How do I confront a chess opponent who lied about their skill level?

[Mentalist]

There is this person who "claimed" she didn't have much knowledge or skill on playing chess, that was surely a lie once she wiped the floor. I went easy on her just so she could get a feel of how it was played and to test out a new strategy, but nope, she won. I feel she's a liar and I would like to call her out on it but I would end up looking like the bad guy here.

What to do? Forgetting about it is easy but I tend to keep tallies on how many games I've lost and now had to write that loss on my list.

It doesn't sound good if you're reading this but if you were me you'd know how I felt. I am not romantically interested in this person but her friends are pretty much women in the same club as I am, and they have more pull than I do so I'd rather not have my name drug through the mud like some of the other members. The club is something people interested in research are implored to join. It has more opportunities for undergraduates and ways to network, so I cannot look like a bad guy.

Anyway, I asked for another game but she declined. Walk away? I am finding it harder to do that the more I think about it as it is a loss I must count. (Personal loss but anyone who lives by similar rules should understand my plight). I am looking for ways to get her to play me once again, so I'd like some suggestions because I hate seeing her smug face walk around like she over came the odds and was smart enough to beat me.

 

[Andre]

So how good are you with chess? Were her openings rational? I mean did she show knowledge of the opening library? If so her remark about her skill was indeed on a tense foot with reality, that may indicate that she did not want to scare you off, maybe because you were interesting to her in some way.

Now after the catastrophes, apparently you are no longer interesting.

But it's very well posible that she is just very smart and a natural player.

Just forget the whole thing and move on.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Some people can appear good at things that they really have a shallow understanding of. My friend is really good at chess, but I could beat him by just being a little sneaky bastard with the queen. Once my queen was gone, then the rest of my pieces started dropping like flies.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is not directly related. I'm a rather poor chess player, probably around 1200 USCF strength. I was challenged by a player who claimed he was a master, meaning around 2000 USCF or higher. In the game I saw a situation whereby if I sacrificed a knight, then 4 of my major pieces would have a rather direct avenue towards his king while distracting his pieces away from the defense. I did not have a specific checkmate in sight, but sacrificed the knight on general principles and did manage to checkmate him rather quickly. We didn't play a second game and I don't know if I won because he wasn't as strong as he said, or because I put him off his guard when I told him I was weak.

This is directly related. Don't tally.

 

[Mentalist]

So how good are you with chess? Were her openings rational? I mean did she show knowledge of the opening library? If so her remark about her skill was indeed on a tense foot with reality, that may indicate that she did not want to scare you off, maybe because you were interesting to her in some way.

Now after the catastrophes, apparently you are no longer interesting.

But it's very well posible that she is just very smart and a natural player.

Just forget the whole thing and move on.

Using the standard rating formula, I would be at 1634

Her opening moves were interesting she made moves that were seeming like an obvious castle, but she didn't. I was in the process of castling my king, she then proceeded to trap me (i.e. go on the offense). That rendered my strategy inoperable and my game destroyed. It was also embarrassing, she could not possibly be a beginner at chess and this isn't some natural ability. Too much of a coincidence to call it a natural ability in my honest opinion. And why would she decline a follow-up game? I did the gentlemanly thing and asked a few days later, so she is up to something.

Now after the catastrophes, apparently you are no longer interesting.

Catastrophic is too strong of a word to use here, it makes me look as if I am not adequate. I may not be the best but I am certainly no slouch. She deceived me and no player of chess, or at least the ones I come around, play deceptive games. If you must deceive before the game just to win, then you shouldn't be playing it in the first place.


I guess I should not have assumed she was a total novice, but hopefully I can play her once again in the future if she accepts the offer to play one more round, so I can mitigate the loss that should not be there.
I have played chess most of my life and my father and I usually play on sunday's, so it is more than some simple, trivial game. Almost like football if I had to compare it to a popular sport. That is the primary reason why I am taking something that seems so trivial so seriously.

