DEV TEST

It helps a lot if, when you play those people, you see them as being people like everybody else who can make unbelievable errors and screw up. And it's essential to be prepared to win and to lose, by any score, no matter who you're against, the world's best or worst.

You have to respect your opponent for being better than you, but don't assume they're somehow inherently better than you. They're not.

Imagine, for example, that someone is playing you and getting absolutely battered. And they think you're on a different planet, that you are so talented that they could never be as good as you. Are they right?

believe it or not Hyrul, I'm not at all angry or bitter either. I have a knack for picking things up quickly, but not as quickly as someone with greater ability than myself that's all.

In the case of Calibur, I know I have the potential to win. But imo, winning and being the absolute best are not always the same thing

Seeing your last post just now. That point I can agree with 100%. I personally try not to buy into my own bullshit, (like when people who can't beat me tell me how good I am.) It's not always easy, but yeah.

being the absolute best means winning more often than not against the greatest majority of other players. thinking about 'potential' is no good. every player was not so good, then tried to figure out what they could do better, then went about doing it. some learn faster but some have help at hand too.

Some players have heaps of confidence and think they're hot shit. They think they understand the game better than everybody, including players who are supposedly better than them. They believe in their own talent and skill.

Once you beat someone like that, you've got them beat for life. They will come up with every excuse, every whine and complaint, about how they got spammed or scrubbed or how the game sucks or the character sucks etc. They'll deride the playstyle of the opponent by some arbitrary measure.

That's true. By winning I mean strictly tournament. I mean I've beaten people in tournaments that thrashed me in casuals. I wasn't as strong as them, but I was strong enough to take 3 games and win.

No top player thinks like that. And if they start, they won't be a top player for very long. You've always gotta get better, especially if you're the best, and making excuses - of any kind - is a sure-fire way of dropping right down.

lol, yeah that's real talk. That's why I try to keep an open mind even in my frustrations with losing. I've tried asking people I play with if there's something they see that I don't but the answer is usually "I dunno what to tell you dude" or "I'm just guessing"

Well a single tournament victory is one thing, but a series of results over a series of tournaments is another. Casual play can only tell you so much.

(^ continuity a bit out here, the last one was a reply, the one before was a continuation of my essay / old man yarn on mentality)

Guys I dont mean to but in...but can the same thing be applied in chess? There are only so many grandmasters in the world...I really wonder if its possible to be one if you work really hard at it. Chess has so many barrier gaps

What do you really mean by work really hard? How many hours do you think a chess GM has put into chess?

Yeah I understood, lol. I guess it's like, when people first find out that I play Woahhzz, they often ask me if I can beat him. I tell them yes. That's not to say I'm better or will be a better player overall than him. Just that I can beat him

Lots of hours, some have told me they been playing for 20+ years and there still learning. It's just really daunting to me. I sometimes just think to reach GM level you have to be naturally gifted, ofc i can be wrong about that.

That's what the White Man wants you to think.

Natural Talent < Hard Work

it shouldnt be about being the best overall. it should be about being the best that you can be