A fragile human being, sometimes when im dreaming i imagine they exist somewere.....
@sybotes sometimes I tell the waitress "I would be just fine if you would quit interrupting me to ask how I am" It's an annoying custom and practice of US restaurant service. They think customers like it -- maybe many do -- if you keep checking to see how they are doing. I don't like it. I want them to serve the food and leave me alone. If I want something, I can ask. My best tip goes to the waitress who doesn't say one more word to me.
The only reason for this follow-up is to re-enforce the point: people are different. Vive la differance!
The only reason for this follow-up is to re-enforce the point: people are different. Vive la differance!
Yeah imagine, typical cliche chess nerd walking into a restaurant a beautiful young waitress asks him emphatically how his day was. And the chessplayer goes like "whats wrong with this sick world"
@sparowe14 lol I know exactly what you're talking about I was out with friends at an applebees and we had a waitress that would ask us "how is everything?" Every five minutes with precision timing always after we stuffed our mouths with food. At some point one of my peers had enough and raised her voice back at her EVERYTHING IS FINE! Thank you very much.
Routinely saying "good game" isn't showing sportmanship, or manners. You're just following a protocol. Don't confusing following protocol with being polite let alone being educated. Protocols can often be automated away, hence good game buttons, or people just typing 'gg'. And it wouldn't be too hard to write a patch so that Lichess always sends a 'good game' message to each of the players when the game is finished.
And if you can't distinguish between an automated message, or someone meaning and typing the message, it isn't pointless.
And if you can't distinguish between an automated message, or someone meaning and typing the message, it isn't pointless.
If a person says that they would prefer an expressionless robot to not greet them at a restaurant, signal to 'follow it to a seat', and set down the menu where "call for assistance when you decide" is printed on it, then I have to take that at face value.
But most people probably prefer some measure of personality and interaction.
The idea that we've had to strawman/conflate a "Hi how are you today?" and a "I hope you enjoyed your meal, visit us again soon!" with, "being interrupted every 5 minutes," tells us everything that we need to know.
Often, in arguments, conflation can be forgiven.
Often, in arguments, it's not a debate-losing blunder.
But when we find OPPOSITES and NEAR OPPOSITES being conflated to mean the same thing, that's when it's pretty much always game over.
"Hi" and "Bye" are nearly the opposite of "Incessant and unwelcome interruptions every few minutes."
It's probably not best to consult sociopaths on matters of public policy.
It's probably a complete waste of time explaining the unique intricacies of healthy mammalian interactions to them, as this must be impossibly confusing for them.
And sociopaths, likewise, should acknowledge and admit their deficit, understand that they're in a lane all by themselves, and that matters of public policy are not for them to speak on.
If we don't take convicted thieves seriously when applying to work as store security, then we don't take sociopaths seriously when they express what kinds of "human interaction" that they'd prefer to see/not see.
Also, it should be noted that one type of person is conducive with the existence of Lichess in the first place, while the other could never have been bothered to create it.
All that said, I do NOT think that it should be mandatory. That would be completely defeating the purpose.
If those buttons are of no use to someone, then they should just ignore them. No big deal.
But most people probably prefer some measure of personality and interaction.
The idea that we've had to strawman/conflate a "Hi how are you today?" and a "I hope you enjoyed your meal, visit us again soon!" with, "being interrupted every 5 minutes," tells us everything that we need to know.
Often, in arguments, conflation can be forgiven.
Often, in arguments, it's not a debate-losing blunder.
But when we find OPPOSITES and NEAR OPPOSITES being conflated to mean the same thing, that's when it's pretty much always game over.
"Hi" and "Bye" are nearly the opposite of "Incessant and unwelcome interruptions every few minutes."
It's probably not best to consult sociopaths on matters of public policy.
It's probably a complete waste of time explaining the unique intricacies of healthy mammalian interactions to them, as this must be impossibly confusing for them.
And sociopaths, likewise, should acknowledge and admit their deficit, understand that they're in a lane all by themselves, and that matters of public policy are not for them to speak on.
If we don't take convicted thieves seriously when applying to work as store security, then we don't take sociopaths seriously when they express what kinds of "human interaction" that they'd prefer to see/not see.
Also, it should be noted that one type of person is conducive with the existence of Lichess in the first place, while the other could never have been bothered to create it.
All that said, I do NOT think that it should be mandatory. That would be completely defeating the purpose.
If those buttons are of no use to someone, then they should just ignore them. No big deal.
@Abigail-III
I take your point, but there is still the fact that someone troubled themselves enough to reach out and press those buttons.
It is a de facto acknowledgement of the opponent, and taking time to make this acknowledgement can be only of benefit to the community.
It is a good thing.
I would say, "It is a good thing on-balance," but barring the tortured sociopath having to read someone with the audacity to tell them "GG" or "TYWP", I can't find any deficit at all.
On the other hand, sometimes it blossoms into, "Yeah that game was wild. I thought that blablablaba was for sure game over but then, blablablabla," and the next thing you know, you have a couple friends that weren't there yesterday and that wouldn't be there today if not for the engagement and the capacity to signal a willingness to engage.
