- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Current Rating System needs a change

#41

@V1g1yy said in #39:

Do you think both players should be able to enjoy the game? I say yes.

Is there some benefit to either player in a game where the rating gap is 400 points? I say no, I think it's nothing more than a function of not having enough players to choose playing against. Aside from a coaching situation the game will be largely pointless.

A.} You are saying that there is no benefit to either player if there is 400 point rating gap between them? So, there is no reason for a 800 rated player to play a 1200 rated player? But you just mentioned the fun part...

First off, an 800 rated player and a 1200 rated player are not that different, realistically speaking. I get points {imply} otherwise, and I would expect a 1200 to beat an 800 more often than not - but the 1200 will still lose often enough, mostly through blunders, for the 800 to still get the thrill of victory.

We, or rather I, as it is presumptuous for me to speak for others, have seen this quite frequently on streams, vids, games I play, games I have watched, etc etc.

Now, a 400 point gap once you hit the 1600 mark {does} result in a very lopsided contest. I think this has more to do with 1600+ players blundering less often, and taking advantage of opponent's blunders more frequently. Obviously, a 2000 rated player {should} regularly dominate a 1600, and a 1600 should dominate a 1200. But for ratings less than 1200 or so, a 400 point gap isn't such a big deal.... {until} we get to very low numbers, like in the 400 range.

However, a 600 - 1000 rated player, in my experience, tends to be intimidated by opponents a couple hundred points higher rated.

So, removing the point rating would eliminate the intimidation factor, and allow them to play better games.

Ergo, why not create a Beginner Player Pool option for match pairings just like we already have match pairings for Blitz/Rapid/etc, only within a sub-category of "Casual Beginner" or some such thing? These would be, effectively, unrated games that only keep track of the player's score within that category, similar to a tournament.

In your example above, you would be arbitrarily pairing two players with the pretense that they are within one of your pools of players. According to you, both are beginners, and most of us, myself included, would agree with that. The difference being you think they should play together and I think they should not.

A.} You dont think Beginners should play with other Beginners? So 800 rated players shouldn't play with other 800 rated players? Not sure I understand this statement as it makes no sense.

Now every statement you've made so far has been from the point of view of the stronger player. Have you even considered your ideas from the point of view of the weaker player? I haven't seen a single statement where you have.

A.} No, I never considered it from a lower rated player's POV or bring up issues like Elo intimidation or players being embarrassed by their rating in conversation...

So the questions here are, why are you trying to pair these players?
And what do you think will happen with the players in your above example where one of them doesn't have a one in 10 chance of winning a game. I say they will very quickly decide chess is not for them because they will be made painfully aware of their inability to beat this person 400 points higher, in spite of supposedly being considered in the same group. I also say that very quickly the rating Gap will increase strictly due to the tilt of the weaker player having been curb stomped so much that they no longer are psychologically capable of being the 600 player they really are. Your very paring idea may well have at least temporarily turned them into a 450 or 500. What do you say to that?

Oh, you are talking about a 1700 player being paired with a 800 player. So you are responding to the idea that I would hop into one of those Beginner Player Pools and curb stomp everyone? Disregarding the idea as meritless or flawed for that reason alone?

First off, lets say I jump into that pool of players that are normally rated 400 - 1200 and see themselves as beginners, and begin curb-stomping. My rating won't change, and neither will theirs.

Secondly, unless the player pool is very small, it is unlikely that I will play the same player more than once a month or so. I have 1300 games in 10 Rapid right now, and I think I maybe played one or two players more than once over the course of the last 10 months.

So, I seriously doubt one or two beatdowns over the course of 10 months plus is gonna turn someone off chess. A couple times I got 6+ beatdowns in a single session before I was able to turn things around, and I am still here.

Anyway, 400 - 1000 rated players get beatdown all the time. Its why they are rated so low. I wouldn't even make an impression unless I win using a neat trap or gambit, which brings me to...

Thirdly, getting hit with a cool trap naturally entices interest in the game. Look at the popularity of the Scholar's Mate or Fried Liver attack, or the Scotch Gambit, Danish Gambit, Evans Gambit, etc etc. A player who loses to something like that will generally add it to their Bag of Tricks and use it against other opponents.

