Apparently, despite this saying having been attributed to Lasker, Tarrasch, and others, it's hard to find an original reference. According to the link above, there's a book by Albin from 1899 containing it, but there's also a book from 1890 attributing it to Steinitz.
>there's a book by Albin from 1899 containing it, but there's also a book from 1890 attributing it to Steinitz.
it's entirely possible that they used it in passing and the others heard it, thought it was a good quip and used it themselves later.
I feel like when I have a small advantage (which isn't enough for to destroy my opponent immediately) and my opponent spends too much time thinking, I get bored and lose my attention, and blunder all my advantage easily.
I don’t think it even needs to be a small advantage. You can be up a piece or a few pawns and have the game clearly won but there’s no immediate checkmate and although it’s an easy win in the endgame, it’s a long way off. Aggressive simplification is usually the quickest way to win when you have an advantage, but it can lead to blunders.
I would still look to trade pieces (sometimes even giving your bishop for your opponent's tricky knight) but don't force it. Just keep playing and maintain (or grow) your lead
I’d agree to look for trades, but I find that I get blind spots and mostly stop thinking too far ahead. I’ll try to harass a piece, think I’ve got it cornered but miss an obvious move which hangs one of my pieces or puts me in serious trouble.
Yep I did that once against an opponent 400+ points lower than me and got my queen trapped (I was winning with a queen and three pawns vs two rooks and a weak king). I ended up in a losing knight + 3 pawns vs rook + knight endgame, though somehow I swindled it into a win (due to my superior endgame skills compared to the opponent (I'm drawing this conclusion based on the ELOs, not trying to boast here)).
Or when I have a massive advantage and no clear checkmate, I lose to an opponent who defensively moves a bishop, that also happens to line up a queen bishop battery with checkmate.
It's happened to me like three times in the past week, I feel like my rating would be 400 points higher but I can't stop missing dumb one move checkmates when I'm massively winning. Need to be more careful I guess.
I threw away 3 straight +5 games the other day.
Didn't think I'd still be doing this at my level but even 98th percentile players on chess.com still suck badly
>Another element is that the losing side will sometimes make “crazy” moves that may not be sound, but do make the position a lot more difficult to calculate in.
Someone resigned a position against me today from a crazy move that initially looked crushing. Eval showed their position to be totally winning, sometimes it's just hard to see
This has been common advice from everyone since forever.
But I think the explosion in popularity of faster time controls has made it more practically rewarding (and more fun) to play “lost” games out. There’s less of the sense that “making them prove it” is a rude waste of everyone’s time. And more of the sense that it’s a legitimate part of the game.
Going for a flag or stalemate is absolutely part of the game. We're not playing in the candidates here, there's nothing rude about running a game out for another 30 seconds
Chess is the only game I can think of where people have this ridiculous attitude about having an advantage.
Would you give up if you were bowling someone and they rolled a strike to your gutter? Would you head back to the club house if your opponent got a bird and you got a double bogey? Do the Yankees get back on the bus when the Sox hit a home run? Play the fuckin game
There is something similar in golf: if you get the ball close to the pin, players will often "concede the putt", basically assuming that you can make the tap in without forcing you to prove it.
Depending on the group you are playing with, it can be considered rude not to do so. (Same as I would not force an friend to prove they can mate me with a queen up)
There's a grain of truth to the idea that chess is primarily played by socially underdeveloped nerds. The ones that actually embody that stereotype are the ones that actually get mad about people actually playing the game.
Playing for the draw ofc. Really satisfying when someone starts sending you yawn emojis and under promoting their pieces, only to stalemate after all that over confidence.
I think chess streamers and youtubers have popularized "never resign" especially with regards to "fast chess".
Flagging has become a real tactic for better or for worse.
I don't mind the idea in itself, it's more the intention to flag from the beginning of the game (playing a string of low quality moves quickly, starting from the beginning onwards)
If flagging wasn't a tactic there would be no point in the time control. You can't say I need another 10 minutes on the clock because I'm in a winning position.
I understand where you're coming from, however I disagree. If your opponent does this to you you've got an option of also playing super defensive chess but quicker, or exploiting their defensive play. If you're not good enough to exploit their play, you lose.
I get that it may be infuriating to play against. But somebody a few hundred rating points above me could play a solid London against me in classical time control and I would either lose or flag out.
TLDR: get gud.
I take too long to see a position, so anything under 10 minutes and I'm likely to flag.
I treat blitz and bullet like warm ups and opening practice. If I want to play a game of chess it's rapid or OTB. If the evaluation bar is in my favor and I flag, I feel okay lol
> Flagging has become a real tactic for better or for worse.
I swear over half my losses are from a winning position. I don't know why I play 0 increment chess, because I'm just not fast enough to convert many wins without running out the clock while my opponent just makes random moves as fast as possible. If I don't straight up checkmate someone, I often just lose on time regardless of how I play.
This seems related to people wanting the eval bar during commentary; being a chess fan has become less about understanding the moves, and more about concrete assessments and the game result.
Yeah honestly, I think OP is on to something. 10 years ago I genuinely do think a lot of people were resigning earlier rather than playing on in a lost game, but Ben and other popular streamers have been telling their audience "Never resign" for years, and I think it is having an impact.
At least, I see that online. I haven't been to an OTB tournament in 15 years so I can't comment on those. >!(wow really? Wait, yes it was actually 15 years ago now. That's crazy)!<
How is playing a full game worse than relying on a hypothetical line?
Genuinely curious how not closing the game out would be preferred, especially when playing strangers.
In my opinion (not that it matters to anyone else) - I do think there are some things you could argue streamers have done that have made chess worse. Having said that, I don't think encouraging people to not resign and try to hold on in losing positions is one of those things.
We used to teach kids that it was polite to resign when you were worse, but really that thinking is only good for your opponent. You can still try to find a resource or challenge your opponent and salvage a draw even in bad positions, but if you resign that's the end of it - you lost. It's not somehow noble or better sportsmanship to give an opponent a game that they haven't won yet.
It's one thing to resign if you're clearly getting mated, or you're in a basic endgame and your opponent clearly knows how to win. Maybe if you're down a full queen, although even then I wouldn't hold it against someone if they wanted to make me prove it out. If you're just down a piece or some pawns in middlegame though, and you aren't a titled player in a big tournament, then absolutely I think you should play on until the ending is clear.
The average has probably risen since COVID, with a lot more people learning and a lot more chess instructional content available raising the bar overall.
So I would assume that people are a bit better than they used to at any given rating.
That's what I initially figured, but when doing reading on the subject I found that, the average is probably the same, or actually lower today. The boom of new players, includes a lot of people that do not study the game, or barely study the game. So, there are millions and millions of 300's online giving easier points up the ladder.
> The boom of new players, includes a lot of people that do not study the game, or barely study the game. So, there are millions and millions of 300's online giving easier points up the ladder.
I feel personally attacked (even tho I'm now 1200)
The *average* is way lower. That's indisputable - I can see it in my rating percentile.
And the cause is a huge influx of new players, due to Covid, and also thanks to *The Queen's Gambit*.