I know people at ICC who haven't played a game in years, but that get together and talk almost daily.
There is something to be said for that kind of a close knit camaraderie. It is very good for the site.
All that said, I do NOT think that it should be mandatory. That would be completely defeating the purpose.
If those buttons are of no use to someone, then they should just ignore them. No big deal.
I take your point, but there is still the fact that someone troubled themselves enough to reach out and press those buttons.
It is a de facto acknowledgement of the opponent, and taking time to make this acknowledgement can be only of benefit to the community.
It is a good thing.
I would say, "It is a good thing on-balance," but barring the tortured sociopath having to read someone with the audacity to tell them "GG" or "TYWP", I can't find any deficit at all.
On the other hand, sometimes it blossoms into, "Yeah that game was wild. I thought that blablablaba was for sure game over but then, blablablabla," and the next thing you know, you have a couple friends that weren't there yesterday and that wouldn't be there today if not for the engagement and the capacity to signal a willingness to engage.
I know people at ICC who haven't played a game in years, but that get together and talk almost daily.
There is something to be said for that kind of a close knit camaraderie. It is very good for the site.
All that said, I do NOT think that it should be mandatory. That would be completely defeating the purpose.
If those buttons are of no use to someone, then they should just ignore them. No big deal.
A lot of interesting observations here. Two quick thoughts:
1. I wish I hadn't used the word "educated" in my original post because it's caused a lot of misunderstanding and some offense. Let me be clear as possible now: All I'm referring to is whether a user is familiar with the practice of the loser saying "Good game" or not. I find it's a practice that benefits me and my chess mindset, and yet it's rare that I see other users doing this. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of players simply have never had this practice explained to them, thus the original post. None of this has anything at all to do with how smart a player is or how much education he or she has.
2. Per @Onyx_Chess's comment, I would never want this practice to be mandatory, expected, or--God forbid--auto-generated. Any one of those conditions would instantly rob it of its meaning. If this practice works for you, great; if it doesn't, no issues whatsoever. I just want to be sure people are aware of the custom and its benefits. If a handful of readers who've come across this post decide to give it a try, I'm happy.
1. I wish I hadn't used the word "educated" in my original post because it's caused a lot of misunderstanding and some offense. Let me be clear as possible now: All I'm referring to is whether a user is familiar with the practice of the loser saying "Good game" or not. I find it's a practice that benefits me and my chess mindset, and yet it's rare that I see other users doing this. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of players simply have never had this practice explained to them, thus the original post. None of this has anything at all to do with how smart a player is or how much education he or she has.
2. Per @Onyx_Chess's comment, I would never want this practice to be mandatory, expected, or--God forbid--auto-generated. Any one of those conditions would instantly rob it of its meaning. If this practice works for you, great; if it doesn't, no issues whatsoever. I just want to be sure people are aware of the custom and its benefits. If a handful of readers who've come across this post decide to give it a try, I'm happy.
Ne zdi se mi športno zahtevati revanšo po zmagi - I don't find sports behavior to ask for a rematch after a victory.
№ 59,
On the contrary: If you ask for a rematch after a defeat, you may be reacting from frustration at the point loss, and in a bad mindset, likely to repeat that loss (i.e., in a downward spiral / negative feedback loop). It is therefore generally bad form, meaning it reflects poorly upon you, and you are likely to be declined. Why should the guy who just beat you play you again? Probably he wants a greater challenge.
Whereas, if you ask for one after a victory, this only means you think the best of your opponent, whom you may have just barely beaten, and you wish to offer him another chance. It’s a way of signaling that you particularly enjoyed the challenge level he provided, and would like it to continue, since you genuinely feel he’s a worthy opponent, and deserves the chance to get his own back, plus you hope he may teach you a thing or two. In other words: It means you are humble about your victory, and/or that it was an uncommonly stimulating experience you’d like more of. You are acknowledging that it was a close match, and you got lucky.
Personally, if it really was a good game, then I would rather play that same fellow again than play some random stranger who may be nowhere near as close to my own level. Regardless of whether it’s a win, loss or draw, repeat opponents are always the best opponents. I play them more often than others precisely because I enjoy playing them more. My best games on this site were where I played the same guy four times in a row, and our score was even at the end of the day. We both learned, we both had fun; we both felt it was a good experience, and wanted it to continue. And it did — till one of us had to go do something else IRL. Once or twice, we even followed each other afterwards. (Though I must admit, I’m really bad about noticing when people are online, and sending them challenges. Plus I’m rarely prepared to accept their challenges, and sometimes I am simply reading in the forums. Once they introduce Incognito Mode, I will probably use it all the time.) In my best chess games, I was on the edge of my seat, sweating & shaking, and I either barely won or barely lost.
In contrast, the worst games I’ve played were where I won too easily. ;( If it was an easy win for me, I would never offer a rematch; I will go look for a greater challenge, instead. This fact, in and of itself, is why I am sure your interpretation of rematch offers from winners is flawed. In my experience, they only come when it really was a good game, and not if it was an easy win. You learn less when playing noobs; likewise, you gain fewer points from beating them. So it’s just not worthwhile, any way you slice it. (Unless you are actually doing it for their sake, say as their coach; or to make instructional videos, like IM John Bartholomew’s “Climbing the Rating Ladder” series on YouTube.) Arguably, offering a rematch after winning is the highest compliment you can pay an opponent. So I strongly believe you are flat-out mistaken, and need to rethink your most basic assumptions here.
