-"I guess tactics aren't my forte."
-2500+ bullet rating
lol
-2500+ bullet rating
lol
My puzzle scores swing drastically --- will lose 8 of 10 before my brain works & then still screw up on the 4th move/ 'mate closer' by taking the plodding route
Hi,
I think sometimes is good to keep playing even if you're down on material without, or playing a considered "lost" position, you could learn from your opponent game (if he can handle well the endgame.. Remember, the endgame is the most difficult part of the game, and most medium rated players don't play well, me being the worst player). Resigning being a choice, of politeness sometimes, is not a compulsory rule. And chess is a game of patience, even in 5 minutes.
I think sometimes is good to keep playing even if you're down on material without, or playing a considered "lost" position, you could learn from your opponent game (if he can handle well the endgame.. Remember, the endgame is the most difficult part of the game, and most medium rated players don't play well, me being the worst player). Resigning being a choice, of politeness sometimes, is not a compulsory rule. And chess is a game of patience, even in 5 minutes.
Your opponent never owes you a rematch. Why does it even matter?
To make it clear, I'm not saying it's wrong to play on when you're down. Quite the opposite, I actually applaud people who can come back to flag/beat me when they're down. As a bullet player, I always make my opponents work for the win, even in dead draws. I believe that time is a piece and flagging is a skill.
That being said, a lot of these posts are off topic. I'm talking about people who beat you once, decline your rematch offer, and log off.
That being said, a lot of these posts are off topic. I'm talking about people who beat you once, decline your rematch offer, and log off.
Orange... c'mon - tactics aren't your forte? Dude 990! WTF
Anyway... Here's my two cents, and it's the best two cents here because I'm always right:
It's called sportsmanship. Wiki Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsmanship)
You offer the rematch if you win, or accept if you a rematch if you lose. It's a pretty basic concept... that's why there's two sides of the board. You play once as white... and once as black.
Of course there are many exceptions to this idea - but there's also another things called decency, common courtesy, manners... etc. Now - of course all this gets thrown out the window online, and honestly in the heat of the moment (battle), and not to mention language barriers and age gaps.
Honestly - I think that a simple solution to the online chess annoyance is to simply talk to your opponent. Then again... that can go no where too.
I just block everyone that irritates me - not the best policy, but it makes me feel better.
Anyway... Here's my two cents, and it's the best two cents here because I'm always right:
It's called sportsmanship. Wiki Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsmanship)
You offer the rematch if you win, or accept if you a rematch if you lose. It's a pretty basic concept... that's why there's two sides of the board. You play once as white... and once as black.
Of course there are many exceptions to this idea - but there's also another things called decency, common courtesy, manners... etc. Now - of course all this gets thrown out the window online, and honestly in the heat of the moment (battle), and not to mention language barriers and age gaps.
Honestly - I think that a simple solution to the online chess annoyance is to simply talk to your opponent. Then again... that can go no where too.
I just block everyone that irritates me - not the best policy, but it makes me feel better.
And after proof reading this AFTER I posted it... I still say we should be able to edit the posts!!!
but whatever... I don't really care that much
but whatever... I don't really care that much
I'm usually inclined to play two games, so players can take turns as black and white, but I don't let it worry me if my opponent only wants the one game.
I fully support 2game hosting.
Make it so that the second start after the first one with reversed pieces and on some timer for the first move, same as on tournaments.
In the mean time I see no moral reason for declining remaches.
Make it so that the second start after the first one with reversed pieces and on some timer for the first move, same as on tournaments.
In the mean time I see no moral reason for declining remaches.
#7 (Sollerman):
No, you are not expected or impolite to not accept/offer a rematch. Bizzarely, some people expect or think it has something to do with sportsmanship (it doesn't--you agreed to one game, not more), and they get huffy when you don't feel the same way despite never conversing with them about it, but it's not impolite or bad sportsmanship.
My particular policy is to avoid rematches with people I don't know. I have pretty easy to understand reasoning for doing so:
1) I simply don't usually like playing more than one game at a time--after games I usually need to spend some time going over it immediately so that I don't forget my thought processes.
2) Too many times I've seen an opponent play "surprisingly perfectly" in the second game if they lost the first game. You know the kind of perfectly I mean. This is tied into #3.
3) I think people that want some kind of "revenge" or "chance to even the score" are taking the game too personally. Consider that it really doesn't matter what the particular series of letters and numbers in the faceless username you are playing chess with is except that you feel "slighted" when you lose and want to prove something. This is a side of chess I don't really care to be involved in.
If we know each other then some of those things are not applicable, of course.
No, you are not expected or impolite to not accept/offer a rematch. Bizzarely, some people expect or think it has something to do with sportsmanship (it doesn't--you agreed to one game, not more), and they get huffy when you don't feel the same way despite never conversing with them about it, but it's not impolite or bad sportsmanship.
My particular policy is to avoid rematches with people I don't know. I have pretty easy to understand reasoning for doing so:
1) I simply don't usually like playing more than one game at a time--after games I usually need to spend some time going over it immediately so that I don't forget my thought processes.
2) Too many times I've seen an opponent play "surprisingly perfectly" in the second game if they lost the first game. You know the kind of perfectly I mean. This is tied into #3.
3) I think people that want some kind of "revenge" or "chance to even the score" are taking the game too personally. Consider that it really doesn't matter what the particular series of letters and numbers in the faceless username you are playing chess with is except that you feel "slighted" when you lose and want to prove something. This is a side of chess I don't really care to be involved in.
If we know each other then some of those things are not applicable, of course.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.