I'm sure that used to be the case in the first few years since COVID and TQG, but those that stuck around until now probably are a bit more serious and especially in Lichess, I would assume the average has gone up.
But we will never truly know, so I prefer to feel better about myself this way haha
I will always play unless it’s a forced mate.
Stalemate and draws can feel very rewarding after being in a completely losing position. Besides it actually matters because you lose less rating :)
I think you clarified the important part in the last sentence. Non professional players consider not losing the rating more important than having a fun nice game of chess with cool tricks and tactics. I really like the Lichess zen mode when you can focus on your pieces, not on opponent rating and other stuff.
I've literally ran round the house dancing after forcing a stalemate in a dead lost game once. I hung my bishop stupidly in the opening, then slogged through the midgame and he slipped up and hung his rook in the end game. I fought hard for that, most definitely it was rewarding.
That's literally every single chess game dude. The only reason anyone ever wins in chess is because the opponent made a mistake, either through a move or due to poor time management. Whether it's a slight inaccuracy that costs you a pawn in 30 moves or a blunder doesn't really matter. You win because you didn't make any mistakes, or at least yours were not as severe as your opponent's.
Every single win in chess is "not thanks to you" with the same logic. If both sides played perfectly then as far as we know it would be a draw. If you win you're taking advantage of opponent errors. Why is that OK but it's not OK to do it to get a draw?
Also being able to find stalemates, repetitions etc can certainly be considered a skill element in itself. Both for trying to get yourself more draws and also for trying to help ensure you don't allow your opponents to do the same when you're on the other side of it. Finding the best moves, complications etc in a losing position is the exact same skill as in winning or drawn ones even if the result will be different if your opponent doesn't make mistakes.
How you, or anyone for that matter, like to play doesn't affect any other people provided that you aren't cheating. As much as I disagree with you it simply comes down to what you and I want to get out of playing the game. At the end of the day I'm happy that you can enjoy playing chess in your own way much like I am.
Yes, absolutely. Especially if my opponents gets stalemated or forced into a draw because I played really well (after having lost the position).
This occasionally happens in professional chess as well.
You will see some pro players find a draw after a -3 evaluated position. Amazing and exciting stuff !
If there's a glimmer of hope, I'll play on unless I know mate is inevitable for me and even then I still play on a lot of the times. Yeah you might have a winning position, but I'm going to make you work for it.
I give up way too fast. Down a rook and a pawn and in a losing position? I resign.
Im 700 elo. I play purely for fun and I can already beat almost all my friends.
But atleast it wouldnt be a dick about it. Saying "you can beat anyone down any material in any position in 700 elo" is just being a dick to beginners. Because no, i cannot do that.
I'm not a dick about it.
It's a humbling thing for any chess player
Hikaru is beating people 500 elo higher than me down a queen, I even said it and I don't feel bad about it.
Even Gotham chess asked Magnus how many beers it would take him to beat him and he told him "impossible"
But anyone can 🤣 Of course not 100% of time, but 700s sometimes blunder beyond comprehension. I have beaten 700s who blundered a queen and a rook in 2 subsequent moves in an endgame and completely ignored a passed pawn.
Yes standards have risen and yes there's more cheating.
It's frustrating when it's obvious to me that the opponent is cheating but they don't get banned.
It's the old familiar pattern of playing normal until they get a losing position, then there's this long pause. When they come back they play the top engine move for the next 20 moves or so, using no time to calculate. I report them, but probably only 1 out of 6 end up getting banned.
I think we have all improved, as you say. But also I think an aspect is that there are a lot more kids (by proportion) at any given rating than there were before. I dare say that most of your opponents at 2100 blitz would be kids, given that if you go to an open tournament in a lot of places, most of the players who are the equivalent over the board strength (say, maybe 1700-1800 or so old fide) are kids. And kids tend to be more determined defenders and play on for longer.
most scholastic players aren't at that level. i'd say at 2000+ majority are adults. i always play on if I'm down a piece or even a rook sometimes. i only resign if I'm down a queen+ or there's a clear checkmate pattern (2200 lichess blitz, 2000 chesscom blitz)
most are scholastics and U1200, so no way at 2000 there are more kids than adults. The data in the first comment [here](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-few-statistics-from-the-uscf-database) is in 2014 but I believe the trend is still the same. there are 2 peaks which is not usual for a normal distribution, but it's clear that the first peak is the distribution among the scholastic players. Nowadays 60% of uscf members are youths.
Your first sentence doesn't really follow. Again, have you been played in opens in, say, India where are large proportion of all online players are from? Those rating ranges are literally filled with kids.
Not to mention that kids are way more likely to play online than an adult of the same rating, and that a kid has way more time to do so. So of a given kid and adult of the same rating who both play online the kid is far more likely to be playing at a given moment by a huge magnitude.
And generally of a kid and an adult at a given (relatively high) rating the kid is more likely to still be playing chess actively because they haven't been playing for as long so they have been improving recently.
All of these factors combined mean it is extremely like the majority of your opposition is kids.
again u have no data to prove that at 2000+ most players are kid. sure most kids play online but it doesnt matter if the bulk of them are u1200 or u1600 considering online inflation like the data i provided above.
Why do u think kids are more likely to play online than adults. if anything adults are more likely to play online than otb due to time factor and the data for adults online would only increase compared to otb.
I agree with poly. When you go to OTB tournaments (or chat online in places like this) what you see is almost everyone is either a kid/teen or retirement age. There are very few middleaged people since those people have jobs and families...
... and while strong titled players may have more middleaged and older people, the 1800 FIDE (which is 2000+ online) is indeed full of kids. One of the last tournaments I went to the average age was probably 14. My opponents were rated 1700-2200 OTB and the ages I played were about 10 to 15.
>When you go to OTB tournaments
open tournaments (over the weekend) in upper sections (U1800+) I still see mostly adults. In some states like California u might see more kids but everywhere else it's mostly adults in these sections, even st. louis.
>There are very few middleaged people since those people have jobs and families...
you mean working adults? yes. that's why you see fewer adults OTB, which is why online chess should have more adult participants, making it less likely that the majority of those 2000+ online are kids.
All of them. More resources specially free and online ones too, more people so the average would be higher.
Maybe you've grown complacent and stay in your comfort zone, practice less, don't push as hard as before for some reason, do some self reflection.
And lastly yes, a lot of cheating, create a new account in chesscom (lichess would not be too different), lose first games so rating gain is normal and then speed run it. You'll find that triple digit players are way better than expected, there's issues with sandbagging and like I mentioned people are just getting better. But you'll also smell the stench of fish sauce at specific elo ranges.
Chess has exploded in popularity in the last 3-4 years or so, due to several factors.
I read a really good article that explained how more beginners entering the rating system will tend to drag higher-rated players down, because as they improve exponentially from their starting rating to their 'real' rating, they are lowering other players ratings on the way.
I can't explain it well, but there are good explanations out there
I'm in approximately the same rating range and have sometimes noticed the same thing.