Ergo, I would argue that {if} a 600 rated player gets whacked with, say, the Danish Gambit, falls for the mainline trap and loses that player will be intrigued by what happened and will then take that opening trap and use it against other players.

Naturally, the player will only have a basic barebones understanding of the Idea, but that will be enough to encourage personal skill development.

We all learn like this, even without trying. I don't study, but, because I been curbstomped so many times by so many different opponents and styles, I just naturally improved.

So, that is my reply to all of your concerns.

Regarding {my} concerns, the difference with my Idea and what currently is utilized is I am arguing that it is less intimidating for someone to face off against an opponent not knowing their actual rating.

@V1g1yy said in #39: > > Do you think both players should be able to enjoy the game? I say yes. > > Is there some benefit to either player in a game where the rating gap is 400 points? I say no, I think it's nothing more than a function of not having enough players to choose playing against. Aside from a coaching situation the game will be largely pointless. A.} You are saying that there is no benefit to either player if there is 400 point rating gap between them? So, there is no reason for a 800 rated player to play a 1200 rated player? But you just mentioned the fun part... First off, an 800 rated player and a 1200 rated player are not that different, realistically speaking. I get points {imply} otherwise, and I would expect a 1200 to beat an 800 more often than not - but the 1200 will still lose often enough, mostly through blunders, for the 800 to still get the thrill of victory. We, or rather I, as it is presumptuous for me to speak for others, have seen this quite frequently on streams, vids, games I play, games I have watched, etc etc. Now, a 400 point gap once you hit the 1600 mark {does} result in a very lopsided contest. I think this has more to do with 1600+ players blundering less often, and taking advantage of opponent's blunders more frequently. Obviously, a 2000 rated player {should} regularly dominate a 1600, and a 1600 should dominate a 1200. But for ratings less than 1200 or so, a 400 point gap isn't such a big deal.... {until} we get to very low numbers, like in the 400 range. However, a 600 - 1000 rated player, in my experience, tends to be intimidated by opponents a couple hundred points higher rated. So, removing the point rating would eliminate the intimidation factor, and allow them to play better games. Ergo, why not create a Beginner Player Pool option for match pairings just like we already have match pairings for Blitz/Rapid/etc, only within a sub-category of "Casual Beginner" or some such thing? These would be, effectively, unrated games that only keep track of the player's score within that category, similar to a tournament. > > In your example above, you would be arbitrarily pairing two players with the pretense that they are within one of your pools of players. According to you, both are beginners, and most of us, myself included, would agree with that. The difference being you think they should play together and I think they should not. A.} You dont think Beginners should play with other Beginners? So 800 rated players shouldn't play with other 800 rated players? Not sure I understand this statement as it makes no sense. > >Now every statement you've made so far has been from the point of view of the stronger player. Have you even considered your ideas from the point of view of the weaker player? I haven't seen a single statement where you have. > A.} No, I never considered it from a lower rated player's POV or bring up issues like Elo intimidation or players being embarrassed by their rating in conversation... > > So the questions here are, why are you trying to pair these players? > And what do you think will happen with the players in your above example where one of them doesn't have a one in 10 chance of winning a game. I say they will very quickly decide chess is not for them because they will be made painfully aware of their inability to beat this person 400 points higher, in spite of supposedly being considered in the same group. I also say that very quickly the rating Gap will increase strictly due to the tilt of the weaker player having been curb stomped so much that they no longer are psychologically capable of being the 600 player they really are. Your very paring idea may well have at least temporarily turned them into a 450 or 500. What do you say to that? Oh, you are talking about a 1700 player being paired with a 800 player. So you are responding to the idea that I would hop into one of those Beginner Player Pools and curb stomp everyone? Disregarding the idea as meritless or flawed for that reason alone? First off, lets say I jump into that pool of players that are normally rated 400 - 1200 and see themselves as beginners, and begin curb-stomping. My rating won't change, and neither will theirs. Secondly, unless the player pool is very small, it is unlikely that I will play the same player more than once a month or so. I have 1300 games in 10 Rapid right now, and I think I maybe played one or two players more than once over the course of the last 10 months. So, I seriously doubt one or two beatdowns over the course of 10 months plus is gonna turn someone off chess. A couple times I got 6+ beatdowns in a single session before I was able to turn things around, and I am still here. Anyway, 400 - 1000 rated players get beatdown all the time. Its why they are rated so low. I wouldn't even make an impression unless I win using a neat trap or gambit, which brings me to... Thirdly, getting hit with a cool trap naturally entices interest in the game. Look at the popularity of the Scholar's Mate or Fried Liver attack, or the Scotch Gambit, Danish Gambit, Evans Gambit, etc etc. A player who loses to something like that will generally add it to their Bag of Tricks and use it against other opponents. Ergo, I would argue that {if} a 600 rated player gets whacked with, say, the Danish Gambit, falls for the mainline trap and loses that player will be intrigued by what happened and will then take that opening trap and use it against other players. Naturally, the player will only have a basic barebones understanding of the Idea, but that will be enough to encourage personal skill development. We all learn like this, even without trying. I don't study, but, because I been curbstomped so many times by so many different opponents and styles, I just naturally improved. So, that is my reply to all of your concerns. Regarding {my} concerns, the difference with my Idea and what currently is utilized is I am arguing that it is less intimidating for someone to face off against an opponent not knowing their actual rating.
#42
<Comment deleted by user>
#43

