Rematches

@ungewichtet said in #10:

> I believe many people enjoy the hit&run/fail&run possibility online because it relieves them from the pressure of personal battles, of supposed 'now let's r e a l l y find out who is better of the two of us'.

I really dont care 'who is better of us'. I just find boring and unnecessary to play same person manytimes as there is plenty of opponents jus by pressing next opponent button. why bother with re-matches. If there were a setting to remove the re-match button like for take-back I would take that button off as well

@ungewichtet said in #10:
> You can have different opponents anytime.. while having a rematch only happens if both players wish. I understand you prefer having different opponents, but why exactly no interest in playing the same player twice? A single game will hardly disclose all there is in one player. I find there is a personal level growing in a series of games, just by chess moves, without any other personal information.
>
> I believe many people enjoy the hit&run/fail&run possibility online because it relieves them from the pressure of personal battles, of supposed 'now let's r e a l l y find out who is better of the two of us'. But the motivation to ask for a rematch need not be seeking revenge, satisfaction and to offer one need not be seeking confirmation of dominance. It can just be a player interested in meeting a player as a person rather than playing 'the world' on the virtual board.

To be honest: I genuinely don't care who my opponent is or if I'm 'really' better or worse than him/her. I don't take chess personally in that way.

All I am interested in is playing chess games against about equally strong opponents, and preferably as many different ones as possible. The latter because in that way I am more likely to learn to deal with a great variety of openings and playing styles. It's not useful to 'grow' to learn to beat some specific player who you will likely never ever play again. OTB competition doesn't work that way either, unless you're top of the world or only playing within a really small chess club.

My OTB chess club has about 200 members. By the time I play the same player again I've already completely forgotten his repertoire.

@petri999
'boring and unnecessary to play the same person many times'.. 'why bother'
You'd say it's boring and unnecessary to talk to the same person twice, exchanges longer than a few minutes, why bother?

Let's try the reverse: 'It's boring and unnecessary to play the "next" opponent before playing a handful of rematches'. Why bother getting to know just another style if we have hardly found out anything about this one?
You don't want to learn about styles, you just want to play chess. Okay, chess comes in styles, and you won't find out to what sort of moves the moves that you just met belong, you won't see the context.

"Next" opponent is not true, because, while near now, starting from zero we are also farthest, and will remain far without rematch button. Might as well rename the other button 'further opponents'. Next opponent in line of players seeking to remain far from one another? Chess is an encounter, let's just meet :)

I never accept rematches unless a stronger opponent (+150) asks it . I see no point in rematching weaker/equal/ players as compared to reviewing the game

@Molurus said in #12
'It's not useful to 'grow' to learn to beat some specific player who you will likely never ever play again.'
I used 'growing' referring to understanding somebody's chess personality by means of several games. Not in order to play them more effectively but to even understand the playing style we meet.

You said: 'All I am interested in is playing chess games against about equally strong opponents, and preferably as many different ones as possible. The latter because in that way I am more likely to learn to deal with a great variety of openings and playing styles.'
So my argument goes like 'you don't even play someone if you play only once'. You cannot learn a great variety of.. if you don't even look at one variety of. Even if the question is 'how to best prepare for the eternal swiss tournament we are in' the answer might be 'by playing people several times'.

@ungewichtet said in #15:
> @Molurus said in #12
> So my argument goes like 'you don't even play someone if you play only once'. You cannot learn a great variety of.. if you don't even look at one variety of. Even if the question is 'how to best prepare for the eternal swiss tournament we are in' the answer might be 'by playing people several times'.

You don't learn X by doing Y. You learn X by doing X.

There is no reasonable purpose in playing the same player over and over. There just isn't.

@Molurus said in #16:
> You don't learn doing X by doing Y. You learn X by doing X.
If that were true, I would get better at blitz by blitzing and could not by reading, teaching, playing slow games, analyzing, right?
Playing meet&run need not be the best preparation for the eternal swiss, and playing 'rematches' might. -to your edit: you said you never, but nobody said 'over and over' :)

@ungewichtet said in #17:
> If that were true, I would get better at blitz by blitzing and could not by reading, teaching, playing slow games, analyzing, right?

Let's be real: a) you don't play slow games or analyze games, at least not online, and b) I'm rated 400 points higher than you.

And you're trying to tell me how to improve at chess? Really?

But I'll just repeat what I said: there is no reasonable purpose in rematching. Once or several times. In blitz or in long time controls. In any way whatsoever.

The only reasons people do it are a) they enjoy playing people they know (fine) or b) they take chess way to personally. There is no training advantage to it, at all.

@Molurus said in #1:
> Any thoughts?
>

@Molurus said in #18:
>Let's be real: a) you don't play slow games or analyze games, at least not online, and b) I'm rated 400 points higher than you.

>And you're trying to tell me how to improve at chess? Really?
>

You question my realness.
Online, I play blitz and bullet exclusively because I have a youth blitz trauma to beat, and I find 1+0 most curing.
I was a one hit youth champ in a tiny respected club. My teammates all made it to 2000, while I had long stopped. I played for a year again 20 years later, performing 1500.
I give a weekly afternoon course in primary (?) school, (kids 6-12, I mean).
It is a pity that you open a forum and then question a forumer, me, for my inferior rating. As if playing strength had to do with the argument. Instead of arguing, you go repeat and turn up the volume. Seems you are not interested in different views. Why do you write "any thoughts" in the first place?

@Molurus
But apart from that, how do you explain that the guys in your rating range 2050 +/- ask you for rematches? I offered an explanation. That it is not happening a lot in my rating range 1650 +/- but in yours could indicate that more apt players generally do find value in rematching.