Can I guess an elo? Uhh probably 14-1500
Players who win because of different reasons always say that a win is a win but it actually isn't. If you have guts then win a game fairly.
you managed your resources better than your opponent so you have won there is no way this is any worse than winning by checkmate
@Ben10Tenyson said in #4:
> you managed your resources better than your opponent so you have won there is no way this is any worse than winning by checkmate
Firstly, opening doesn't matter as I told you before. No opening is bad enough to lose (of course except Fool's mate!)
Secondly, both players dominated equally.
Thirdly, it's the ending that matters in chess.
So, using them we get that Black wasn't a better player. So, how's this fair win?
> you managed your resources better than your opponent so you have won there is no way this is any worse than winning by checkmate
Firstly, opening doesn't matter as I told you before. No opening is bad enough to lose (of course except Fool's mate!)
Secondly, both players dominated equally.
Thirdly, it's the ending that matters in chess.
So, using them we get that Black wasn't a better player. So, how's this fair win?
Well because of clock time ..in chess we can win through checkmate or if opponent flags (and you have enough material to mate) .. and black managed their time better than white
@Ben10Tenyson said in #6:
> Well because of clock time ..in chess we can win through checkmate or if opponent flags (and you have enough material to mate) .. and black managed their time better than white
That's not the case. I opposed your statement that OP managed their resources well. As I said opponent did more well so either they should be winner or game can't be decided cause because both played roughly equally strongly.
> Well because of clock time ..in chess we can win through checkmate or if opponent flags (and you have enough material to mate) .. and black managed their time better than white
That's not the case. I opposed your statement that OP managed their resources well. As I said opponent did more well so either they should be winner or game can't be decided cause because both played roughly equally strongly.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #7:
> That's not the case. I opposed your statement that OP managed their resources well. As I said opponent did more well so either they should be winner or game can't be decided cause because both played roughly equally strongly.
Opponent burned all their time so they managed their resource worse than OP
> That's not the case. I opposed your statement that OP managed their resources well. As I said opponent did more well so either they should be winner or game can't be decided cause because both played roughly equally strongly.
Opponent burned all their time so they managed their resource worse than OP
@Akbar2thegreat said in #7:
> That's not the case. I opposed your statement that OP managed their resources well. As I said opponent did more well so either they should be winner or game can't be decided cause because both played roughly equally strongly.
There's a reason that chess is not built that way you know. Chess is a game of comebacks and counterattacks - this game could have gone either way, and it did. With the OP winning. The only difference is how it ended. Hows an antasia mate different from the ladder mate? Theres non. Both can win the game.
If chess was built on how others "judged" your game, I DOUBT ud win
> That's not the case. I opposed your statement that OP managed their resources well. As I said opponent did more well so either they should be winner or game can't be decided cause because both played roughly equally strongly.
There's a reason that chess is not built that way you know. Chess is a game of comebacks and counterattacks - this game could have gone either way, and it did. With the OP winning. The only difference is how it ended. Hows an antasia mate different from the ladder mate? Theres non. Both can win the game.
If chess was built on how others "judged" your game, I DOUBT ud win
@Ben10Tenyson said in #8:
> Opponent burned all their time so they managed their resource worse than OP
I am not talking about stupid time rule and I never talked about time so ignore it.
Now, how can you say Black played better than White?
@RiotandCarngeISVenom
I know comeback but certainly time and comeback are mutually exclusive so don't merge them to get unfavourable result. And I am not judging anything but ignoring time. After all, real chess game is one without time limit. But advancements in technology has in fact made mess of sports by reducing their time limit and making it insane.
> Opponent burned all their time so they managed their resource worse than OP
I am not talking about stupid time rule and I never talked about time so ignore it.
Now, how can you say Black played better than White?
@RiotandCarngeISVenom
I know comeback but certainly time and comeback are mutually exclusive so don't merge them to get unfavourable result. And I am not judging anything but ignoring time. After all, real chess game is one without time limit. But advancements in technology has in fact made mess of sports by reducing their time limit and making it insane.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.