@Toscani said in #42:

Are we genuinely focusing on the main topic, or are we just nitpicking each other's comments?
Is this a space for quality brainstorming and meaningful discussion, or are we just flooding the thread with endless posts?

right. I have a meaningful contribution.
I propose that from now on Lichess hides the ratings off the opponents topic starter gets
and eliminates all limitations.
A Quick Look learns that his opponents ratings never differ more than a 100 from his and often are very very close.
Or how our words can differ from what we do.

@Toscani said in #42: > Are we genuinely focusing on the main topic, or are we just nitpicking each other's comments? > Is this a space for quality brainstorming and meaningful discussion, or are we just flooding the thread with endless posts? right. I have a meaningful contribution. I propose that from now on Lichess hides the ratings off the opponents topic starter gets and eliminates all limitations. A Quick Look learns that his opponents ratings never differ more than a 100 from his and often are very very close. Or how our words can differ from what we do.
#44

@DeimosRuhk said in #41:

A.} You are saying that there is no benefit to either player if there is 400 point rating gap between them? So, there is no reason for a 800 rated player to play a 1200 rated player? But you just mentioned the fun part...

Correct on the first two questions. But you made up the "fun" part. I never said the word fun in my entire post. Not even before in the thread. I said enjoy, two very different things. I do not play games to have fun, I play to compete and win. I have fun when I'm done winning. Soccer-moms who think everyone should get a trophy say to "play the game to have fun". I say play to work at getting better, to undertake a challenge and overcome obstacles along the way. To solve problems and develop new skills. Fun has nothing to do with it. Done correctly, it's enjoyable hard work. Jmho.

First off, an 800 rated player and a 1200 rated player are not that different, realistically speaking. I get points {imply} otherwise, and I would expect a 1200 to beat an 800 more often than not - but the 1200 will still lose often enough, mostly through blunders, for the 800 to still get the thrill of victory.

Incorrect. See --> https://www.318chess.com/elo.html

We, or rather I, as it is presumptuous for me to speak for others, have seen this quite frequently on streams, vids, games I play, games I have watched, etc etc.

Again, incorrect. You've seen it in videos because it is noteworthy enough to make a video about such an unlikely outcome. Both players, let's say in a big open like Gibraltar, will have had a near career changing experience to have won or lost from such a deficit/advantage.

Now, a 400 point gap once you hit the 1600 mark {does} result in a very lopsided contest

This again illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of how the ratings work. You seem to think it's on a floating scale, and differs by your height on the rating scale. Incorrect! 400 points is 400 points. It's that simple. Forget about the numbers, the statistical basis for it has nothing to do with the level, it has to do with the delta. The entire aim of the ELO/Glicko models is to keep the rating independent of the delta.