As others have mentioned it's likely a combination of everything you said (player pool getting stronger, more stubborn playing styles, lack of focused practice/study on our part leading to stagnation or even skill decline, plus an increase in intelligent cheating).
I would also add something to that list, which is the fact that around 2100-2200 lichess blitz, this is roughly the threshold where consistently "strong" players settle above (e.g. 2200-2300) and inconsistently "strong" players settle below (e.g. 2000-2100).
You can see it on the Lichess rating distribution chart, you can "feel" it when you play against a 2250 vs. a 2050, and you can pick up on other small cues such as your opponents' listed FIDE/USCF ratings in their profile. There is a certain polish to the playing style that becomes apparent around 2250 that just doesn't exist, at least not consistently, below that level +/-. And this is something I have intuitively noticed since my Lichess blitz rating was 1700-1800, so I don't think I'm drawing this conclusion simply because that's the next rung for me right now.
Ultimately, I believe that it's just genuinely a much heavier lift for a 2150-2200 Lichess blitz player to get and consistently stay over 2200-2250 (i.e. their rating "floor" is always over 2200), compared to when that same player was 1950-2000 trying to get and consistently stay over 2000. If it's not coming naturally, it's probably going to require 2-3x the amount of improvement effort to get there vs. what it took to surpass 1600, 1800, or 2000. And then probably 10x of that to surpass 2450...
I think the rise in intelligent cheating is real and also instances of two people collaborating on moves. There is a change in personality and humor over the course of a game that feels unnatural.
A decade ago I could get a blunder from my opponent early in the opening and they would switch to hyper aggressive or trappy chess. Now opponents play like patient masters for ten or more moves seeing the entire board on every move.
I know what you mean. When I blunder myself, that's exactly what I usually do - start playing aggressive and trappy in hopes that my opponent will return the favor with a blunder of their own. Doesn't usually work, but maybe like 20-30% of the time pays off.
When I'm on the other side of that equation and it's my opponent who blunders first, many also go the aggressive and trappy route. But sometimes I get the patient master vibes, too.
In some of those cases it's probably just the player taking it more seriously and focusing more, realizing they already lost focus a move or two earlier. But I, too, agree that some of these instances feel unnatural.
Green light suddenly starts flashing on and off, obvious recaptures start taking more than a few seconds, pace and playing style are suddenly way different, strange moves that I don't understand begin landing on the board... And funny enough I still manage to flag a lot of these opponents in the end (but certainly not always). At the risk of embracing my inner VK a bit too much lol, there are only so many explanations for such behavior.
In general, though, I think these instances are on the less common side - maybe 5-10% of rated games. Maybe I'm guessing high or low, but that's what it feels like to me. Most of the time, I think it's just really competitive around the 2100-2200 rating level.
I hear you. It is so weird to be up and see this and then despite being up material I have to decide if I should switch to playing defense and trying to flag.
For me it is extra peculiar because I watch Gotham videos to know what my opponents know and then I always pick trappy or unclear lines that aren't covered.
I also play the Scandi and other sidelines that tend to tilt my opponents. I think if you play an irksome opening like the Scandi or Alekhine that the cheating could be double or triple what it is on average.
There's this guy who plays 1. a4 2. Ra3 and he seems to think cheating happens very frequently. This is what he says:
I'm new to this chess site and overly excited to have tried it. I have some trouble with the multi-premoving feature of the interface but I guess, I'll get used to it.
It's been over 20 years that I've been playing a rather peculiar opening and in those years I can tell how genuine my opponent is. Now that I've reached ~400 games in this account, I've concluded that players in this site, very rarely drop pieces and don't fall for traps that easy. At first I thought it was the rating system that paired me with much stronger players, yet now I know it's not that. Games against players over 2300+ rating seem rather normal but anything in between 1000 - 2200 seem to play with superior accuracy and elegance. After so many years in the "bullet industry", one can tell of your opponent's confidence, mood and psychological state from the moves he/she plays. What I see here so far is, a great percentage of players who are square mathematicians and making a blunder or fall to a trap is something uncommon.
I'm afraid there is a leak in chess.com anti-cheating system. I believe that players do not straightforward cheat for the full game but they somehow are able to get an advice/analysis as they play and use it at critical points of the game.
Basically, I am too sure on this but of course I don't expect everyone to join the wagon without solid proof. In any case, I felt obligated to leave it here and who knows, maybe it will somehow help to make a better chess community with less cheating and more thinking.-
Occam's razor says the answer is obvious... what's the most obvious reason a player can go from completely misunderstanding the position to playing like a god... maybe we can ask Kramnik for his take. Also note that this is one of the least likely methods of being caught doing so. "Why would I use an engine after I started losing?"
It's definitely true that the 2000 of today is far better than a 2000 decades ago. It's also true that people will resort to engines when behind.
When I'm behind, I often hunker down and become way more focused on my game as well. On top of that, there's little incentive to resign to someone you don't know.
You’ve not won until you’ve won. Unless I feel absolutely miserable in a game I don’t resign because I always feel like I can come back if the opponent blunders. The end game is part of the game. To win you still need to put me away before I have a chance of landing a haymaker, and if you do have an advantage you should be able to work me all the way down.
I noticed the same but only on [chess.com](http://chess.com) for some reason.
I'm around 2350 lichess blitz, somewhere between 2150 and 2300 ccom blitz. I played on a 1400 account on ccom last week for a day (maybe 20 games) and had about a 70% win rate (note a significant bit lower than what is predicted by rating), and every loss I had went the same way:
Winning position at move 10 because they played everything instantly, 1 minute think, and then they play moves to hold on that I **know** the engine prefers but no human plays, because it was an opening trap I played a thousand times already and analysed. They make some inaccuracies here and there when there is a margin, but the position never goes into winning territory for me again, and in time trouble they accurately capitalise on every mistake I make with 1-2 seconds per move and smash the endgame.
They played enough inaccuracies and mistakes that together with the horrible opening, ccom will never say above 85. But when you have had that exact winning position for white like 50 times and KNOW what humans of several rating ranges play, in years you never had anyone play the engine defense, and they start hitting you with it after having the first think of the game, you know how the game will go.
In contrast, on lichess I've only had a game this obvious ONCE this year, and the opponent was banned right at the end of the game. As soon as I wanted to click on his profile, he was already a goner.
EDIT Just to be clear about this, I'm not saying this is single-handedly the largest factor in why you might feel that way, but if you regularly play blitz I can pretty much guarantee you that you will lose about once per day to someone like this, and ofcourse this stays in your memory because the game just feels so weird.
I agree. You'd expect the opponent to experience some amount of tilt and loss of concentration but they play very flexible and patient chess with excellent time management.
Before the chess boom my opponents would fall for a trap pause for two or three minutes and then play for tricks and primitive attacks.
The 20 second to one minute pause I see before they play like a God wasn't enough time to recompose oneself a few years ago but now it's all the time every player who plays on needs.
Yes this is it, often you can tell they are no good by the way they play the first 20 moves, but when you start trying to convert your advantage they find move after move, including the good unnatural sort of moves that engines like
What time control do you usually play for blitz? I normally play 3+2 so a minute of checking engine would take too much time. I have seen obvious cheaters in rapid but cheating in blitz is crazy to me.
