@elblandie Sure, I can understand why some want at least 3 games against the same player. But, if that is a preference, then befriend those who think the same way and let your list grow. After a while you can always only challenge players who want a series of games.
Aye, I don't appreciate these flagging shenanigans either. The result of the game should be determined on the board, not the clock.
@elblandie Good luck then.
@elblandie Good luck then.
What's the point of the clock then?
The clock is a means to an end (dictating the speed of the game).
I am not against timeouts per se. Time is an interesting secondary ressource that players can play with.
If time trouble gets "converted" into blunders - totally fine.
But if it becomes the *only* thing that really matters, we don't play chess anymore. We play who-has-the-better-reflexes-and-equipment.
Of course, the rules allow this, so I will accept it. But personally I think that starting flagging battles in opposite color bishop endings and the like is bad sportsmanship. In sports, you want to compare some sort of "skill". In chess, that's thinking. Not fast clicking.
Similar to rule-lawyering in pretty much any sport (where skill" should be more important than knowing how to abuse loopholes).
I am not against timeouts per se. Time is an interesting secondary ressource that players can play with.
If time trouble gets "converted" into blunders - totally fine.
But if it becomes the *only* thing that really matters, we don't play chess anymore. We play who-has-the-better-reflexes-and-equipment.
Of course, the rules allow this, so I will accept it. But personally I think that starting flagging battles in opposite color bishop endings and the like is bad sportsmanship. In sports, you want to compare some sort of "skill". In chess, that's thinking. Not fast clicking.
Similar to rule-lawyering in pretty much any sport (where skill" should be more important than knowing how to abuse loopholes).
Peolpe acting like we're about to vote to pass a law.
It's just a calm question guys ffs calm down. No one is forcing you to a rematch, it's just people with a certain opinion who come from a different point of view than you.
Why is everyone in here always going "you're not entitled to xyz"
NO SHIT you're not entitled to sportsmanship. Bravo Sherlocks. Next time try to answer the question, and if you can't stop throwing around the same tired rhetoric we've heard across 100s of threads.
It's just a calm question guys ffs calm down. No one is forcing you to a rematch, it's just people with a certain opinion who come from a different point of view than you.
Why is everyone in here always going "you're not entitled to xyz"
NO SHIT you're not entitled to sportsmanship. Bravo Sherlocks. Next time try to answer the question, and if you can't stop throwing around the same tired rhetoric we've heard across 100s of threads.
@SakisRouklas - finally, someone who gets the point! :) To be honest, I feel like this thread demonstrates that those who sit online behind their monitor do have a different set of views to chess to those who came from a more OTB background. My point was entirely about how I see that as a shame because it means people are missing the fun of the challenge in lieu of some well-grabbed ranking points.
Each to their own, but I'll always be on the side of sportsmanship and 'the spirit of the game'.
Each to their own, but I'll always be on the side of sportsmanship and 'the spirit of the game'.
@SakisRouklas
"No one is forcing you to a rematch"
Nobody is forcing it, because they don't have the power to do so. But if somebody not wanting a rematch is cause to publicly cry, then it stands to reason the person doing the whining thinks rematches should be obligatory. If they do not think that, then what on earth is all the crying about? Your comment here and the crying that started this thread are opposites.
It can't be both "nobody is entitled to a rematch" and "I'm going to have a cry because I didn't get a rematch." One or the other.
"100s of threads"
Surely if you've read it hundreds of times then you, like me and many others, must think the crying gets tiresome?
"No one is forcing you to a rematch"
Nobody is forcing it, because they don't have the power to do so. But if somebody not wanting a rematch is cause to publicly cry, then it stands to reason the person doing the whining thinks rematches should be obligatory. If they do not think that, then what on earth is all the crying about? Your comment here and the crying that started this thread are opposites.
It can't be both "nobody is entitled to a rematch" and "I'm going to have a cry because I didn't get a rematch." One or the other.
"100s of threads"
Surely if you've read it hundreds of times then you, like me and many others, must think the crying gets tiresome?
The crying is annoying as hell. When people think they are entitled to a treatment that is unrealistic IRL and especially on the internet that's stupid and annoying.
But there's threads where the OP just asks for a simple "why" and people act like idiots in response.
Can the OP not ask for more sportsmanship, or lament the lack of it - if he does it in a sensible manner? After all, he's not entirely wrong. There is a notion of sportsmanship in to accepting rematches when you've won.
I'll usually give up to three. Sometimes I'll be a coward or just lazy and think "nah, I'm gonna be a jerk and leave you hanging bro". But I understand the idea of giving the other a revanche.
Revanche is not an outlandish or even new concept. Just because you don't HAVE to give it, doesn't mean it's not good to do it. Just because you don't HAVE to give it, doesn't mean you can't ask the general public to consider giving it.
People acting like we're taking away their freedom to act as they wish, whining about it while calling it "whiny". It's getting irredeemably stupid.
But there's threads where the OP just asks for a simple "why" and people act like idiots in response.
Can the OP not ask for more sportsmanship, or lament the lack of it - if he does it in a sensible manner? After all, he's not entirely wrong. There is a notion of sportsmanship in to accepting rematches when you've won.
I'll usually give up to three. Sometimes I'll be a coward or just lazy and think "nah, I'm gonna be a jerk and leave you hanging bro". But I understand the idea of giving the other a revanche.
Revanche is not an outlandish or even new concept. Just because you don't HAVE to give it, doesn't mean it's not good to do it. Just because you don't HAVE to give it, doesn't mean you can't ask the general public to consider giving it.
People acting like we're taking away their freedom to act as they wish, whining about it while calling it "whiny". It's getting irredeemably stupid.
I agree with elblandie here it is a case of etiquette. Whether its over the interweb or not we are hopefully still human beings. I also find the people who don't accept a rematch are the same ones that don't want to chat with me. When you say hello they ignore you. If they don't want to rematch - sure but why not a nice little word of explanation - "sorry man I can't play now - I'm off to practice the grand piano" or even "sorry man I'm a win quitter, and I live in perpetual fear of losing a game so when I win I move on. That is the way I roll!" A little bit of honesty here would be nice, refreshing - could even be a bit of fun, who knows? Its the same ones that refuse to click the "good game button" too after a game. Maybe there is a club where these win quitters abide. Perhaps it is a unified front dedicated to insulting the minority of decent polite people that still have the courage to venture into this online chess swamp we are all wading in?
By the way, what is a „winquitter“? There are only rematchsickos.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.