However, a 600 - 1000 rated player, in my experience, tends to be intimidated by opponents a couple hundred points higher rated.

So, removing the point rating would eliminate the intimidation factor, and allow them to play better games.

Your 'experience' appears tainted by confirmation bias, and I strongly disagree with sentence 2.

Ergo, why not create a Beginner Player Pool option for match pairings just like we already have match pairings for Blitz/Rapid/etc, only within a sub-category of "Casual Beginner" or some such thing? These would be, effectively, unrated games that only keep track of the player's score within that category, similar to a tournament.

For those people who would wish to use such a system, we already have it. It's called casual games. Choose casual when you look for a pairing and play whomever. This is the choice of the player, not the people who think they're 'helping' beginners to overcome stress of competition. A better solution might be to help them understand that learning to enjoy the competition itself is the real key to success under pressure. And to accept that they're not expected to win every game or play perfect (but they are expected to try!)

A.} You dont think Beginners should play with other Beginners? So 800 rated players shouldn't play with other 800 rated players? Not sure I understand this statement as it makes no sense.

This is another example of you twisting what people say in order to make some point. Your example above is a 600 playing a 1000. Not 2 800s. Yes, we obviously agree the 800s together are fine. The 600 and 1000 being treated as equals is counterproductive and creates more inequity than perhaps you are even able to understand.

A.} No, I never considered it from a lower rated player's POV or bring up issues like Elo intimidation or players being embarrassed by their rating in conversation...

Well how were you thinking about Elo intimidation from the stronger players pov? They're not the ones who will be intimidated. Example, your former girlfriend who didn't want to play. Are you seeing why someone like me considers this absurd for you knowing why?

Oh, you are talking about a 1700 player being paired with a 800 player. So you are responding to the idea that I would hop into one of those Beginner Player Pools and curb stomp everyone? Disregarding the idea as meritless or flawed for that reason alone?

I swear you don't read a single word anyone says. Where did I say 1700? Even imply? Your example was a 600 and 1000. That's why I said in that quoted part above about a 400 point rating difference. 400 pts is your argument. Now go read the chart I linked where it says 400 points of rating delta means 9.09% chance of winning the game. In other words they basically have no chance. Now you're trying to imply "I" said 1700v800. That's 900 points of delta (100 less than you say you still enjoy) and the chart says now ... Uh wait a minute, the chart even quit before 900 points because it's so ridiculous. But even at 800 points the lower rated player has a less than 1% chance of winning. And it's not inarguable that even that 1% is only a statistical possibility due to the chance the higher rated player has a heart attack or a stroke during the game... Lol.

I won't even address your stuff about you getting in the 400-1200 pool as we both agree that's absurd. On to the next, It doesn't matter how many "beat downs" someone receives, it's the fact that they are unnecessary and pointless. You again only see from your point of view playing 1700s to 1300s let's say. But not thinking about you playing 1700s to 2100s, and by your grouping of 400s and 1200s as members of the same group, that's like you playing with 2500s and telling me you should just take a beating and move on. Ok, if you want to do so, great, but not only does your idea give you a bad experience, the 2500 has no interest whatsoever in wasting their time playing you because you're not the slightest challenge. Why on earth would they play with you?

Regarding {my} concerns, the difference with my Idea and what currently is utilized is I am arguing that it is less intimidating for someone to face off against an opponent not knowing their actual rating.

As was already pointed out by another poster above, that's what Zen mode is for. Every person here has that option. The rating system isn't the problem. Several of us have shown how detrimental your proposal could be. And it all stems from you not understanding that 400 points of rating difference is the same prediction of outcome regardless of the levels. 400-800 is the same as 2100-2500. The other thing you apparently misunderstand is what 400 points of rating difference actually means. It's a really big chasm of chess ability.

Just sitting here thinking about progression up the ranks in your system... Let's say I've been working my way from 400 up to 1200 for a few years, all while playing in this same pool. At the end of my quest, I'm winning prolifically because I often get paired with players who have 0-10% chance of beating me. Today I'm 1201, and I am now going from the virtually never lose bracket to the virtually never win, all in one fell swoop. All right after I'm so happy with my game and results. Hmm, what's my opinion now? No gradual change, just pow, from today on I (edit: get beat, not lose) all the time.

