Dear LiChess users.
Just because higher rated players prefer to play unrated doesn't mean we're trying to protect our rating, or that we're "weak."
See, we don't always play 100%, at least I don't. So when I know I'm no where near 100%, I back off and play casual.
Running your mouths and telling me I'm a "weak slut" because I play poorly while playing casual games isn't going to be the motivation to challenge you to a rated game.
Sorry, but many people on here have lives, I suggest you get one too and grow up.
<3 always,
Andrea
And your point is?
I had something similar happen in a casual game. I was up a piece and seemed to be in control. I kind of left my guard down thinking it was just going to be a matter of technique and got careless and ended up having to resign.
The person then started calling me a "noob" which I thought was insulting and undeserved given that I had not done anything to provoke them and I was actually winning when I goofed.
Why you consider yourself a high rated player?
My rating sucks but if I had Andrea's I'd do the same. Hell, I even do the same with my lousy rating, just because playing casual has it's advantages:
. I can try new things (which in some cases leads to playing like crap) without worrying about the rating
. Even when I am in a totally shitty position I keep playing, which is a good exercise, without pissing off the rival
. I can experiment playing faster, without thinking too much, trying to develop some kind of instinct (in about ten years I'll tell you if that worked or not heh), this of course, leads to losing lots of games (and I don't wanna go down in rating just because I'm experimenting)
Btw, Thanmarkow: To me, 1900 on blitz is pretty high
I only play rated exactly because it forces me to not do things I would in casual games... =P
Just a friendly reminder for all you chess enthusiasts: Please don't call people "weak sluts".
I do think that to play casual is to protect one's rating, however. High rated players do it quite often. It indicates a distinction between serious and casual chess, so they don't want their rating to suffer during times when they don't wish to be serious.
Name calling makes some poeple feel stronger I presume. So, they will find something to yank about, "somehow". However, this issue should have been resolved via a user report action. I think we are enjoying a rather sterile environment compared to rest of the net. If poeple keep on reporting, I hope it will at least stay at a similar level.
On a seperate note, I think we should step back from the negative emotions for a sec, when we realize we're being harrassed. We don't deserve taking such people seriously. And a basic "gg" or another very cool headed final response at the end of the game, will just crush their illusion of hurting you. They will think lowly of themselves, of much lower character then the polite side anyway.
I agree, many times I've given a "gg" after a player's hostile approach and to my surprise this simple act derived in a friendly conversation.
Other times I just block the assholes.
Depends on the mood I am and what they've said.
With my chess students I do play casual training games (corr. chess) so that I don't need to worry about blundering too much, and also can test them to see whether they can manage to win a won game while I don't have to make great efforts to find the best move in every position (saving some time and energy).
For me it is a more relaxing way to play those training games. Especially because I can't beat the habit to make moves in corr. games when just awake and having breakfast, and ... blunder.
:)