This is not directly related. I'm a rather poor chess player, probably around 1200 USCF strength. I was challenged by a player who claimed he was a master, meaning around 2000 USCF or higher. In the game I saw a situation whereby if I sacrificed a knight, then 4 of my major pieces would have a rather direct avenue towards his king while distracting his pieces away from the defense. I did not have a specific checkmate in sight, but sacrificed the knight on general principles and did manage to checkmate him rather quickly. We didn't play a second game and I don't know if I won because he wasn't as strong as he said, or because I put him off his guard when I told him I was weak.

This sounds like my situation. If you tell someone you are a weak player they don't want to damage your confidence towards the game. Also if I were him, I'd believe you weren't really thinking about what you were doing and just moving pieces around. So I would not have been paying attention to the king's future demise and, I guess playing around. However, in my case, I was developing a strategy to at least safe-guard the king and take the center.

 

[micromass]

It's just a game... Don't get all upset because of a game...

 

[Andre]

It's just a game... Don't get all upset because of a game...

Obviously, you don't play chess :tongue:

 

[Andre]

Using the standard rating formula, I would be at 1634

Her opening moves were interesting she made moves that were seeming like an obvious castle, but she didn't. I was in the process of castling my king, she then proceeded to trap me (i.e. go on the offense). That rendered my strategy inoperable and my game destroyed.

I don't understand that, I would always play what I think would be the best move at that point, regardless of the opposition. If there is a trap somewhere, and sure there are plenty, with 1600+ ELO points you should know all the basic traps.

 

[lisab]

I know nothing about chess, or board games in general. But I know a little bit about life, enough to know some people start the game before they sit down to start playing the game .

 

[AlephZero]

If you carve notches into your chess board to record all your results, then I can understand this might be a big issue. On the other hand, for most people "it's only a game".

As for the other club members - even if you know you are paranoid, that doesn't prove they are NOT out to get you

 

[Andre]

more chess embarrasments

 

[EricVT]

This seems to be a very trivial thing to worry yourself over. You lost, she won't give you a rematch. Can you really not move on from there?

I am fairly certain that the last thing you want to do is make any sort of fuss over this with her or anyone else. It will make you look petty and a bad sport, which is much worse than looking like someone who lost a game of chess.

 

[WannabeNewton]

She was clever enough to know she could hustle you. It seems you just want to assert your intelligence. I agree with micromass on this.

 

[Pythagorean]

She's apparently better at social strategy than you are at chess strategy :P

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Wasn't it deceptive of you to play at less than your ability? If you're going to take the game that seriously, then always play to win. Then each loss will be honest.

 

[Borek]

Has she offered a strip chess? That would add a twist in the tale to the checkmate story.

 

[Jack21222]

Using the standard rating formula, I would be at 1634

This is phrased oddly. Is there another formula you use? What do you mean you "would be" at 1634? I'm confused.

 

[Mentalist]

All about the rating system:

http://greatergreenwoodchessplayers.pbworks.com/f/The+USCF+Rating+System.pdf

I don't understand that, I would always play what I think would be the best move at that point, regardless of the opposition. If there is a trap somewhere, and sure there are plenty, with 1600+ ELO points you should know all the basic traps.

My castle was broken through by an offensive attack, so unless you know of any last ditch effort strategies on how to not lose when that occurs I would like to know. I searched online for when that happens now that it has become an issue, but no luck, so I guess I have to spend some extra time trying to figure out how to evade being taken out when that happens.

Wasn't it deceptive of you to play at less than your ability? If you're going to take the game that seriously, then always play to win. Then each loss will be honest.

I did say, "since you're beginner I will take it easy on you". So I don't know whether a light-hearted comment can be concluded as deception, she knew I liked playing chess.

But like I was saying above, when facing someone who is new to the game, you don't want to play your absolute best. That wouldn't be fair to the person trying to learn to play. I am more fair and honest than I am a guy that demolishes and starts saying, "you lose!" That would not be right in my opinion.

