Question about chess etiquette

@Sarg0n I disagree with respect. You win because someone lost. We can't have a game without losers. Some games are good games. You can lose and be part of a good game. Really.

Sure. For the winner gg, for the loser bg. ;) Consistent.

is "good luck" before the game okay? Or does it imply, I think my opponent needs luck??

Actually, otb I shake hands saying „good game!“ Before the game though. :D

@lurarose I don't think that example has anything to do here, it's uncalled for and OT. But if you don't understand why Ocasio-Cortez did not answer, I'm sorry for you.

On the topic, let's agree to disagree. Some (like @Sarg0n) think that GG after a won game is bad netiquette because it implies you're trolling your opponent, that must have played a bad game since he lost.

Some, (like @killF7 or myself) believe that you can play a GG also when losing, and than by stating GG you actually mean what you write, and that GG is used seldom, just when you really thing it was one of those rare GG.

In the end, I feel the problem does not exist, as nobody ever answers the chat. Do people get noticed after the game of a chat message?

For the record, in many countries, and in workplaces like theaters, saying good luck or good game *before* the game is actually pretty bad etiquette.

@spaitz "STOP SEXUALLY HARASSING ME REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! You said something I disagreed with, and I'm a woman so It's practically RAPE!" (I joke, but it's not far off from the Cortez approach, all politics aside it's rather pitiful) If you don't get that then it is you who I feel sorry for. And it is on the topic to the point where no matter how nice you are you will offend some people over trivial little things, and there is no point in worrying about that and coddling such snowflakes, in fact, doing so just makes them worse. (Also, I never said she had to accept a debate or political discussion with anyone. You are putting words in my mouth. That's her right to say "No thanks" or ignore them. Both are perfectly acceptable and reasonable responses. However, to throw libelous mud making false accusations in such a time when real women are real victims out there is a slap in the face to all women who have been abused. Shame on her for acting in such a disgraceful and loathsome manner!)

@spaitz
you say the problem doesn't exist - I think I know what you mean. Most of my after game posts go unanswered because the person has moved on to another game. It's internet chess and most people are here to play, not socialise.

Perhaps this is a big difference from OTB which is something @Sarg0n seems to be familiar with and perhaps on which he basis his perspective. I would estimate I actually get to communicate back and forth on even a "gg" basis after an on-line game at less than 10% , while posting more than 60% (ususally "thanks"). It's OK. It's not a problem.

And yes, I think we agree. I have on many occasions said something (including gg) after a game that I lost....and I meant it. And I believe it was true.

Hey everybody! I just played a game which I won, and it was a horrible game. How's that for a twist?

And here's another one, only this time I include the game. I won....but it wasn't a "Good Game".
I usually say "Thank You" after the game but he left the game before I was able to do that.

I missed forking his queen and bishop and then a nice Q+2Rooks fork, but managed to win anyway via a nice forced mate sequence beginning with the knight sacrifice.

[Event "Casual Rapid game"]
[Site "lichess.org/NyYBdnle"]
[Date "2019.01.17"]
[Round "-"]
[White ""]
[Black "killF7"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2019.01.17"]
[UTCTime "13:54:13"]
[WhiteElo "1623"]
[BlackElo "1534"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "D02"]
[Opening "Queen's Pawn Game: London System"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 { D02 Queen's Pawn Game: London System } e6 4. Nc3 c5 5. Nb5 Na6 6. Qd2 Bd7 7. Nd6+ Bxd6 8. Bxd6 Qb6 9. Be5 Ne4 10. Qd3 O-O 11. O-O-O c4 12. Qe3 Nb4 13. Kb1 a5 14. c3 Ba4 15. Rc1 Nxa2 16. Kxa2 Bb3+ 17. Kb1 Qb5 18. Nd2 Qa4 19. Nxb3 cxb3 20. Rc2 Qa2+ 21. Kc1 Qa1# { Black wins by checkmate. } 0-1

After reading a couple of comments here, I think we really need some basic etiquette rules here. Obviously I might have offended auite a few people here unintendedly.

E.g.:
"Good game" for me means good game. Of course I know I have made bad moves, otherwise I were Magnus Carlson or someone. But when I think there were interesting ideas in a game I played and both players followed their plans consequently without obvious blunders - then I think it was a good game. And if that is my opinion about the game I say it, independently of the outcome of the game.
On the other hand, if I blunder a bishop and later happen to win a rook so finally I win, I don't want to call it a good game.
I was really amazed that some people regard that in a completely different way. May be it is a matter of culture? Although I am German and my opinion differs from Sarg0n's an NickWarFrei's ...

Losing on time: I think it is not the least unsportsmanlike what the threadstarter did. I understand those who resign in such a position because they despise a win after a bad game. But for others chess is mainly a competition - and they still can feel satisfaction after a "dirty" win. Again, I am sad that some might be offended by either behaviour.

After all: Whatever you do, somebody might be angry.

And @lurarose: Very good point!