(edit) should not have carelessly said 'lose'. It's semantics, but I have two outcomes and they are win and get beat, not lose. To me, losing is the opponent winning because I didn't give proper effort. Getting beat is, I played my best and my opponent played better. No shame in that, they showed me somewhere I need to improve. Time to get back to "work", not "fun".

@DeimosRuhk said in #41: > A.} You are saying that there is no benefit to either player if there is 400 point rating gap between them? So, there is no reason for a 800 rated player to play a 1200 rated player? But you just mentioned the fun part... Correct on the first two questions. But you made up the "fun" part. I never said the word fun in my entire post. Not even before in the thread. I said enjoy, two very different things. I do not play games to have fun, I play to compete and win. I have fun when I'm done winning. Soccer-moms who think everyone should get a trophy say to "play the game to have fun". I say play to work at getting better, to undertake a challenge and overcome obstacles along the way. To solve problems and develop new skills. Fun has nothing to do with it. Done correctly, it's enjoyable hard work. Jmho. > First off, an 800 rated player and a 1200 rated player are not that different, realistically speaking. I get points {imply} otherwise, and I would expect a 1200 to beat an 800 more often than not - but the 1200 will still lose often enough, mostly through blunders, for the 800 to still get the thrill of victory. Incorrect. See --> https://www.318chess.com/elo.html > We, or rather I, as it is presumptuous for me to speak for others, have seen this quite frequently on streams, vids, games I play, games I have watched, etc etc. Again, incorrect. You've seen it in videos because it is noteworthy enough to make a video about such an unlikely outcome. Both players, let's say in a big open like Gibraltar, will have had a near career changing experience to have won or lost from such a deficit/advantage. > Now, a 400 point gap once you hit the 1600 mark {does} result in a very lopsided contest This again illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of how the ratings work. You seem to think it's on a floating scale, and differs by your height on the rating scale. Incorrect! 400 points is 400 points. It's that simple. Forget about the numbers, the statistical basis for it has nothing to do with the level, it has to do with the delta. The entire aim of the ELO/Glicko models is to keep the rating independent of the delta. > However, a 600 - 1000 rated player, in my experience, tends to be intimidated by opponents a couple hundred points higher rated. > > So, removing the point rating would eliminate the intimidation factor, and allow them to play better games. Your 'experience' appears tainted by confirmation bias, and I strongly disagree with sentence 2. > Ergo, why not create a Beginner Player Pool option for match pairings just like we already have match pairings for Blitz/Rapid/etc, only within a sub-category of "Casual Beginner" or some such thing? These would be, effectively, unrated games that only keep track of the player's score within that category, similar to a tournament. For those people who would wish to use such a system, we already have it. It's called casual games. Choose casual when you look for a pairing and play whomever. This is the choice of the player, not the people who think they're 'helping' beginners to overcome stress of competition. A better solution might be to help them understand that learning to enjoy the competition itself is the real key to success under pressure. And to accept that they're not expected to win every game or play perfect (but they are expected to try!) > A.} You dont think Beginners should play with other Beginners? So 800 rated players shouldn't play with other 800 rated players? Not sure I understand this statement as it makes no sense. This is another example of you twisting what people say in order to make some point. Your example above is a 600 playing a 1000. Not 2 800s. Yes, we obviously agree the 800s together are fine. The 600 and 1000 being treated as equals is counterproductive and creates more inequity than perhaps you are even able to understand. > A.} No, I never considered it from a lower rated player's POV or bring up issues like Elo intimidation or players being embarrassed by their rating in conversation... Well how were you thinking about Elo intimidation from the stronger players pov? They're not the ones who will be intimidated. Example, your former girlfriend who didn't want to play. Are you seeing why someone like me considers this absurd for you knowing why? > Oh, you are talking about a 1700 player being paired with a 800 player. So you are responding to the idea that I would hop into one of those Beginner Player Pools and curb stomp everyone? Disregarding the idea as meritless or flawed for that reason alone? I swear you don't read a single word anyone says. Where did I say 1700? Even imply? Your example was a 600 and 1000. That's why I said in that quoted part above about a 400 point rating difference. 400 pts is your argument. Now go read the chart I linked where it says 400 points of rating delta means 9.09% chance of winning the game. In other words they basically have no chance. Now you're trying to imply "I" said 1700v800. That's 900 points of delta (100 less than you say you still enjoy) and the chart says now ... Uh wait a minute, the chart even quit before 900 points because it's so ridiculous. But even at 800 points the lower rated player has a less than 1% chance of winning. And it's not inarguable that even that 1% is only a statistical possibility due to the chance the higher rated player has a heart attack or a stroke during the game... Lol. I won't even address your stuff about you getting in the 400-1200 pool as we both agree that's absurd. On to the next, It doesn't matter how many "beat downs" someone receives, it's the fact that they are unnecessary and pointless. You again only see from your point of view playing 1700s to 1300s let's say. But not thinking about you playing 1700s to 2100s, and by your grouping of 400s and 1200s as members of the same group, that's like you playing with 2500s and telling me you should just take a beating and move on. Ok, if you want to do so, great, but not only does your idea give you a bad experience, the 2500 has no interest whatsoever in wasting their time playing you because you're not the slightest challenge. Why on earth would they play with you? > Regarding {my} concerns, the difference with my Idea and what currently is utilized is I am arguing that it is less intimidating for someone to face off against an opponent not knowing their actual rating. As was already pointed out by another poster above, that's what Zen mode is for. Every person here has that option. The rating system isn't the problem. Several of us have shown how detrimental your proposal could be. And it all stems from you not understanding that 400 points of rating difference is the same prediction of outcome regardless of the levels. 400-800 is the same as 2100-2500. The other thing you apparently misunderstand is what 400 points of rating difference actually means. It's a really big chasm of chess ability. Just sitting here thinking about progression up the ranks in your system... Let's say I've been working my way from 400 up to 1200 for a few years, all while playing in this same pool. At the end of my quest, I'm winning prolifically because I often get paired with players who have 0-10% chance of beating me. Today I'm 1201, and I am now going from the virtually never lose bracket to the virtually never win, all in one fell swoop. All right after I'm so happy with my game and results. Hmm, what's my opinion now? No gradual change, just pow, from today on I (edit: get beat, not lose) all the time. (edit) should not have carelessly said 'lose'. It's semantics, but I have two outcomes and they are win and get beat, not lose. To me, losing is the opponent winning because I didn't give proper effort. Getting beat is, I played my best and my opponent played better. No shame in that, they showed me somewhere I need to improve. Time to get back to "work", not "fun".
#45

