online multiplayer chess

Online Multiplayer Chess

Grant and you will gain!
Funky name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
thugette_babe ♡ 27 ( +1 | -1 )
Hey, I'm just curious- I was wondering if you peepz do better in games you start, or in games you join. Of course there's gonna be some replies of "why would it matter?", but I think that I do better in games that I just go into and not ones I make. Does it make a difference to any of you out there?
sly_lonewolf ♡ 21 ( +1 | -1 )
Dunno... ...never really gave any thot about that. Probably if I get to choose my opponent, maybe it'll give me some edge. But in my case, I still suprised that I played more games asd Black :)
error ♡ 51 ( +1 | -1 )
Well I suppose the games I join, since those are the games im sure that I have no problem with, and thats why I joined them. Games others joined, they see something about the game that makes them think they have a good chance of a good result, and therefore join it. But since you can always cancel games, it doesnt really matter. Each game has two players, and the better player will probably not be defeated, regardless of who started the match.
coyotefan ♡ 2 ( +1 | -1 )
Hey What is a peeps?
victord ♡ 58 ( +1 | -1 )
That would be 'peoples' I believe.

I have to agree with error on this one (well put), although I hadn't thought of it before.
For some reason when I post a game myself, I usually like to start as Blk., therefore, that, along with players choosing games they think they have an advantage in, I probably do better in games I join rather than those I start.

anaxagoras ♡ 30 ( +1 | -1 )
Like, duh...! When you join a game the opponent's rating is usually lower than yours, whereas if they join your game their rating is often higher.

How often do you see someone hosting a game and requiring a minimum rating 10 points lower than their own?
thugette_babe ♡ 2 ( +1 | -1 )
anaxagoras- I don't pay attention to that.
More: Chess
coyotefan ♡ 17 ( +1 | -1 )
I find I do better When playing someone who just learned how to move the pieces. Once they reach Master level, they have a tendency to play better.
atrifix ♡ 22 ( +1 | -1 )
I find I do better against masters because I can anticipate their moves. People who just learned how to move the pieces will often make moves like Nf3-d5 which can be extremely difficult to refute.
ccmcacollister ♡ 170 ( +1 | -1 )
Qd1xf7 may also be deadly So I'm with Atifix on this one. I'd much rather play Masters than 2100 or 1700 players. Losses to the former and draws to the latter have really hurt my rating in the past. Yet had a slight plus results vs players over 2400 (+1, -0, =5) and moreso Masters in general. But its a completely different set of openings for me. I can play my strongest/solidest ones vs Masters, although those may contain a drawish line or two that someone 1700 might find more appealilng than would a Master with the White pieces. Attitude is also different. Or I should say Was. Used to play much sharper, riskier lines vs Class players and below 2100 to "play for wins". . . untill realizing the magic formula for calculating the number & quality of mistakes an opp will make durig the course of a game. And found playing sharply was not necessary to allowing the errors to be committed. They are anyway. Just sooner in sharper positions.
.....Now I play sharply when & because I like to , rather than feeling a need to .
And still have 68 to 72% or corr games being sacrificial, of a pawn or an "Exchange" or more, by one player or the other. Contrary to the myth of boring Corr. Chess.
.....Besides when playing Masters, then I can grope for the Draw,if the mood strikes me. (albeit the mood generally strikes me when down in material or positionally lost) That is generally easier than playing for a Win from a Lost position.
....Of course, now that my mainstay King's Indian Defense has been found unsound here amongst the GK threads, no doubt all bets are off. Even before that I was having to sac 2 or 3 pieces to make it work. The death of an era.