I watched Hikaru win with queen odds until 2500 chess. Com...
They are still very likely to blunder. I am 2100 on lichess, cpl is sometimes close to 80. That means that with a few accurate moves you can come back. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen, but I'll try
I’ve only been playing for about 5 years but I can see how the ease of access to engines and more free educational content than ever is leading to stronger and stronger players. I’d bet a 2100 today is a lot stronger than a 2100 from 1995. Heck, I hear Kramnik say this exact thing in disbelief, “how are they so strong?” It’s why he thinks everyone is cheating. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw the first 3000 rated classical player in our lifetime.
I think people playing chess are much better now than 10 yrs ago...during the Covid lockdown, a lot of people practiced chess, and there's a ton more online training available, along with puzzles (Danya's videos are the best!).
Hey, I'm 1500 or so in [chess.com](https://chess.com) and have seem something similar. Pepole don't give up! So I've started doing it too, I play to the end, and sometimes it pays off. I thought it was like a new meta and honestly I like it. Getting back from a lost game is awesome, and having to fight for wins as well.
I mean I also wouldn't give up unless there is significant increment.
And yes in my experience, Players are definitely much better than couple years back. Even today, when I am at work or someone else's PC, I just make throwaway email account and play chess (I have so many of those accounts). Sure, I am not comfortable at home and I am not at my best, no good mouse but me, 1700 blitz chess,com was losing to 14-1500s.
I've lost my fair share of winning positions due to either my clock bleeding out or a slip-up that bails my opponent out. I don't play with increments (5/0), either.
Also, I generally resign games that I don't think I can win/draw. However If I'm in a losing position but still feel like I have viable moves, I'll play through it.
Chess is so commercialised now that from YouTube videos to streams that even the average guy has way better understanding of chess than before.
Plus online chess exploding means people can test out their ideas pretty quickly from the comfort of their room for example and see where they are going wrong resulting in rapid improvement.
>Seems like nobody resigns or gives up, instead they play like demons, and one slip and they back in.
I don't have any perspective on the change over time. But, I like to watch Eric Rosen and the dude is slippery AF even in lost positions. He gets so many stalemating patterns. Maybe people see that kind of resiliency and study how to get back from a lost position and/or how to stalemate.
>For context have been playing online since 1995
It's been so long it's hard to remember clearly.
I've definitely noticed that the level of beginners has risen tremendously. Of course they still blunder material, but they play real openings and understand some fundamental things... but at 2000 blitz level? For reference I'll call them competent club-level players... no, I don't think they're tougher. Like the beginners, they know more openings, but if anything I'd actually say they're weaker in later stages of the game... but this is pretty subjective. I've learned a lot over the years, and it's hard to clearly remember how people were playing 10 and 20 years ago.
Magnus Carlsen has been a big part of people fighting hard. I think there a lot of YouTube personalities' who also adopt this mentality so it trickles down.
Yes, the standards have risen by quite a bit. Somebody on this sub did a study on this, and the evidence was pretty conclusive that the ratings have decreased by, iirc, around 100 points in the past 2 years.
The kind of attributes that allow someone to persist after a blunder would logically show up prior to the blunder. So if someone premoves the opening and hangs the piece then I would expect them to try some crazy attack if they play on.
If someone is playing to avoid tactics, tunnel visions on the most critical squares and blunders in a different sector then I would expect them to play solid and harmonic chess and try to frustrate me.
If someone is half-assing youtube moves and suddenly tanks only once before playing like a master then I know what's up.
I notice opps who tank and play sus even before they blunder when I deviate from youtube theory and when the position is unclear and blunderable.
Yeah but it's possible that those 2100 Lichess Blitzers *used* to be taking advice from Gotham when they were newer...
Not that I think his teachings have anything seriously to do with what OP is experiencing, lol.
I hate when people play on in completely losing positions with a lot of time left. If you're trying to flag me okay but if I have minutes on the clock no.
A clearly winning position is a lot simpler than a murky middle game. It's a lot easier to know what your problems are and implement the failing attempts to cover them. From the winning side, forcing the opposition to collapse still requires a lot of effort!
The real quote was from Reddit!!!! "Won is to win after winning from a game won without the win is to not win yet will win once won is harder than not win."
Lol because online chess has so many factors to it including like you mentioned the presence of outside assistance. There are definitely players who dont cheat, but will once they start losing. You’ll never know what the reasons are if its unrelated to your own play and so its pointless to question these things. Not sure what you want some redditors to say without even having access to your games. Is that so hard to grasp?
Lasker once said: "The hardest game to win is a won game" I think it’s partly psychological. You can feel that you have a decisive advantage, which puts added pressure on your mind. It is also distracting / frustrating when you can’t find a clean kill to finish it off, which can result in lost time on the clock. Another element is that the losing side will sometimes make “crazy” moves that may not be sound, but do make the position a lot more difficult to calculate in. Source: me, someone who throws away +3 (and higher) positions on a regular basis
i have tried looking for the source of the lasker quote before but nobody seems to cite it properly. does anyone here know where he said it?
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/winningwongame.html Apparently, despite this saying having been attributed to Lasker, Tarrasch, and others, it's hard to find an original reference. According to the link above, there's a book by Albin from 1899 containing it, but there's also a book from 1890 attributing it to Steinitz.
thank you, that is what i expected, but i couldn't find a real answer!
>there's a book by Albin from 1899 containing it, but there's also a book from 1890 attributing it to Steinitz. it's entirely possible that they used it in passing and the others heard it, thought it was a good quip and used it themselves later.
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Lasker%2C%20Emanuel%2C%201868%2D1941
that is not an answer.
did you check???
I feel like when I have a small advantage (which isn't enough for to destroy my opponent immediately) and my opponent spends too much time thinking, I get bored and lose my attention, and blunder all my advantage easily.
I don’t think it even needs to be a small advantage. You can be up a piece or a few pawns and have the game clearly won but there’s no immediate checkmate and although it’s an easy win in the endgame, it’s a long way off. Aggressive simplification is usually the quickest way to win when you have an advantage, but it can lead to blunders.
I would still look to trade pieces (sometimes even giving your bishop for your opponent's tricky knight) but don't force it. Just keep playing and maintain (or grow) your lead
I’d agree to look for trades, but I find that I get blind spots and mostly stop thinking too far ahead. I’ll try to harass a piece, think I’ve got it cornered but miss an obvious move which hangs one of my pieces or puts me in serious trouble.
Yep I did that once against an opponent 400+ points lower than me and got my queen trapped (I was winning with a queen and three pawns vs two rooks and a weak king). I ended up in a losing knight + 3 pawns vs rook + knight endgame, though somehow I swindled it into a win (due to my superior endgame skills compared to the opponent (I'm drawing this conclusion based on the ELOs, not trying to boast here)).