I likewise believe it’s entirely appropriate for the winner to say GG. I often do when I win, and have never once encountered resentment for it. Moreover, the people I don’t say it to, it’s because I too easily beat them ;), or they were rude to me, etc. I, for one, always say what I mean and mean what I say. So if I say GG, I genuinely mean it; whereas if I don’t, it is only then you should wonder whether I dislike you for some reason. ;) And I consider WP to be a higher compliment than GG, which is why I reserve it for those opponents who nearly beat me, or likewise those who beat me soundly. (I have nothing against saying these things after losing, mind you. I just think it’s totally appropriate for winners to do so, too. And maybe more so, in general. I am tempted to take the opposite stance from you and the OP, and claim that _only_ winners should ever say these things. But I don’t actually feel that strongly about it; I’m just saying I _could_ make that argument, if I cared to. I could play Devil’s Advocate with great ease, in fact — and this fact ought to give you pause.)
So anyway, I have to disagree with those who say winners shouldn’t do these things. I think both winners & losers can, but _especially_ that winners can.
And bear in mind, I say this as someone who has elsewhere argued that takebacks should only be requested, never offered. *shrug* Human beings are complex. :P
On the contrary: If you ask for a rematch after a defeat, you may be reacting from frustration at the point loss, and in a bad mindset, likely to repeat that loss (i.e., in a downward spiral / negative feedback loop). It is therefore generally bad form, meaning it reflects poorly upon you, and you are likely to be declined. Why should the guy who just beat you play you again? Probably he wants a greater challenge.
Whereas, if you ask for one after a victory, this only means you think the best of your opponent, whom you may have just barely beaten, and you wish to offer him another chance. It’s a way of signaling that you particularly enjoyed the challenge level he provided, and would like it to continue, since you genuinely feel he’s a worthy opponent, and deserves the chance to get his own back, plus you hope he may teach you a thing or two. In other words: It means you are humble about your victory, and/or that it was an uncommonly stimulating experience you’d like more of. You are acknowledging that it was a close match, and you got lucky.
Personally, if it really was a good game, then I would rather play that same fellow again than play some random stranger who may be nowhere near as close to my own level. Regardless of whether it’s a win, loss or draw, repeat opponents are always the best opponents. I play them more often than others precisely because I enjoy playing them more. My best games on this site were where I played the same guy four times in a row, and our score was even at the end of the day. We both learned, we both had fun; we both felt it was a good experience, and wanted it to continue. And it did — till one of us had to go do something else IRL. Once or twice, we even followed each other afterwards. (Though I must admit, I’m really bad about noticing when people are online, and sending them challenges. Plus I’m rarely prepared to accept their challenges, and sometimes I am simply reading in the forums. Once they introduce Incognito Mode, I will probably use it all the time.) In my best chess games, I was on the edge of my seat, sweating & shaking, and I either barely won or barely lost.
In contrast, the worst games I’ve played were where I won too easily. ;( If it was an easy win for me, I would never offer a rematch; I will go look for a greater challenge, instead. This fact, in and of itself, is why I am sure your interpretation of rematch offers from winners is flawed. In my experience, they only come when it really was a good game, and not if it was an easy win. You learn less when playing noobs; likewise, you gain fewer points from beating them. So it’s just not worthwhile, any way you slice it. (Unless you are actually doing it for their sake, say as their coach; or to make instructional videos, like IM John Bartholomew’s “Climbing the Rating Ladder” series on YouTube.) Arguably, offering a rematch after winning is the highest compliment you can pay an opponent. So I strongly believe you are flat-out mistaken, and need to rethink your most basic assumptions here.
I likewise believe it’s entirely appropriate for the winner to say GG. I often do when I win, and have never once encountered resentment for it. Moreover, the people I don’t say it to, it’s because I too easily beat them ;), or they were rude to me, etc. I, for one, always say what I mean and mean what I say. So if I say GG, I genuinely mean it; whereas if I don’t, it is only then you should wonder whether I dislike you for some reason. ;) And I consider WP to be a higher compliment than GG, which is why I reserve it for those opponents who nearly beat me, or likewise those who beat me soundly. (I have nothing against saying these things after losing, mind you. I just think it’s totally appropriate for winners to do so, too. And maybe more so, in general. I am tempted to take the opposite stance from you and the OP, and claim that _only_ winners should ever say these things. But I don’t actually feel that strongly about it; I’m just saying I _could_ make that argument, if I cared to. I could play Devil’s Advocate with great ease, in fact — and this fact ought to give you pause.)
So anyway, I have to disagree with those who say winners shouldn’t do these things. I think both winners & losers can, but _especially_ that winners can.
And bear in mind, I say this as someone who has elsewhere argued that takebacks should only be requested, never offered. *shrug* Human beings are complex. :P
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.