nTzT wrote:
Yeah, normally people don't troll 5 games in a row and then spam the forums about their pride, dignity and competitiveness. Mordant irony.
didnt go down that way, warrior, lol try again tho
If you don’t accept at least one rematch after you win, then you lose.
Sort:
Mkayluh wrote:
youreacoward69 wrote:
Mkayluh wrote:
Clearly you care about what other people think to the point it's tearing you apart.
youreacoward69: *sends rematch*
other player: *declines*
youreacoward69: "WHAT THE F--- YOU F------ING P---Y WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WHY DID YOU DECLINE, YOU COWARD !!! I'M SICK AND TIRED OF BEING DENIED REMATCH ! I'M GONNA SPREAD MY PERSONAL NEGATIVE ENERGY WITH PEOPLE WHO'S ENJOYING THE GAME FOR HOW IT IS AND CONVINCE THEM THAT DENYING A REMATCH IS 'COWARDICE' !!!
lol
that's right bud, laugh at yourself. We're laughing too
you can laugh all you want at me, that's fine. But under the veil of your laughter is the deep feeling that somewhere im right. For you to deny that cowardice never plays a part in it is just laughable, absolutely laughable.
I’m in
I´m not opposed to remtaches I´m just opposed to people who call me a coward for not accepting lol
youreacoward69 wrote:
TeacherOfPain wrote:
youreacoward69 wrote:
TeacherOfPain wrote:
I accept rematches to stronger and weaker players, I don't care I win or lose, as it is just a game in the end of the day. You play to have fun, and some days you have the will to win, but most days in truth I don't, I just play from my intuitive nature and let the rest of my game speak for itself.
Chess is a fun game, but it is important to realize it is just a game, no need to be prideful over the game, just play another game to have a rematch with another person. I am sure they will be glad for it and you give them another chance to show you a "real game".
Besides you can't really tell who is the better opponent by 1 game anyways. The minimum sample size you can do is 3 games, since there is 2 even games and 1 odd. However in truth it takes about 20+ games to see if you are better than another opponent and 100+ games to consider a rivarly/determine an accurate percentage of wins/losses.
With this said if you want to give a rematch, good. If not, it is not the end of the world, as the game is free to play and is fun. Once you get past the beginning stages of the game and become a solid club player like a 1400,1500,1600,1700 or 1800 then you recognize that's all you need. You don't need to reach to many greater heights, therefore you don't need to care for doing too many rematches, just enjoy the flow and see where the game takes you.
Therefore with saying this enjoy the rematches, and if there is none then that's ok, there are plenty of other people who would be just as willing to play, and then you can repeat the process all over again. There is no need to get stuck in one game, such as the same reasoning can be said there is no need to devote your time to only 1 activity in your life.
If anyone is reading this or cares to read it, I have made my point.
Peace,
TOP
yes I agree with this. My only point is: what's the big deal accepting a rematch? Not saying people have to, just that there's no harm or practical reason not to. The only difference is the psychological factor, the motivator of the decision to consciously decline a rematch. I am simply stating that there are inferences you can make about people to constantly decline them if they were going to play a "new player" again anyway.
I guess it just dpeends on the person. I don't see any problem with accepting a rematch or giving a rematch to someone who previously lost. If a person doesn't accept my rematch I assume they just don't want to play with me. And likewise if they give me a rematch and I accept it means I just want to keep playing for the fun of it.
However there is no hard feelings and usually I don't dwell on them accepting or declining the rematch as it doesn't really matter. As again there are so many people I can face, and the chancces of me meeting a person that I beaten or someone who beaten me are very slim, so there is no need to care. Besides it is just a game, sometimes player's overanalyze a situation as to why players give a rematch or do not give a rematch in all reality it is not that deep.
If someone gives a rematch they want to keep playing, if someone doens't they just don't want to and that is their decision and because of this I leave it at that. There is more worthwhile things to do then wonder on such a "small decision", that is why I feel there i no need to ponder on it.
I rather ponder on how to develop a skill or analyze my game then worry about the opponent. Or even better, do somethnig that have value in the real world, so with this said it is just all a matter of perspective, like most things in life.