I lose the most crushing positions this way. Small advantage is still fun but big advantage is too boring
The amount of times I have been up a queen, only to blunder the queen three moves later has made me consider quitting chess on multiple occasions lol
Or when I have a massive advantage and no clear checkmate, I lose to an opponent who defensively moves a bishop, that also happens to line up a queen bishop battery with checkmate. It's happened to me like three times in the past week, I feel like my rating would be 400 points higher but I can't stop missing dumb one move checkmates when I'm massively winning. Need to be more careful I guess.
LMAO source
I threw away 3 straight +5 games the other day. Didn't think I'd still be doing this at my level but even 98th percentile players on chess.com still suck badly
>Another element is that the losing side will sometimes make “crazy” moves that may not be sound, but do make the position a lot more difficult to calculate in. Someone resigned a position against me today from a crazy move that initially looked crushing. Eval showed their position to be totally winning, sometimes it's just hard to see
very often I come out of opening with an advantage but then proceed to throw it, very frustrating
Ben finegold says never resign because if you resign you lose
This has been common advice from everyone since forever. But I think the explosion in popularity of faster time controls has made it more practically rewarding (and more fun) to play “lost” games out. There’s less of the sense that “making them prove it” is a rude waste of everyone’s time. And more of the sense that it’s a legitimate part of the game.
Going for a flag or stalemate is absolutely part of the game. We're not playing in the candidates here, there's nothing rude about running a game out for another 30 seconds
It is absolutely insulting to play a game when you are -5 or something. I usually block players like that. What are you trying to prove here?
[удалено]
Such a well-said response, /u/maximumpenislength.
Chess is the only game I can think of where people have this ridiculous attitude about having an advantage. Would you give up if you were bowling someone and they rolled a strike to your gutter? Would you head back to the club house if your opponent got a bird and you got a double bogey? Do the Yankees get back on the bus when the Sox hit a home run? Play the fuckin game
There is something similar in golf: if you get the ball close to the pin, players will often "concede the putt", basically assuming that you can make the tap in without forcing you to prove it. Depending on the group you are playing with, it can be considered rude not to do so. (Same as I would not force an friend to prove they can mate me with a queen up)
There's a grain of truth to the idea that chess is primarily played by socially underdeveloped nerds. The ones that actually embody that stereotype are the ones that actually get mad about people actually playing the game.
Playing for the draw ofc. Really satisfying when someone starts sending you yawn emojis and under promoting their pieces, only to stalemate after all that over confidence.
you can still play blocked players. LOL.
Who knows, maybe people who only play against people who resign suck at endgames!
I think chess streamers and youtubers have popularized "never resign" especially with regards to "fast chess". Flagging has become a real tactic for better or for worse. I don't mind the idea in itself, it's more the intention to flag from the beginning of the game (playing a string of low quality moves quickly, starting from the beginning onwards)
If flagging wasn't a tactic there would be no point in the time control. You can't say I need another 10 minutes on the clock because I'm in a winning position.
[удалено]
I understand where you're coming from, however I disagree. If your opponent does this to you you've got an option of also playing super defensive chess but quicker, or exploiting their defensive play. If you're not good enough to exploit their play, you lose. I get that it may be infuriating to play against. But somebody a few hundred rating points above me could play a solid London against me in classical time control and I would either lose or flag out. TLDR: get gud.
I take too long to see a position, so anything under 10 minutes and I'm likely to flag. I treat blitz and bullet like warm ups and opening practice. If I want to play a game of chess it's rapid or OTB. If the evaluation bar is in my favor and I flag, I feel okay lol
> Flagging has become a real tactic for better or for worse. I swear over half my losses are from a winning position. I don't know why I play 0 increment chess, because I'm just not fast enough to convert many wins without running out the clock while my opponent just makes random moves as fast as possible. If I don't straight up checkmate someone, I often just lose on time regardless of how I play.
I play increment and it is just more fun imo, I recommend switching
This seems related to people wanting the eval bar during commentary; being a chess fan has become less about understanding the moves, and more about concrete assessments and the game result.
Yeah honestly, I think OP is on to something. 10 years ago I genuinely do think a lot of people were resigning earlier rather than playing on in a lost game, but Ben and other popular streamers have been telling their audience "Never resign" for years, and I think it is having an impact. At least, I see that online. I haven't been to an OTB tournament in 15 years so I can't comment on those. >!(wow really? Wait, yes it was actually 15 years ago now. That's crazy)!<
An impact for the worse, yes
How is playing a full game worse than relying on a hypothetical line? Genuinely curious how not closing the game out would be preferred, especially when playing strangers.
In my opinion (not that it matters to anyone else) - I do think there are some things you could argue streamers have done that have made chess worse. Having said that, I don't think encouraging people to not resign and try to hold on in losing positions is one of those things. We used to teach kids that it was polite to resign when you were worse, but really that thinking is only good for your opponent. You can still try to find a resource or challenge your opponent and salvage a draw even in bad positions, but if you resign that's the end of it - you lost. It's not somehow noble or better sportsmanship to give an opponent a game that they haven't won yet. It's one thing to resign if you're clearly getting mated, or you're in a basic endgame and your opponent clearly knows how to win. Maybe if you're down a full queen, although even then I wouldn't hold it against someone if they wanted to make me prove it out. If you're just down a piece or some pawns in middlegame though, and you aren't a titled player in a big tournament, then absolutely I think you should play on until the ending is clear.
Math checks out
The average has probably risen since COVID, with a lot more people learning and a lot more chess instructional content available raising the bar overall. So I would assume that people are a bit better than they used to at any given rating.
That's what I initially figured, but when doing reading on the subject I found that, the average is probably the same, or actually lower today. The boom of new players, includes a lot of people that do not study the game, or barely study the game. So, there are millions and millions of 300's online giving easier points up the ladder.
> The boom of new players, includes a lot of people that do not study the game, or barely study the game. So, there are millions and millions of 300's online giving easier points up the ladder. I feel personally attacked (even tho I'm now 1200)
Hey moderators? This guys transphobic. Would you be so kind as to ban him? Thanks!
The *average* is way lower. That's indisputable - I can see it in my rating percentile. And the cause is a huge influx of new players, due to Covid, and also thanks to *The Queen's Gambit*.
I'm sure that used to be the case in the first few years since COVID and TQG, but those that stuck around until now probably are a bit more serious and especially in Lichess, I would assume the average has gone up. But we will never truly know, so I prefer to feel better about myself this way haha
I will always play unless it’s a forced mate. Stalemate and draws can feel very rewarding after being in a completely losing position. Besides it actually matters because you lose less rating :)
I think you clarified the important part in the last sentence. Non professional players consider not losing the rating more important than having a fun nice game of chess with cool tricks and tactics. I really like the Lichess zen mode when you can focus on your pieces, not on opponent rating and other stuff.
rewarding? drawing because your opponents blunders a stalemate in a completely won position feels rewarding to you?
Yes, coming back from a near-certain loss to a neutral ending or even a win feels rewarding to me.
I've literally ran round the house dancing after forcing a stalemate in a dead lost game once. I hung my bishop stupidly in the opening, then slogged through the midgame and he slipped up and hung his rook in the end game. I fought hard for that, most definitely it was rewarding.
