Etiquette: the rematch

I was actually thinking of this Jesus not the mythical one :

Ah. I guess he would, if you buy his book?

I used to demand rematches after I lost to a lower rated player. My standard was that we should play enough additional games that I could restore my rating to its former glory. I got over myself.

Now, I very rarely offer a rematch and only accept said requests when I feel like it. I rarely feel like it.

If you post a note on my wall telling me that we should have played a rematch, we have played our last game. If we played today, we might play again tomorrow. Consider that the rematch.

lol

"bragging rights"

 

Exactly the mindset that creates this entire "problem."

Since when not wanting to rematch is poor sportmanship?
Grow up plz.

I don't rematch if my opponent is either much weaker or much stronger than me... also if they play till mate when I have four-million pieces versus their lone king I generally don't like giving a rematch so I can practice the "rook roll" again.  lots of people call my "lame" etc for not giving a rematch when I was crushed by them in 18 moves... like, I am trying to respect THEM.  If they are that much better than me why do they want a rematch? cause if it isn't to crush me again and mock me while their at it I have no idea why they would want to give their time to such a "weak" opponent.

I haven't made ad hominem attacks. But you have. Discussing what you have said is not ad hominem. Refusing to kiss your butt is not ad hominem. Failing to pet you and say "Oh poor ethylwulf, people are so mean for refusing a rematch with you" is not ad hominem. Expressing one's opinion is not ad hominem just because it disagrees with your opinion. Your attempts to divert the topic from your sense of entitlement on rematches, and put the focus on others with accusations of "nastiness" is transparent. 

Baloma, you did it again. Read the second condition: ".i take issue with those ... who cannot comport themselves in a respectful manner when addressing a legitimate inquiry by someone they do not know.." This is distinct from ad hominem attacks. Tone and presentation matter, as do tactics like straw man arguments.

Please be courteous to your fellows. Eschew the temptation to mischaracterize another's position to bolster a nominative argument.

Guys, you are gonna be late for the toddlers' class. Stop arguing and get ready!!!

Ethylwulf, you have mentioned how you seem to have bad experiences in forums. I can see why. Your smug, holier than thou attitude shines brightly. I've noticed that is a common trait among you "my opponent is required to give me a rematch" guys. By the way, I thought you said you were leaving.

Read carefully, @Baloma. I never once say anyone is required to give me a rematch. You attribute statements and characteristics not present or appropriate. And you know, you seem very angry all the time. You ok?

There are two good reasons for both players in a rematch. The losing player either really does get his game together and plays better than the first game or because the  losing player is upset play really worse. Both cases can be good learning experiences to improve their chess, either by learning to focus better because they want the win or to learn  to not get so emotionally involved that they lose a second or third game. For the winning player the rematch game gives a chance to prove yourself as a solid consistent player. In response to the above who determines rematches based on ratings. If the player is way below your rating, try to see how quickly you can punish their mistakes and win in the shortest number of moves, this improves your game. Many many anotated games of GMs are quick to point out that as soon as a player makes a mistake, even a small one the winning GM takes advantage of it.  If the player is almost on par with the winner, do the same and prove you deserve your higher rating and can regularly and repeatedly beat players who are at about your ratings. If they are higher rated, thank them for the opportunity to play again. 

ethylwulf, I'm tired of you trying to divert the discussion by making it all about me. Knock it off. YOU are the one who has a problem with the "ethics" of those who don't want to play with a jerk like you. Have you considered THAT reason for them not wanting to play another game with you? Maybe they don't have fun interacting with you? And I note your disgusting and condescending characterization of me as "angry all the time" and asking me if I'm "okay." There is nothing wrong with me that I need your fake, sour sympathy or concern. You have done nothing but try to provoke me repeatedly. But yes, in a way I'm angry with YOU, because of your baiting and disgusting behavior and attitude. But that does not mean I'm angry "all the time." I'm angry with YOU because of  your behavior and your constant attacks against me, and your lies about me. Do you understand now? 

So take your pop condescending psychoanalysis and shove it, jerk. If you must continue your psychoanalysis, ask yourself why you are so obsessed with me that you claim you are leaving the forum, but you keep coming back to goad me some more. Try that one on, buddy.

The bottom line is that you raise the issue of "ethics" for people who don't want to play a chess game with you, and now to divert from the apparent silliness and childishness of that, you strike out at people and you make me your prime target. You don't dare discuss the original topic, which you started, so you engage in your bullying. Psychoanalyze THAT.

By the way, ask yourself WHY you have so much trouble with people in forums. 

 

 

No bullying here, Baloma. I have not uttered a single phrase in that mode. You? well, read your posts. As for leaving , it's like a car crash -- you know you shouldn't look, and should just leave, but you can't help it. You could, however, stop responding.

On to Merits. In this thread, I asked for the opinion of others regarding rematches, which I received gratefully. Other commenters read a sub text into my solicitation for opinions that presumes I was mad or angry about the rematch issue. I was not. I said I was discouraged, which I was. This sub text evidences a fatigue with the subject matter about which I have already admitted my ignorance. Nonetheless, it is an attribution of baggage I'm not carrying.

The ethical component about which a few commenters have questioned is genuine. Ethics, and Kantian ethics in particular, casts a broad net. Kant lays out the categorical imperative, suggesting that every action be carried out only insofar as the precept of that action could be universalized. So using the word "should" has ethical implications, as in "should one grant a rematch, or should one not?" I find that interesting and wanted other's perspective on it. I got much more practical responses, which is fine.

Now the medics have taken away the car crash victims, and the local VFD had cleared the wreckage. Nothing else to see here. I'll try to stop looking.

I wonder if anybody else has noticed this:

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/affectation

Ok. So you can't help it. Shall we dance?

GO TO SLEEP

I'm lacking of self confidence, that's why I sometimes refuse rematch. I'm afraid of losing.

ssometimes it's just that I can't stay no longer hidden in the toilets playing chess anymore. my wife would kill me ...

Itsgoes like this: Two players start playing and the first player always hits the play again button. Now after a while that player is ready to quit and stops requesting a rematch but the second player now wants to recoup and feels they want a rematch. If ettiquette requires acceptance then the first player must accept. This could go on for a long time with both parties becoming angry at the other and waiting for the other to quit requesting a rematch and then requesting one themselves just to show the other how annoying it is. Soon a Guinness World Record Certification Team is assembled by chess.com to investigate the two who have been at it non-stop for over 26 months. Both have lost their jobs and been divorced by their significant other. Fan clubs and factions supporting each player have formed all over the world. In the USA states are labeled as either red or blue depending upon which player they favor and odds are being given in Vegas as to who will refuse the rematch request first and thus be deemed "rude" by the chess etiquette police. One fan who has bet heavily on the first player being the first to refuse the rematch breaks into his house and attacks him physically in a moment the media dubs "chess rematch rage". A World Court is demanded to be assembled to consider the issue as even the few non-chess players of the world are interested in what should have been done. But what is this, all potential Judges recuse themselves because they have allready formed an opinion. What is worse chess.com is now locked with pairs of players, each hoping to beat the previous Guinness World Record for demanding a rematch. This is the way the world ends , not with a bang or a whimper but with a rematch request.

Great idea!!