It seems you just want to assert your intelligence

While partly true, I also want to be fair. I don't know about anyone else but this isn't just some silly game to most people. But alas, I decided to get one of the heads of the chemistry club to host a chess tournament. Prizes, etc..., will be awarded as well. Hopefully she comes seeing as it is during one of the club meetings over-break, after seeing Argo, and she is going to see that.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

But like I was saying above, when facing someone who is new to the game, you don't want to play your absolute best. That wouldn't be fair to the person trying to learn to play. I am more fair and honest than I am a guy that demolishes and starts saying, "you lose!" That would not be right in my opinion.

While partly true, I also want to be fair.

You need to make up your mind: 1. What you think "fair" is, and 2. how seriously you take this game. If you are so sore over losing that you feel it necessary to post on PF about it, then you shouldn't be telling people "I'll go light on you." You should checkmate them in four turns, and then graciously explain the trick you just used. They will learn.

On the other hand, if you think you should go light on beginners, then don't get your panties in a bunch when a beginner beats you.

In any case, if she's already turned down a rematch, then you've got no right demanding anything else, and you should let go of it. In fact, maybe the reason she turned you down is that she can tell you're upset. Hell, maybe she was insulted that you said you would take it easy on her, and feels it serves you right that you lost.

In general, take a deep breath, and get over yourself.

P.S. The attitude of "I'll take it easy on you, but I'll make sure you can't actually win, and I'll get really upset if you do" is really disingenuous. Either play for real or not.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Furthermore, in all serious games of skill or chance (and it sounds like you take chess quite seriously), it is polite not to make any discussion of one's abilities before the match.

Nor should you ever talk about the match in detail afterward, especially not to theorize how it may have turned out differently if you had made different choices.

(Exceptions are made for learning exercises, but these are not serious matches.)

 

[Jack21222]

All about the rating system:

http://greatergreenwoodchessplayers.pbworks.com/f/The+USCF+Rating+System.pdf

Yes, I know what the USCF rating system is. What confused me is you said you "would be" 1634 and not "I am" 1634.

Furthermore, in all serious games of skill or chance (and it sounds like you take chess quite seriously), it is polite not to make any discussion of one's abilities before the match.

Nor should you ever talk about the match in detail afterward, especially not to theorize how it may have turned out differently if you had made different choices.

(Exceptions are made for learning exercises, but these are not serious matches.)

Talking about the match with your opponent is actually fairly common with your opponents after a tournament game. This isn't necessarily true during huge tournaments like the US Open or something, but in local/regional tournaments, people dissect their games with their opponents all the time, particularly after a close one.

 

[drizzle]

LOL! Accept it man. And next time try to do your best regardless of whom you're playing, you're not going to kill her if she loses. ;)

 

[Mentalist]

Yes, I know what the USCF rating system is. What confused me is you said you "would be" 1634 and not "I am" 1634.

Oh, don't mind me, I usually have an awkward way of stating points, so that is certainly my fault.

The attitude of "I'll take it easy on you, but I'll make sure you can't actually win, and I'll get really upset if you do" is really disingenuous. Either play for real or not.

I can see where you are coming from and it does seem rather insulting if I were to view it from her perspective. I just felt I was being a good guy. Still, I have another possible shot to rectify it. That's pretty much the rest I have to say on this.

Anyone on PF have GameCenter, can set-up PF-based tournaments? Chess is free!

 

[Curious3141]

Has she offered a strip chess? That would add a twist in the tale to the checkmate story.

There's a Jeffrey Archer story along these lines: http://www.chessblog.com/2011/12/remember-jeffrey-archers-strip-chess.html

Funnily enough, the Archer anthology was called "Twist in the Tale". Coincidental that you used that phrasing, unless you were making a reference to the story.

 

[drizzle]

Anyone on PF have GameCenter, can set-up PF-based tournaments? Chess is free!

+1 :tongue2:

Though, I'm not good at it.