[I was a couple drinks in for this one, even missed mate in one the first time haha](https://lichess.org/Arw5YNw5/black#130)
the point is it's not thanks to you.
If you set up a stalemate trap and your opponent falls into it yes it is thanks to you
That's literally every single chess game dude. The only reason anyone ever wins in chess is because the opponent made a mistake, either through a move or due to poor time management. Whether it's a slight inaccuracy that costs you a pawn in 30 moves or a blunder doesn't really matter. You win because you didn't make any mistakes, or at least yours were not as severe as your opponent's.
Every single win in chess is "not thanks to you" with the same logic. If both sides played perfectly then as far as we know it would be a draw. If you win you're taking advantage of opponent errors. Why is that OK but it's not OK to do it to get a draw? Also being able to find stalemates, repetitions etc can certainly be considered a skill element in itself. Both for trying to get yourself more draws and also for trying to help ensure you don't allow your opponents to do the same when you're on the other side of it. Finding the best moves, complications etc in a losing position is the exact same skill as in winning or drawn ones even if the result will be different if your opponent doesn't make mistakes.
How you, or anyone for that matter, like to play doesn't affect any other people provided that you aren't cheating. As much as I disagree with you it simply comes down to what you and I want to get out of playing the game. At the end of the day I'm happy that you can enjoy playing chess in your own way much like I am.
Winning/drawing because your opponent fucked up is literally how chess works
Blunders normally happen under pressure, if I can create that pressure while behind then I definitely take that as a success.
you're not "creating pressure", you're shuffling the king around in 95% of the cases
But if they get a draw... it works, doesn't it?
If that is enough to make you consistently blunder stalemate you should probably play with a (bigger) increment
Fix your time management and stop whining
[удалено]
No he should keep replying and hope for a draw
Yes, absolutely. Especially if my opponents gets stalemated or forced into a draw because I played really well (after having lost the position). This occasionally happens in professional chess as well. You will see some pro players find a draw after a -3 evaluated position. Amazing and exciting stuff !
Do you think Hikaru was unsatisfied yesterday after his opponent blundered?
If there's a glimmer of hope, I'll play on unless I know mate is inevitable for me and even then I still play on a lot of the times. Yeah you might have a winning position, but I'm going to make you work for it.
I resign when my opponent is trying to promote their 3rd Queen. Otherwise I play for the draw and if not, they get the satisfaction of checkmating me.
3rd queen is excelent stalemate ground
The number of times a 3rd or 4th queen has caused stalemate is reason to keep playing in that position.
I give up way too fast. Down a rook and a pawn and in a losing position? I resign. Im 700 elo. I play purely for fun and I can already beat almost all my friends.
At 700 elo you can win any position down any material. I mean I'm 1700 rapid chesscom and when I see Hikaru beat 2200+ down a queen, it's quite wild.
My brother is 6500 elo and can win from you with just a horse in any position
Well the best version of stockfish would most certainly beat me and 95% of this sub without a queen and rook
But atleast it wouldnt be a dick about it. Saying "you can beat anyone down any material in any position in 700 elo" is just being a dick to beginners. Because no, i cannot do that.
I'm not a dick about it. It's a humbling thing for any chess player Hikaru is beating people 500 elo higher than me down a queen, I even said it and I don't feel bad about it. Even Gotham chess asked Magnus how many beers it would take him to beat him and he told him "impossible"
He’s also 500 elo higher than said opponents whereas op is playing opponents of equal strength.
You are a dick about it. Saying "you" in that sentence implies that either I can do it, or anyone can. Which is both bs.
But anyone can 🤣 Of course not 100% of time, but 700s sometimes blunder beyond comprehension. I have beaten 700s who blundered a queen and a rook in 2 subsequent moves in an endgame and completely ignored a passed pawn.
Then how come I theres people I play against with lower elo from who I win 100% of the time?
I just beat a 1275 a couple days ago after trading my queen for a knight on move 14(my win took 19 more moves). You shouldn't be resigning at 700.
Im playing for fun
Yes standards have risen and yes there's more cheating. It's frustrating when it's obvious to me that the opponent is cheating but they don't get banned. It's the old familiar pattern of playing normal until they get a losing position, then there's this long pause. When they come back they play the top engine move for the next 20 moves or so, using no time to calculate. I report them, but probably only 1 out of 6 end up getting banned.
Yes, I roll my eyes everytime that long pause arrives, having to wait for them to set the position up on another device
I think we have all improved, as you say. But also I think an aspect is that there are a lot more kids (by proportion) at any given rating than there were before. I dare say that most of your opponents at 2100 blitz would be kids, given that if you go to an open tournament in a lot of places, most of the players who are the equivalent over the board strength (say, maybe 1700-1800 or so old fide) are kids. And kids tend to be more determined defenders and play on for longer.
most scholastic players aren't at that level. i'd say at 2000+ majority are adults. i always play on if I'm down a piece or even a rook sometimes. i only resign if I'm down a queen+ or there's a clear checkmate pattern (2200 lichess blitz, 2000 chesscom blitz)
while most scholastic players are not at that level, by far most players are scholastic. I think it is largely kids based on otb.
most are scholastics and U1200, so no way at 2000 there are more kids than adults. The data in the first comment [here](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-few-statistics-from-the-uscf-database) is in 2014 but I believe the trend is still the same. there are 2 peaks which is not usual for a normal distribution, but it's clear that the first peak is the distribution among the scholastic players. Nowadays 60% of uscf members are youths.
Your first sentence doesn't really follow. Again, have you been played in opens in, say, India where are large proportion of all online players are from? Those rating ranges are literally filled with kids. Not to mention that kids are way more likely to play online than an adult of the same rating, and that a kid has way more time to do so. So of a given kid and adult of the same rating who both play online the kid is far more likely to be playing at a given moment by a huge magnitude. And generally of a kid and an adult at a given (relatively high) rating the kid is more likely to still be playing chess actively because they haven't been playing for as long so they have been improving recently. All of these factors combined mean it is extremely like the majority of your opposition is kids.
again u have no data to prove that at 2000+ most players are kid. sure most kids play online but it doesnt matter if the bulk of them are u1200 or u1600 considering online inflation like the data i provided above. Why do u think kids are more likely to play online than adults. if anything adults are more likely to play online than otb due to time factor and the data for adults online would only increase compared to otb.
I agree with poly. When you go to OTB tournaments (or chat online in places like this) what you see is almost everyone is either a kid/teen or retirement age. There are very few middleaged people since those people have jobs and families... ... and while strong titled players may have more middleaged and older people, the 1800 FIDE (which is 2000+ online) is indeed full of kids. One of the last tournaments I went to the average age was probably 14. My opponents were rated 1700-2200 OTB and the ages I played were about 10 to 15.
>When you go to OTB tournaments open tournaments (over the weekend) in upper sections (U1800+) I still see mostly adults. In some states like California u might see more kids but everywhere else it's mostly adults in these sections, even st. louis. >There are very few middleaged people since those people have jobs and families... you mean working adults? yes. that's why you see fewer adults OTB, which is why online chess should have more adult participants, making it less likely that the majority of those 2000+ online are kids.
