11414 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
This has no doubt been addressed before, but I'm fairly new to chess.com, so I'm going to ask anyway.
Why Why Why do so many players decline a rematch in bullet? in the case of a 1 minute game, why would you NOT play again, regardless of the outcome? This is a source of frustration not just for me, but for many other players. If anyone can explain the reasoning behind only playing one game and then running off to play someone else, I would really appreciate it.
The WORST of these is the people who have their ratings options set to deliberately play against players with ratings 100-200 points below their own. They win 1 game, and then refuse to play again. What is the point? Why are you CHOOSING to play against weaker players, but refusing to give them another chance to play you? It may have been one mistake that cost them the game, and off you go, taking away any shot at redemption.
bottom line, it's a 1 minute game. What do you stand to lose by playing another game. You're online to play chess, you have a willing opponent in front of you, but you would rather play against someone else. It makes no sense.
I will take the rematch about 90% of the time... really only declining if I have to step away for something legit.. and even then, I'll usually squeeze in the game real quick, since I know it's only going to take 2 minutes.
it sure appears cowardly to run from a challenge.
I am looking for efforts to play solid chess VERY fast. I am looking to do so against players who are not lagging. When both these conditions are met, I almost never decline a rematch (declining only when I must be somewhere else).
Because of my conditions, I decline most rematches.
Due to lag, these games often take 2 1/2 - 3 minutes or even longer. Yes, I have timed them.
That's the main reason I don't play much blitz here.
The "solid chess" and "VERY fast" tend to be mutually exclusive in amateur play.
I get it Ziryab - and I hope you don't deliberately target weaker players, since you're looking for solid chess.
Wafflemaster - I hear ya brother. I'm gonna keep playing bullet, but I'm never going to like it when people decline the rematch.
e4, I think we can all agree that most of us are here to try and improve our game. We're trying to get better, right? otherwise, what's the point of playing?
Im fairly new to the game and very new to bullet. I dont know about you, but after about 3 games in a row. I need a break to collect my thoughts and breathe after the intense concentration I try to implement during bullet games.
I've played over 15,000 bullet games on this site, and I find that five is my limit unless I wish to cultivate stress and frustration. I do play marathon sessions of many hours, but they make me cranky and produce domestic discord. It is much better to play in short spurts and then return to more interesting and productive work.
Everything you have listed in your post are choices people have made. You may not agree or even like the choices, but they are somoenes choices.
I believe that ratings are a factor in this. When I accept an open challenge from a much higher rated player, if I give them a good game and lose, they dont want a rematch for fear of an upcoming loss which will make there rating go down 10+ points. If I win same thing, they would rather move on and play someone different. I will usually get a rematch if the higher rated player completely runs over me because they believe Im a weak player and can easily win again.
I think you hit the nail on the head Spooky... and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that it's fear of losing that runs players away from a rematch.
Its staggering how much importance people put into a online chess rating. Like it somehow defines them as a person.
In my case it's not the time control so much, and I don't even look at the ratings. Had my butt kicked the other day by someone rated more than 400 points lower. Good thing I didn't look at his rating, or he would have REALLY crushed me.
If I found the game challenging (regardless of the outcome) unless I have to step away for some other obligation I will often accept several rematches.
If I think I'm playing a bot or other sort of cheat, I might not accept that rematch but don't infer anything if I don't accept your rematch.
Who cares? Click new game and play someone else.
you can get mad over not getting your "chance at redemption" but that going to get you nowhere just saying. now let me answer your main question, if there was a good thing about bullet is that it can help you practice openings fast and if you take that away from them by playing an opening they dont want to play dont expect another game from them. for example i only offer/accept rematches if i get to practice the french defense as black or the halloween gambit as white, not saying that i hate to play anything else but im not trying to learn other openings at the moment.
I don't ratings are as much of a factor as you allege here. Do you avoid 1000 rated players because you don't want to lose rating points to someone who might well beat you?
Ziryab, I can't speak for Spooky, but for me, when I first started playing bullet, I played a lot of 1000s guys, and all it did was bring my rating down when I would get beat on time, and it gave me an average opponent of 1050ish. I set my rating options to 1150-1400, and recently made it 1175-1400. So yes, I avoid players who have a rating of below 1175. I can easily achieve a 1300 rating by playing 'weaker' players, but I want my rating to be on par with my average opponent.
no matter what anyone claims, ratings matter! if they didn't matter, then why even have them?
Ratings are useful for finding appropriate opponents and for measuring personal progress. However, setting a minimum rating for challenges fails to address the scenario described for declining a rematch: the first match took place because such minimums were not set.
The logic of rating works thus: I've lost to a player 400 below me. He or she owes me five rematches. That way I get back the rating points that I lost.
I do not believe there is much reason for fear of lower rated players. There are scenarios, however, that might cause one to decline such a rematch:
1. the loss reveals that the higher rated player is too drunk/tired/distracted to play right now.
2. the loss raises suspicions of multiple users on one account. I had an opponent who was rated ~1400 and playing like a 1900+ beat me a few games, and then explain that he was a strong player helping his cousin get his rating back up.
I avoid 1000 players when Im a good distance from them. Because personally I want to play equal rated players or higher for competition and thus more fun purposes. However, if you are playing to increase your rating as high as you can. You welcome lower rated players for the points you can shave off each one. But like I said, if you are this kind of player and run into someone much lower who is a struggle to beat, the win/loss ratio in terms of points doesnt make sense for you to play them. You beat them twice for a total of 8 points, they beat you once for a loss of 12 or higher. I find it hard to believe that all these higher rated players I play who either barely beat me or I beat wont rematch because of no more time to play, bathroom, girlfriend yelling etc...
More likely it was (in the following order):
1. girlfriend yelling
2. needs potty break
3. no more time to play
yur mom,told them too
To play or not to play the Sicilian
by Fiveofswords a few minutes ago
7/27/2015 - Under Oath
by bubblekou 4 minutes ago
who do you think is the best chess player
by casual_chess_yo 6 minutes ago
Chess is Definitely NOT 99% Tactics
by R3d_Anonymous 6 minutes ago
Free chess books
by Mountainstein 7 minutes ago
Protecting Knight to g5 with pawn to h6: what's the reason?
by chessmicky 8 minutes ago
Who do you think created chess?
by rapid_roller 11 minutes ago
Should One Play Chess?
by thegreat_patzer 11 minutes ago
1000 Worst Things To Do While Playing Chess
by ChessPlayinDude47 25 minutes ago
Advice on chess
by Charetter115 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!