@V1g1yy said in #44:

Correct on the first two questions. But you made up the "fun" part. I never said the word fun in my entire post. Not even before in the thread. I said enjoy, two very different things. I do not play games to have fun, I play to compete and win. I have fun when I'm done winning. Soccer-moms who think everyone should get a trophy say to "play the game to have fun". I say play to work at getting better, to undertake a challenge and overcome obstacles along the way. To solve problems and develop new skills. Fun has nothing to do with it. Done correctly, it's enjoyable hard work. Jmho.

You edited your reply just to take out your sentence where you said 'we agree chess should be fun' so that you could make this argument.

Lame. Very. Lame.

@V1g1yy said in #44: > Correct on the first two questions. But you made up the "fun" part. I never said the word fun in my entire post. Not even before in the thread. I said enjoy, two very different things. I do not play games to have fun, I play to compete and win. I have fun when I'm done winning. Soccer-moms who think everyone should get a trophy say to "play the game to have fun". I say play to work at getting better, to undertake a challenge and overcome obstacles along the way. To solve problems and develop new skills. Fun has nothing to do with it. Done correctly, it's enjoyable hard work. Jmho. > You edited your reply just to take out your sentence where you said 'we agree chess should be fun' so that you could make this argument. Lame. Very. Lame.
#46

@pet59 said in #43:

right. I have a meaningful contribution.
I propose that from now on Lichess hides the ratings off the opponents topic starter gets
and eliminates all limitations.
A Quick Look learns that his opponents ratings never differ more than a 100 from his and often are very very close.
Or how our words can differ from what we do.