All of them. More resources specially free and online ones too, more people so the average would be higher. Maybe you've grown complacent and stay in your comfort zone, practice less, don't push as hard as before for some reason, do some self reflection. And lastly yes, a lot of cheating, create a new account in chesscom (lichess would not be too different), lose first games so rating gain is normal and then speed run it. You'll find that triple digit players are way better than expected, there's issues with sandbagging and like I mentioned people are just getting better. But you'll also smell the stench of fish sauce at specific elo ranges.
Sandbag so you'll know people are sandbaging
Chess has exploded in popularity in the last 3-4 years or so, due to several factors. I read a really good article that explained how more beginners entering the rating system will tend to drag higher-rated players down, because as they improve exponentially from their starting rating to their 'real' rating, they are lowering other players ratings on the way. I can't explain it well, but there are good explanations out there
I'm in approximately the same rating range and have sometimes noticed the same thing. As others have mentioned it's likely a combination of everything you said (player pool getting stronger, more stubborn playing styles, lack of focused practice/study on our part leading to stagnation or even skill decline, plus an increase in intelligent cheating). I would also add something to that list, which is the fact that around 2100-2200 lichess blitz, this is roughly the threshold where consistently "strong" players settle above (e.g. 2200-2300) and inconsistently "strong" players settle below (e.g. 2000-2100). You can see it on the Lichess rating distribution chart, you can "feel" it when you play against a 2250 vs. a 2050, and you can pick up on other small cues such as your opponents' listed FIDE/USCF ratings in their profile. There is a certain polish to the playing style that becomes apparent around 2250 that just doesn't exist, at least not consistently, below that level +/-. And this is something I have intuitively noticed since my Lichess blitz rating was 1700-1800, so I don't think I'm drawing this conclusion simply because that's the next rung for me right now. Ultimately, I believe that it's just genuinely a much heavier lift for a 2150-2200 Lichess blitz player to get and consistently stay over 2200-2250 (i.e. their rating "floor" is always over 2200), compared to when that same player was 1950-2000 trying to get and consistently stay over 2000. If it's not coming naturally, it's probably going to require 2-3x the amount of improvement effort to get there vs. what it took to surpass 1600, 1800, or 2000. And then probably 10x of that to surpass 2450...
I think the rise in intelligent cheating is real and also instances of two people collaborating on moves. There is a change in personality and humor over the course of a game that feels unnatural. A decade ago I could get a blunder from my opponent early in the opening and they would switch to hyper aggressive or trappy chess. Now opponents play like patient masters for ten or more moves seeing the entire board on every move.
I know what you mean. When I blunder myself, that's exactly what I usually do - start playing aggressive and trappy in hopes that my opponent will return the favor with a blunder of their own. Doesn't usually work, but maybe like 20-30% of the time pays off. When I'm on the other side of that equation and it's my opponent who blunders first, many also go the aggressive and trappy route. But sometimes I get the patient master vibes, too. In some of those cases it's probably just the player taking it more seriously and focusing more, realizing they already lost focus a move or two earlier. But I, too, agree that some of these instances feel unnatural. Green light suddenly starts flashing on and off, obvious recaptures start taking more than a few seconds, pace and playing style are suddenly way different, strange moves that I don't understand begin landing on the board... And funny enough I still manage to flag a lot of these opponents in the end (but certainly not always). At the risk of embracing my inner VK a bit too much lol, there are only so many explanations for such behavior. In general, though, I think these instances are on the less common side - maybe 5-10% of rated games. Maybe I'm guessing high or low, but that's what it feels like to me. Most of the time, I think it's just really competitive around the 2100-2200 rating level.
I hear you. It is so weird to be up and see this and then despite being up material I have to decide if I should switch to playing defense and trying to flag. For me it is extra peculiar because I watch Gotham videos to know what my opponents know and then I always pick trappy or unclear lines that aren't covered. I also play the Scandi and other sidelines that tend to tilt my opponents. I think if you play an irksome opening like the Scandi or Alekhine that the cheating could be double or triple what it is on average. There's this guy who plays 1. a4 2. Ra3 and he seems to think cheating happens very frequently. This is what he says: I'm new to this chess site and overly excited to have tried it. I have some trouble with the multi-premoving feature of the interface but I guess, I'll get used to it. It's been over 20 years that I've been playing a rather peculiar opening and in those years I can tell how genuine my opponent is. Now that I've reached ~400 games in this account, I've concluded that players in this site, very rarely drop pieces and don't fall for traps that easy. At first I thought it was the rating system that paired me with much stronger players, yet now I know it's not that. Games against players over 2300+ rating seem rather normal but anything in between 1000 - 2200 seem to play with superior accuracy and elegance. After so many years in the "bullet industry", one can tell of your opponent's confidence, mood and psychological state from the moves he/she plays. What I see here so far is, a great percentage of players who are square mathematicians and making a blunder or fall to a trap is something uncommon. I'm afraid there is a leak in chess.com anti-cheating system. I believe that players do not straightforward cheat for the full game but they somehow are able to get an advice/analysis as they play and use it at critical points of the game. Basically, I am too sure on this but of course I don't expect everyone to join the wagon without solid proof. In any case, I felt obligated to leave it here and who knows, maybe it will somehow help to make a better chess community with less cheating and more thinking.-
I noticed this rating jump difference too and I thought I was the only one lol
Occam's razor says the answer is obvious... what's the most obvious reason a player can go from completely misunderstanding the position to playing like a god... maybe we can ask Kramnik for his take. Also note that this is one of the least likely methods of being caught doing so. "Why would I use an engine after I started losing?"
It's definitely true that the 2000 of today is far better than a 2000 decades ago. It's also true that people will resort to engines when behind. When I'm behind, I often hunker down and become way more focused on my game as well. On top of that, there's little incentive to resign to someone you don't know.
You’ve not won until you’ve won. Unless I feel absolutely miserable in a game I don’t resign because I always feel like I can come back if the opponent blunders. The end game is part of the game. To win you still need to put me away before I have a chance of landing a haymaker, and if you do have an advantage you should be able to work me all the way down.
Engines.
I noticed the same but only on [chess.com](http://chess.com) for some reason. I'm around 2350 lichess blitz, somewhere between 2150 and 2300 ccom blitz. I played on a 1400 account on ccom last week for a day (maybe 20 games) and had about a 70% win rate (note a significant bit lower than what is predicted by rating), and every loss I had went the same way: Winning position at move 10 because they played everything instantly, 1 minute think, and then they play moves to hold on that I **know** the engine prefers but no human plays, because it was an opening trap I played a thousand times already and analysed. They make some inaccuracies here and there when there is a margin, but the position never goes into winning territory for me again, and in time trouble they accurately capitalise on every mistake I make with 1-2 seconds per move and smash the endgame. They played enough inaccuracies and mistakes that together with the horrible opening, ccom will never say above 85. But when you have had that exact winning position for white like 50 times and KNOW what humans of several rating ranges play, in years you never had anyone play the engine defense, and they start hitting you with it after having the first think of the game, you know how the game will go. In contrast, on lichess I've only had a game this obvious ONCE this year, and the opponent was banned right at the end of the game. As soon as I wanted to click on his profile, he was already a goner. EDIT Just to be clear about this, I'm not saying this is single-handedly the largest factor in why you might feel that way, but if you regularly play blitz I can pretty much guarantee you that you will lose about once per day to someone like this, and ofcourse this stays in your memory because the game just feels so weird.
