1. Finds a dead horse.
2. Flogs it.
Lack of courtesy or cowardice? What has this "gentleman's game" become?
Sort:
bwaaa hahaha nice! I have still never refused to give someone an opportunity for 2 out of 3 in this venue or any other. That is the spirit of the game. It is also why a player has the option to concede when he feels he is at an insurmountable disadvantage and more importantly, he wants to pay a compliment recognizing his opponents ability. We should play sometime only, judging by your post, it is pretty clear you would run after a win. Go away little troll, or I shall tell you to go to hell in such a way that you would look forward to the trip. (plagiarized from Winnie)
May 9, 2018
0
#5
You don't get instant rematches in OTB (over-the-board) chess tournaments, nor in most sports. Most players are accustomed to playing, and looking for, a variety of opponents, not multi-game matches with a single player. The "gentlemanly" approach is nice if you want to offer it, but you shouldn't expect it or demand it.
It is only my opinion, and nothing more, that winning one game does not prove you are a better player and as a courtesy to your opponent, and also in the interest of proving your superior skills, 2 out of 3 is required.
Perhaps I feel this way because I have played 1000's games in prison, parks, on-line, and wherever and I am still not very good. I'm not horrible and have been victorious my fair share, it might be that I feel that myself and my opponents deserved a run back.
If I were to play in a high level tournament I am sure they would mop the floor with me. But here is why I love the game. There was a guy on the yard who was a doctor and had a mastery of the game. He was a member of some elite chess clubs and it clearly showed. He won 95% of the tournaments. For almost a year we all played against him and he never turned down a 2 out of 3. It rarely got to a third game, very rarely. Somehow one day, I was just seeing the board clearly and thinking in that 4th or 5th move way, and I won 2 out of 3. It also could have been that horrible outside influences had him outside the walls dealing with it instead of concentrating on the task at hand. He was too much of a gentleman to take the feeling from me by making the excuse. So I have learned that in chess, the entire universe can conspire to be in a lesser players favor to give them the win. I also realize that the truly elite and gifted players don't feel this way.
"We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness. We are monkeys with money and guns" -Tom Waits
May 9, 2018
0
#8
You know, it's fine if it's your opinion. You can expect whatever you want. What's not fine is criticizing and insulting when others don't meet your expectations. They have just as much freedom to decline a rematch as you do for offering.
I will agree that one game doesn't mean I'm a better player, but I'm not looking for that. I just want to play against a bunch of different people. I should be allowed to do that without someone getting upset.
a players daily motivation is unknown
This might be the first time this month the issue has been raised...
The OP can't read the blizzard of threads already raising this subject ??
Perhaps reading is only via snippets on the inter-web, and our collective intelligence continues to erode ?? Just saying...
https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Mind-Existential-Threat/dp/1101981113
Perhaps, Hell is Truth, Seen Too Late.
May 9, 2018
0
#12
wydfuqnopn1 wrote:
It is only my opinion, and nothing more, that winning one game does not prove you are a better player and as a courtesy to your opponent, and also in the interest of proving your superior skills, 2 out of 3 is required.
Perhaps I feel this way because I have played 1000's games in prison, parks, on-line, and wherever and I am still not very good. I'm not horrible and have been victorious my fair share, it might be that I feel that myself and my opponents deserved a run back.
If I were to play in a high level tournament I am sure they would mop the floor with me. But here is why I love the game. There was a guy on the yard who was a doctor and had a mastery of the game. He was a member of some elite chess clubs and it clearly showed. He won 95% of the tournaments. For almost a year we all played against him and he never turned down a 2 out of 3. It rarely got to a third game, very rarely. Somehow one day, I was just seeing the board clearly and thinking in that 4th or 5th move way, and I won 2 out of 3. It also could have been that horrible outside influences had him outside the walls dealing with it instead of concentrating on the task at hand. He was too much of a gentleman to take the feeling from me by making the excuse. So I have learned that in chess, the entire universe can conspire to be in a lesser players favor to give them the win. I also realize that the truly elite and gifted players don't feel this way.
So feel free to believe that the game was not an accurate measure of the players skill. No one is claiming that it was. They other guy simply wanted to play a game of chess with someone random, they did, and they moved on. It would be different if your opponent chose to declare himself superior, then decline a rematch.
May 9, 2018
0
#13
Wow, the 7 millionth thread on the same subject. Get a tissue, stop crying and understand some people have lives outside of chess. No one owes you a rematch. The lack of courtesy that I see is people who makes unreasonable demands on my time.
I play when I have time...if I play a timed game, say 5 minutes, I rarely accept a rematch as I usually play at the moment for as much time as I have...
May 9, 2018
0
#15
A gentleman would not insult his chess opponent by calling him a coward for declining a rematch request.
Yenny-Leon wrote:
A gentleman would not insult his chess opponent by calling him a coward for declining a rematch request.
Thank you for your clear (and concise) rhetorical thinking.
With a little luck, others might read and learn from it.
End of Story. 
wydfuqnopn1 wrote:
in the interest of proving your superior skills, 2 out of 3 is required.
Perhaps I feel this way because I have played 1000's games in prison
?!?!?
May 9, 2018
0
#18
wydfuqnopn1 wrote:
Referring to those players who win a first game and will not give their opponent an opportunity to even the score, but instead, take their ball and go home.
Is it possible they do not want to take a chance on proving their win was a fluke by losing the next two? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while...
Glue? Anyone need glue??
Referring to those players who win a first game and will not give their opponent an opportunity to even the score, but instead, take their ball and go home.
Is it possible they do not want to take a chance on proving their win was a fluke by losing the next two? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while...