 

[Andre]

My castle was broken through by an offensive attack, so unless you know of any last ditch effort strategies on how to not lose when that occurs I would like to know.

It would help if you could post the notation of the game.

 

[Borek]

There's a Jeffrey Archer story along these lines: http://www.chessblog.com/2011/12/remember-jeffrey-archers-strip-chess.html

Funnily enough, the Archer anthology was called "Twist in the Tale". Coincidental that you used that phrasing, unless you were making a reference to the story.

Nothing coincidental here.

 

[Containment]

You don't have to be an expert of chess to play the game properly in fact the game is rather simple in complexity to today's modern games. I would say let it go and cut your loses as the worst thing that could happen is you challenge her to a rematch and then get beat again.

Also a point to make is not everyone is capable of making plays to their 100% ability all the time and it could just have been random dumb luck that she beat you. If she said she's not good at chess and didn't want a rematch she might in fact just not enjoy the game so asking her to play more could come off as annoying.

 

[Jack21222]

You don't have to be an expert of chess to play the game properly in fact the game is rather simple in complexity to today's modern games.

This is completely incorrect for any sensible definition of "properly." Unless you mean "make legal moves," even experts don't necessarily play this game "properly."

I'm around 1400 elo, and I don't play this game anywhere near properly, and I'm in the top 25% of rated players. (That is from the top of my head, I'd need to double check to see if that's correct).

 

[Andre]

One more thing, easy googleable databases reveal that statistically, white wins much more than black. Hence, if you lose playing black, it says nothing and white should agree to a reva(e)nche with changed colors. If you lose playing with white, you just lost.

 

[Jack21222]

One more thing, easy googleable databases reveal that statistically, white wins much more than black. Hence, if you lose playing black, it says nothing and white should agree to a reva(e)nche with changed colors. If you lose playing with white, you just lost.

You need to define "much more." White is supposed to have a slight advantage, but nowhere have I heard that white wins "much more" than black. Can you give me a source?

Actually, let me do some of this on my own, searching a few grandmasters on chessgames.com

Viktor Korchnoi: (win-loss-draw)

White pieces: 1073-315-843 Average score: .670 (wins are 1 point, draws are a half)
Black pieces: 758-456-1015 Average score: .568

Mikhail Tal:

White pieces: 717-113-602 Average score: .711
Black pieces: 447-187-721 Average score: .600

I can see where you're coming from, that white scores about 20% better than black (at least for these two examples). If you disregard draws, there are more wins for white than wins for black. Whether this is "much more" is up for debate, I guess.

 

[Andre]

You need to define "much more." ..

I can see where you're coming from, that white scores about 20% better than black (at least for these two examples). .

check this

You'd see that the weighted average of the first four opening moves -clearly >95% in the majority- comes to 38.28% wins for white against 30.35% wins for black. Hence white wins about '26%' (38.28/30.35 -1) more often than black.

It also tells you to avoid weird openings like 1: f4 or 1: b4

 

[Andre]

check this

You'd see that the weighted average of the first four opening moves -clearly >95% in the majority- comes to 38.28% wins for white against 30.35% wins for black. Hence white wins about '26%' (38.28/30.35 -1) more often than black.

It also tells you to avoid weird openings like 1: f4 or 1: b4

Okay I calculated all the numbers and got to 38.22% wins for white and 30.47% wins for black giving white 25.4% edge.

Interesting is that the odd freak openings give a high proportion of wins to black. A guess could be that 'weaker' white players tend to try outlier opening moves to confuse their stronger black opponents. Obviously that doesn't work.

 

[turbo]

Interesting is that the odd freak openings give a high proportion of wins to black. A guess could be that 'weaker' white players tend to try outlier opening moves to confuse their stronger black opponents. Obviously that doesn't work.

The Pirc offense was one of these openings. It seems counter-intuitive, but it laid all kinds of traps for the unwary.

 

[Andre]

Yet overal, Pirc doesn't seem a good idea for black in the end, considering that you know the traps.