The only real way to prove it was an easy win is by doing it more than once.
... because in Football (Soccer), you have to put the ball in the net twice in a row before you are considered to have properly scored the point. Amirite?
Yes, if you’re going to claim it was “easy”, you should be able to do it more than once... Same goes for soccer or any competitive game.
Key word 'easy'
If it is just the added option, that is fine. Adding options is ok, but not removing the option of playing just 1 game. I don't see them doing that anyway.
And imagine playing 30|0 games and someone forces you to play best of 3... Ridiculous.
Learn to read with comprehension. I clearly mentioned 'short time controls'
Learn to read with comprehension, you've conveniently missed my entire post before it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Besides, only online 30|0 is a long time control.
In any case, nowhere online is best of anything different than 1 a norm, so good luck to you.
Learn to read with comprehension, you've conveniently missed my entire post before it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Besides, only online 30|0 is a long time control.
In any case, nowhere online is best of anything different than 1 a norm, so good luck to you.
Multiple online chess competitions use a ‘best of’ format. Even the World Chess Championship follows that structure.
> Multiple online chess competitions use a ‘best of’ format
I might not be far from the truth if I suppose that most players here are not to take part in competitions like that
> Multiple online chess competitions use a ‘best of’ format
I might not be far from the truth if I suppose that most players here are not to take part in competitions like that
Even if most players here don’t compete at that level, it doesn’t mean chess.com should ignore formats proven to work in professional play. Offering a ‘best of’ option benefits everyone... not just the pros.
yea
This troll sounds familiar, I think he had a similar name in previous iterations.
This troll sounds familiar, I think he had a similar name in previous iterations.
I’ve noticed this is the typical response when you can’t argue against the facts... you label it as “trolling”
The facts speak for themselves, and anyone sensible can see them. All weak excuses get thoroughly dismantled by my clear, detailed arguments
Learn to read with comprehension, you've conveniently missed my entire post before it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Besides, only online 30|0 is a long time control.
In any case, nowhere online is best of anything different than 1 a norm, so good luck to you.
Multiple online chess competitions use a ‘best of’ format. Even the World Chess Championship follows that structure.
Best of? Yes, some do. Best of 3? Rarely. WC championship is best of 14.
As for online, random pool on chess.com and lichess, plus some other smaller sites, all of those are flexible and you can play a single game. Nowhere is best of 3 mandatory.
As for tournaments on chess.com: arena - not best of 3, you just play until the tournament time runs out, swiss - not best of 3 either. I've played one daily tournament where in the knock out stage you play best of 3, but only there and only in the knock out stage. And that is daily chess, it is easier to play more than one game, as you can go offline whenever you wish. The other daily club tournament was just 2 games against the same opponent.
So, best of 3 is rare and unusual, and it makes no sense to force it upon players, especially not in random pool.
Best of? Yes, some do. Best of 3? Rarely. WC championship is best of 14.
As for online, random pool on chess.com and lichess, plus some other smaller sites, all of those are flexible and you can play a single game. Nowhere is best of 3 mandatory.
As for tournaments on chess.com: arena - not best of 3, you just play until the tournament time runs out, swiss - not best of 3 either. I've played one daily tournament where in the knock out stage you play best of 3, but only there and only in the knock out stage. The other daily club tournament was just 2 games against the same opponent.
So, best of 3 is rare and unusual, and it makes no sense to force it upon players, especially not in random pool.
Very pathetic and emotional comment.
Bughouse isn’t exactly a “common” format either, yet it’s still implemented.
So are you saying that’s more justified than having a ‘best of 3’ or ‘best of 2’ format?
this whole article is just sooooooooooooo stupid... literally just play another game! Nobody is forced to accept a rematch.
also @Markus-Schneider however you want to hit me back for my last comment, im 11 years old and even i know better than you. CALM DOWN
this whole article is just sooooooooooooo stupid... literally just play another game! Nobody is forced to accept a rematch.
The only thing stupid here is your emotional response.... that completely ignores everything I actually said.
also @Markus-Schneider however you want to hit me back for my last comment, im 11 years old and even i know better than you. CALM DOWN
If you are actually 11, you are breaking TOS.
The age requirement is 13.
> you label it as “trolling”
Actually you labelled it so yourself calling other players "cowards" instead of suggesting the game format calmly
> this whole article is just sooooooooooooo stupid...
Great line
Best of? Yes, some do. Best of 3? Rarely. WC championship is best of 14.
As for online, random pool on chess.com and lichess, plus some other smaller sites, all of those are flexible and you can play a single game. Nowhere is best of 3 mandatory.
As for tournaments on chess.com: arena - not best of 3, you just play until the tournament time runs out, swiss - not best of 3 either. I've played one daily tournament where in the knock out stage you play best of 3, but only there and only in the knock out stage. The other daily club tournament was just 2 games against the same opponent.
So, best of 3 is rare and unusual, and it makes no sense to force it upon players, especially not in random pool.
Very pathetic and emotional comment.
Bughouse isn’t exactly a “common” format either, yet it’s still implemented.
So are you saying that’s more justified than having a ‘best of 3’ or ‘best of 2’ format?
I do not play bughouse, and I didn't mention it either, nor do I have an interest in continuing the conversation because you like changing the narrative when something doesn't suit you.
Pretty much everyone stated the flaws in your reasoning, and I see no point in continuing the discussion, because you are arguing for argument sake.
Good day to you.
also @Markus-Schneider however you want to hit me back for my last comment, im 11 years old and even i know better than you. CALM DOWN
If you are actually 11, you are breaking TOS.
The age requirement is 13.
No. Children under 13 are allowed on this site as long as the account is permitted and monitored by a parent or legal guardian.
I do not play bughouse, and I didn't mention it either, nor do I have an interest in continuing the conversation because you like changing the narrative when something doesn't suit you. Pretty much everyone stated the flaws in your reasoning, and I see no point in continuing the discussion, because you are arguing for argument sake.
Good day to you.
Typical, haha.
I just shoved clear evidence in your face showing your arguments make no sense. Instead of addressing it, you try to cover your embarrassment by claiming I’m changing the narrative... which I’m not.
My stance has been consistent: there’s no legitimate reason why a best-of format hasn’t been implemented by now. The only real explanation is that it protects the cowards... because once it’s obvious someone avoids rematches and only plays single games, they’ll be exposed as an untested, inferior player.
The only real way to prove it was an easy win is by doing it more than once.
... because in Football (Soccer), you have to put the ball in the net twice in a row before you are considered to have properly scored the point. Amirite?