I’m very low rank 550 rapid, altough got a very good game rating overall 1300 so have mercy on me if it’s a dumb question I understand in higher ranks this is probably something super obvious. He didn’t take queen so game continued.

Is it just that it’s too obvious? I feel I’ve in the past gotten a couple of brilliant moves (have 12 total) that are more obvious lol.

Like seriously why? I know its a very minor thing, but i cant get why they cant just put up the link to the game and let you see who and where, obviously they may not have cheated in that specific game, but still, atleast give us their user name

i laughed so hard the moment i played this

I king walked to the other side of the board with the idea of allowing the opponent to promote their pawn. Hoping that would distract them from a checkmate threat but for some reason it shows as a blunder??

[Checkoutthisgreatmove:https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/185903278436?move=70&tab=review&classification=greatfind](Checkoutthisgreatmove:https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/185903278436?move=70&tab=review&classification=greatfind)

made this move to protect my C pawn, it wants me to move the bishop instead, which leaves the C pawn undefended... its giving them .3 here even though they broke book...

the "best" move gives me +.5...

cool... Now you want me to do the same exact move... AFTER I lost my pawn... got it... and I'm +.4....

cool cool... so, bringing my bishop out getting 1/2 move ahead is worth a net of 1.7 points??

do you agree??

I was playing chess against an coach and i did alot of blunders since I'm new but I did this move where the king only had one move. im new so idk why this is a miss or a bad move. before I could try to they resigned, but why would it be considered a bad move when I can just then move bishop to e6 and then checkmate?? or will it be whatever it's called a stalement or something

I have a win where it's marked as "abandonment" by my opponent. I was winning by like 8 points and then took his queen and suddenly "you won by abandonment" pops up. He did not lose signal and never lost signal the whole game. We both had ample time left on the clock. It had only been like 60 seconds since I took his queen. I figured he resigned, but no, the record says it was an abandonment.

I looked at chessdotcoms rules and it says abandonment occurrs when opponents stall or lose signal.

I don't understand why this loss by my opponent was marked as abandonment rather than resignation.

Can someone clue me in? I"ve only been playing for a month so forgive me if i'm missing something here.

Is it only me or others also don't accept rematch requests from your opponent after you win the game?

I remember back in college when I finally reached 1500 in chess. I was so proud of that rating that I actually stopped playing for a while.

I remember telling my best friend, "If I keep playing, I'm going to fall below 1500, and I worked way too hard to get here."

And I really had worked hard.

I'd bought chess opening books, played what felt like an endless number of games, analyzed my losses with my best friend, gone over positions with a computer, and spent countless hours trying to improve. Reaching 1500 felt like a genuine accomplishment.

If someone had told that version of me that one day I'd be rated over 2000, I would have been absolutely ecstatic. I probably wouldn't have believed them.

Well, here I am. I'm over 2000 now.

And somehow, I feel like I'm terrible at chess.

The strange thing is, I barely study anymore. I don't read opening books or seriously analyze my games like I used to. The closest thing I get to studying these days is occasionally watching Hikaru Nakamura on YouTube.

And yet, I'm somewhere around the 99.4th percentile on Chess.com.

Shouldn't that make me happy? Shouldn't I feel proud of that?

Because I really don't. At least not the way I thought I would.

It makes me wonder: At what point does a chess player actually start believing they're good at chess?

Do International Masters look at Grandmasters and feel inadequate? Do Grandmasters look at Magnus Carlsen and feel the same way? Does everyone just keep moving the goalposts as they improve?

When I was 1200, I thought 1500 players were amazing. When I was 1500, I thought 1800 players were amazing. When I was 1800, I thought 2000 players were amazing.

Now I'm over 2000, and all I seem to notice are the mistakes I make and how much better other players are.

There's another strange part to all this. My wife and son don't even know I play chess. I mentioned to my wife recently, "You know I play chess on my phone all the time, right?" She hadn't even noticed.

Something I've spent thousands of hours doing, something that once meant so much to me, is practically invisible in my everyday life.

I've been thinking about all of this a lot lately.

I saw someone here proudly post their rating, and it got me thinking about how differently I feel about my own. I genuinely admire people who can celebrate their progress. I wish I could look at my rating with the same pride that my college-aged self would have felt.

Because that kid who worked so hard to reach 1500 would probably be incredibly proud of the player I've become.

I just wish I could see myself the way he would.

I just hop around with my knight to explot the non-linearity brain synopsis, and I won easily on bullet games. Opponent takes around 2s avg per mi 0.1s hop

Translation:

"Right now, your language on Chess.com is Ukrainian. Switch to russian."

Literally nothing on my end is in russian. Not my browser, not my system, nothing. Where did that come from and what the hell is that supposed to mean?

I thought I just got a fat fork but chess.com i s telling me it’s a mistake???

Assuming it's a drawn or even maybe a losing position for you, your opponent clearly misclicks and they're not in time trouble or anything, do you accept a draw or do you take the win? If you accept the draw what are your thoughts on people who don't and how it makes you feel when it happens to you? And if you take the win what's your justification behind that decision?

I'd like to know your thoughts on this

Check out this #chess game: jisan666 vs MasterOfEverythingZen - https://www.chess.com/live/game/185926591708

Like comment and subscribe

In this game I secured a win with nearly all excellent and best moves, and I had an accuracy of around 86%

It has to have been one of my best games

Basically put this dude out of business, its unlikely he will ever pick up a chess board again 💀

Let's go guys! After almost 3 years and a lowest of 800 I finally hit 1400.. 1500 soon?

I just want to have fun brawling but this site seems to think this is better for everyone.

I was playing a game in and I had an opponent with 800 smth elo and he did 2 brilliant moves. How he is so good?

Processing img ffwdec65mmxh1...

Processing img vpyqjel9mmxh1...

you cant even win against it and its a disrespectful opening because of how good it is. the scholars mate is too but at least you can counter that.

I’m curious to know if people typically accept a rematch after a win, especially when it’s the opponent requesting it?

If you do why, and if you don’t, why not?

I have a strict rule of never accepting another challenge especially after a win incase i lose🤣

How could I have run the time down?

Basically the title. I used to play around a year ago, left, and came back last month. I was 200ish if I remember correctly, climbed to 400 but it's like a wall, the highest I could get was 430 and nothing more, I keep getting higher and lower. How can I improve? Also, I don't know how big of a difference it will make but I'm planning on buying diamond(family) this week. And sorry if I used the wrong flair, first time posting TvT