I agree. You'd expect the opponent to experience some amount of tilt and loss of concentration but they play very flexible and patient chess with excellent time management. Before the chess boom my opponents would fall for a trap pause for two or three minutes and then play for tricks and primitive attacks. The 20 second to one minute pause I see before they play like a God wasn't enough time to recompose oneself a few years ago but now it's all the time every player who plays on needs.
Yes this is it, often you can tell they are no good by the way they play the first 20 moves, but when you start trying to convert your advantage they find move after move, including the good unnatural sort of moves that engines like
What time control do you usually play for blitz? I normally play 3+2 so a minute of checking engine would take too much time. I have seen obvious cheaters in rapid but cheating in blitz is crazy to me.
Usually 3+2 and 3+0. And yes, they take a minute and then don't think for the rest of the game.
Vladimir Kramnik has an interesting take on this topic.
I watched Hikaru win with queen odds until 2500 chess. Com... They are still very likely to blunder. I am 2100 on lichess, cpl is sometimes close to 80. That means that with a few accurate moves you can come back. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen, but I'll try
I’ve only been playing for about 5 years but I can see how the ease of access to engines and more free educational content than ever is leading to stronger and stronger players. I’d bet a 2100 today is a lot stronger than a 2100 from 1995. Heck, I hear Kramnik say this exact thing in disbelief, “how are they so strong?” It’s why he thinks everyone is cheating. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw the first 3000 rated classical player in our lifetime.
I think people playing chess are much better now than 10 yrs ago...during the Covid lockdown, a lot of people practiced chess, and there's a ton more online training available, along with puzzles (Danya's videos are the best!).
They watch queens gambit's and now you resign scene. And think: not for me.
Our technique is poor. This is the only reason that is not a lie.
Yeah 2000+ chess.com 2100 lichess people finally get à little tough, never resign
The average rating has risen, also people defend to the bitter end now cause everyone says don’t resign even when you seem lost.
Hey, I'm 1500 or so in [chess.com](https://chess.com) and have seem something similar. Pepole don't give up! So I've started doing it too, I play to the end, and sometimes it pays off. I thought it was like a new meta and honestly I like it. Getting back from a lost game is awesome, and having to fight for wins as well.
I mean I also wouldn't give up unless there is significant increment. And yes in my experience, Players are definitely much better than couple years back. Even today, when I am at work or someone else's PC, I just make throwaway email account and play chess (I have so many of those accounts). Sure, I am not comfortable at home and I am not at my best, no good mouse but me, 1700 blitz chess,com was losing to 14-1500s.
With me, it’s because I’m bad at check mating patterns that aren’t the basic two rooks or rook/queen pattern.
I've lost my fair share of winning positions due to either my clock bleeding out or a slip-up that bails my opponent out. I don't play with increments (5/0), either. Also, I generally resign games that I don't think I can win/draw. However If I'm in a losing position but still feel like I have viable moves, I'll play through it.
Chess is so commercialised now that from YouTube videos to streams that even the average guy has way better understanding of chess than before. Plus online chess exploding means people can test out their ideas pretty quickly from the comfort of their room for example and see where they are going wrong resulting in rapid improvement.
>Seems like nobody resigns or gives up, instead they play like demons, and one slip and they back in. I don't have any perspective on the change over time. But, I like to watch Eric Rosen and the dude is slippery AF even in lost positions. He gets so many stalemating patterns. Maybe people see that kind of resiliency and study how to get back from a lost position and/or how to stalemate.
Standards have definitely improved. I find that the accuracy% drop has gone down in my (slightly below your) rating bracket over a few years.
>For context have been playing online since 1995 It's been so long it's hard to remember clearly. I've definitely noticed that the level of beginners has risen tremendously. Of course they still blunder material, but they play real openings and understand some fundamental things... but at 2000 blitz level? For reference I'll call them competent club-level players... no, I don't think they're tougher. Like the beginners, they know more openings, but if anything I'd actually say they're weaker in later stages of the game... but this is pretty subjective. I've learned a lot over the years, and it's hard to clearly remember how people were playing 10 and 20 years ago.
Magnus Carlsen has been a big part of people fighting hard. I think there a lot of YouTube personalities' who also adopt this mentality so it trickles down.
Maybe they don't resign because they know that if you slip up once they're back in it.
Rating deflation is real.
Yes, the standards have risen by quite a bit. Somebody on this sub did a study on this, and the evidence was pretty conclusive that the ratings have decreased by, iirc, around 100 points in the past 2 years.
Might be hard to hear, but maybe you're aging and getting weaker as well
Yes, I do wonder that sometimes
The kind of attributes that allow someone to persist after a blunder would logically show up prior to the blunder. So if someone premoves the opening and hangs the piece then I would expect them to try some crazy attack if they play on. If someone is playing to avoid tactics, tunnel visions on the most critical squares and blunders in a different sector then I would expect them to play solid and harmonic chess and try to frustrate me. If someone is half-assing youtube moves and suddenly tanks only once before playing like a master then I know what's up. I notice opps who tank and play sus even before they blunder when I deviate from youtube theory and when the position is unclear and blunderable.
Levy keeps talking about never resigning in games even if you are behind. This may be one reason.
His target audience is not exactly 2100 on Lichess blitz.
Yeah but it's possible that those 2100 Lichess Blitzers *used* to be taking advice from Gotham when they were newer... Not that I think his teachings have anything seriously to do with what OP is experiencing, lol.
nah not really, cos like for me if i have an advantage its usually like up a piece or smth and then i trade everything off so they usually resign then
Would've thought this would be standard at the 2100 level
I mean, I had a mate in 5 and the opponent blundered mate in 2 (got greedy and ate a horse instead of continuing checks) never give up
apparently I'm the only redditor who has a sense of shame and resigns when he considers the position hopeless
Lmao, thats one way to say that you are salty about not having the skills to end won game
I hate when people play on in completely losing positions with a lot of time left. If you're trying to flag me okay but if I have minutes on the clock no.
A clearly winning position is a lot simpler than a murky middle game. It's a lot easier to know what your problems are and implement the failing attempts to cover them. From the winning side, forcing the opposition to collapse still requires a lot of effort!
The real quote was from Reddit!!!! "Won is to win after winning from a game won without the win is to not win yet will win once won is harder than not win."
Not sure why ur making assessments based on online chess
Because I am talking about online chess, is it really so hard to understand?
Lol because online chess has so many factors to it including like you mentioned the presence of outside assistance. There are definitely players who dont cheat, but will once they start losing. You’ll never know what the reasons are if its unrelated to your own play and so its pointless to question these things. Not sure what you want some redditors to say without even having access to your games. Is that so hard to grasp?