The most annoying types of player

Chess isn't a game about intelligence you don't become a genius by playing chess the bong cloud is a bad relatively playable opening plus if a player is giving you an advantage why not use it to your advantage

The Bongcloud is the highest level of disrespect and chess player can receive, and I would rather not deal with it.

How about the opponent who plays at a consistent level and uses a reasonable amount of time. Then, after you have achieved a winning position, they pause for 30 seconds. When they again play, they blitz out moves at a much higher level than they had previously shown. Are they connecting to engines midway through the game? Will the cheating detection software catch this?

Dunno I have guy hat played fast in the opening then slow in the mid game and fast in the endgame when it was an easy win

To answer your question it depends some get banned others it's tricker

Because for example one bullet game proves nothing. We both know I'm much better than him and I don't get my chance to prove it. And sometimes I want to know style of my opponent better. After the game I win I usually wait a moment for my opponent's rematch offer. If no offer I go next. But if I lose a bunch of games and no one of them gives me a rematch I lose control, get annoyed and keep on losing guessing that even after a good game from myslef and lose I don't get any opportunity to prove my skills on him.

Some guy named Prince something was bragging about how I'm "salty " he beat me lol cause he beat me in one game those are the most annoying types of players cause I really could care less so why do they care ?

Half the time I don't accept a rematch half the time I do just depends how I feel that's understandable tho but if your tilting taking a 5 minute break and the playing a game can help a good chunk that's what I usually do

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's opportunistic, it's dirty tactics. You are not winning because you were better than your opponent. You are not drawing because you were evenly matched. You won or got a draw because you resorted to opportunistic dirty tactics, like hoping that your opponent would lose connection, or any other reason. It's opportunistic and disrespectful, unsportsmanlike conduct. You are not showing any respect for your opponent and are trying to steal a win in case there's eg. some technical problem or whatever.

It's disgusting.

It's a lot more disrespectful to expect your opponent to resign. You agreed to play a game in a certain time control and your opponent has the right to actually play to the end (if they have 8 minutes on the clock and just let it time out that is a different story - I'm talking about actually playing on). If you have somewhere better to be, you can always resign yourself from a winning position

I agree with @DjVortex. I think you shouldn't win just because your opponent disconnected.

Who knows what happened on their side!? They could have had emergencies or be stuck in some situations. And if you played like trash, then you don't deserve the win. Flagging, Winning on time is something I accept, but winning because your opponent had some other issues is just dirty. ESPECIALLY when you don't deserve it.

In Lichess, where I play for fun (and just to keep contact with my lichess friends), I've accepted takebacks when my opponent misclicked and blundered the queen. I know this is a separate topic, but I won that game anyway.

Win games with Skill, not with luck.

This doesn't really make sense though. If they have an emergency then they were going to lose the game either way, whether playing well or not. If you sign up to play a game, then if something goes wrong in that time the only person to blame must be you? You can't blame the opponent for continuing to play a game that you signed up and agreed to play. With disconnects, it's just bad luck - but it happens to everyone and luck evens out.

I mean it is just a game and how much are you going to lose? In online games, lose or win, you can always get elo back.

Elo and points will go up again, but if it is an important game (eg. World Championship or some competition more modest), these factors would and must be taken into consideration if they are really serious.

Skillfull people get lucky you never know what your opponent is going to do some things happen at my level

Don’t get upset over losing a game that you should have won. What happens? You lose instead of gain some rating points.

then, in your next win, you will gain 1 more rating point than you would have if you had won the earlier game. If you lose the next game, you will lose 1 less point than you would have if you had won the first game.

After playing another 15 games, everything will turn out the same.

If your goal is to win as many games as possible, playing on in a lost position in hopes of a disconnect or horrible blunder is not always the optimal approach. Sometimes it is optimal, but sometimes it's not. Here's a very simple example to demonstrate.

Suppose you can dedicate 20 minutes a day to playing chess, on average each game takes 10 minutes, and you play people that are close to your rating. On average you'll play 2 games a day and score 1/2.

But in your first game of the day after 10 minutes you are in a dead lost position. You figure you could defend for another 10 minutes to mate and hope for a disconnect. You figure there is a 5% chance of this happening. The downside is that if you take this approach you wont have time for a second game. In this scenario your expected score is 0.05/1 for the day.

If you resign, you get 0 for the first game, but your expected score in the second game is 0.5, giving you an expected score for the day of 0.5/2 ... which of course is better than 0.05/1.

If the position isn't so easy to convert trying to play on is usually a decent strategy though hoping your opponent will disconnect is rare

The problem is under like 1600 you could probably sometimes hold down a full queen so it depends how bad the blunder is if you can win converting after all is one of the harder things to do

The most annoying type by far is the "player" who leaves the game because their ego prevents them from resigning, as any decent human being would do when they no longer wish to continue.

I can understand a 10 year old doing this, but if you are adult and you leave the game instead of resigning, you are a pathetic individual with serious psychological issues.

- Mimics. They aren't really annoying after about I'd say five plays or so, it's just kinda sad ig. And frickin hilarious, extra points if they start getting mad when you make a move that they know that if they copy they are absolutely screwed.

- Overly gloating confidence. Chess isn't a measure of intelligence, a literal two year old could beat me (granted my rating on this website is garbage) but my friend with a considerably higher IQ than myself, fails miserably every time (which is twice) we have played. My point is that I've had a couple players in chats ask me when I make a poor move what classes I take in school and start egging me by saying that I have to be cheating in all of them if I'm stupid enough to make that move.

- "Brand new players" who have an actually good rating on another website or another account, but are making a new account to appear like secret prodigies in the game.

-Cheaters who get mad when you either call them out and they say "it's an unrated game, why does it matter", if it's unrated, why do you care enough to cheat on it?

-Cheaters who get sour when you beat them. I'm sorry that your false rating got you to me (somehow), but when you play against someone who knows what cheating looks like and is actually good at the game, it will be easy to beat you. Annoying, and difficult not to punch my screen inside out, but still easy.

Players who make the worst possible first moves can be pretty annoying to play against