A quick look at your account shows that all you play is correspondence chess. If you played online using quick pairing you would have a little bit better understanding of the topic.

@pet59 said in #43: > right. I have a meaningful contribution. > I propose that from now on Lichess hides the ratings off the opponents topic starter gets > and eliminates all limitations. > A Quick Look learns that his opponents ratings never differ more than a 100 from his and often are very very close. > Or how our words can differ from what we do. A quick look at your account shows that all you play is correspondence chess. If you played online using quick pairing you would have a little bit better understanding of the topic.
#47

@pet59 said in #35:

but you just passes by the fact that a player has the right to be intimidated. And, depending on their personality, on their feelings for that day, etc. wanting to play or not.
The key problem is that you, for personal reasons, deny them that right

It is an instrument and like all instruments everything depends how and when you use it. They are using that instrument to say to you, I do not want to play.
Oh , but I don't like that, I want forcing them to play with me. So let's get rid of the instrument.

Words can smooth things(if that's the right word), dissimulate a bit, but doesn't really change anything.

The 'right' to be intimidated?

And what is this 'forcing' you speak of?

@pet59 said in #35: > but you just passes by the fact that a player has the right to be intimidated. And, depending on their personality, on their feelings for that day, etc. wanting to play or not. > The key problem is that you, for personal reasons, deny them that right > > It is an instrument and like all instruments everything depends how and when you use it. They are using that instrument to say to you, I do not want to play. > Oh , but I don't like that, I want forcing them to play with me. So let's get rid of the instrument. > > Words can smooth things(if that's the right word), dissimulate a bit, but doesn't really change anything. The 'right' to be intimidated? And what is this 'forcing' you speak of?
#48

Haha

Just realizing now that most of the recent replies were made by peeps[?] that only play correspondence games on this site, and not many of those.

So they[?] would literally be completely unaffected by any change.

Haha Just realizing now that most of the recent replies were made by peeps[?] that only play correspondence games on this site, and not many of those. So they[?] would literally be completely unaffected by any change.
#49

sorry is 'feel intimitated' understandable?
forcing? Not giving all the information which enables them to make a decision which suits them(what they have done!).

I understand more than you can imagine. But we are asked to be polite and I only had some English ad school some 50 years ago. Others explain better than me, but you don't understand them either.
I do.

sorry is 'feel intimitated' understandable? forcing? Not giving all the information which enables them to make a decision which suits them(what they have done!). I understand more than you can imagine. But we are asked to be polite and I only had some English ad school some 50 years ago. Others explain better than me, but you don't understand them either. I do.
#50

@DeimosRuhk said in #45:

You edited your reply just to take out your sentence where you said 'we agree chess should be fun' so that you could make this argument.

Lame. Very. Lame.

No, I don't think I did. The quote in your post is not something I could have changed and you had already quoted me before you started typing. That would have come from the page YOU had on your screen as the page was open. I have no control over changing that after you're reading it.

Nice try, but no.

But even if you/we were to interchange fun and enjoy, since you more or less consider them the same, my point remains.

And I edited the reply to add additional paragraphs and correct a typo, which is about all I ever do without (edit) in there to show a material change was made, to avoid discussions like this. Be that if it may, go ahead and say it did say "fun", it changes nothing else I said, not even the gist of the sentence you claim I edited.

@DeimosRuhk said in #45: > You edited your reply just to take out your sentence where you said 'we agree chess should be fun' so that you could make this argument. > > Lame. Very. Lame. No, I don't think I did. The quote in your post is not something I could have changed and you had already quoted me before you started typing. That would have come from the page YOU had on your screen as the page was open. I have no control over changing that after you're reading it. Nice try, but no. But even if you/we were to interchange fun and enjoy, since you more or less consider them the same, my point remains. And I edited the reply to add additional paragraphs and correct a typo, which is about all I ever do without (edit) in there to show a material change was made, to avoid discussions like this. Be that if it may, go ahead and say it did say "fun", it changes nothing else I said, not even the gist of the sentence you claim I edited.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.