Im not making any declarative statements about "all." I just think there's something strange about people who are so opposed to rematches, and that it must be traced to psychological phenomena. Plus, I never started this thread, nor any other thread. I'm only standing on the shoulders of giants.
I don't think it is traced to psychological phenomena, I just think people don't care about getting a rematch, and that's ok, there is no obligation to it, especially since chess is just a game.
Some people may habe pride, but pride is not neccessary psychological, that is just an emotion people have built because they think they are better than others. However that emotion is not always tied with not accepting a rematch, in truth that emotion can be a plague and that can be tied to almost anything. So it is not so much about the pyschological point of view, it is probably people care about it too much, they think about it too much when in reality, the opponent just didn't want to accept the rematch because they didn't have the obligation.
That is how I view it, but you may have a different point of view, and that is ok, that is what the forums is for, to assert different thoughts in a social platform. However once more stated in my point of view, it just not something people often think about(or perhaps it is just me), usually I don't play too often but when I do I don't usually mind if a person accepts or rejects a rematch, as it just doesn't bother me.
TeacherOfPain wrote:
youreacoward69 wrote:
TeacherOfPain wrote:
youreacoward69 wrote:
TeacherOfPain wrote:
I accept rematches to stronger and weaker players, I don't care I win or lose, as it is just a game in the end of the day. You play to have fun, and some days you have the will to win, but most days in truth I don't, I just play from my intuitive nature and let the rest of my game speak for itself.
Chess is a fun game, but it is important to realize it is just a game, no need to be prideful over the game, just play another game to have a rematch with another person. I am sure they will be glad for it and you give them another chance to show you a "real game".
Besides you can't really tell who is the better opponent by 1 game anyways. The minimum sample size you can do is 3 games, since there is 2 even games and 1 odd. However in truth it takes about 20+ games to see if you are better than another opponent and 100+ games to consider a rivarly/determine an accurate percentage of wins/losses.
With this said if you want to give a rematch, good. If not, it is not the end of the world, as the game is free to play and is fun. Once you get past the beginning stages of the game and become a solid club player like a 1400,1500,1600,1700 or 1800 then you recognize that's all you need. You don't need to reach to many greater heights, therefore you don't need to care for doing too many rematches, just enjoy the flow and see where the game takes you.
Therefore with saying this enjoy the rematches, and if there is none then that's ok, there are plenty of other people who would be just as willing to play, and then you can repeat the process all over again. There is no need to get stuck in one game, such as the same reasoning can be said there is no need to devote your time to only 1 activity in your life.
If anyone is reading this or cares to read it, I have made my point.
Peace,
TOP
yes I agree with this. My only point is: what's the big deal accepting a rematch? Not saying people have to, just that there's no harm or practical reason not to. The only difference is the psychological factor, the motivator of the decision to consciously decline a rematch. I am simply stating that there are inferences you can make about people to constantly decline them if they were going to play a "new player" again anyway.
I guess it just dpeends on the person. I don't see any problem with accepting a rematch or giving a rematch to someone who previously lost. If a person doesn't accept my rematch I assume they just don't want to play with me. And likewise if they give me a rematch and I accept it means I just want to keep playing for the fun of it.
However there is no hard feelings and usually I don't dwell on them accepting or declining the rematch as it doesn't really matter. As again there are so many people I can face, and the chancces of me meeting a person that I beaten or someone who beaten me are very slim, so there is no need to care. Besides it is just a game, sometimes player's overanalyze a situation as to why players give a rematch or do not give a rematch in all reality it is not that deep.
If someone gives a rematch they want to keep playing, if someone doens't they just don't want to and that is their decision and because of this I leave it at that. There is more worthwhile things to do then wonder on such a "small decision", that is why I feel there i no need to ponder on it.
I rather ponder on how to develop a skill or analyze my game then worry about the opponent. Or even better, do somethnig that have value in the real world, so with this said it is just all a matter of perspective, like most things in life.
Im not making any declarative statements about "all." I just think there's something strange about people who are so opposed to rematches, and that it must be traced to psychological phenomena. Plus, I never started this thread, nor any other thread. I'm only standing on the shoulders of giants.
I don't think it is traced to psychological phenomena, I just think people don't care about getting a rematch, and that's ok, there is no obligation to it, especially since chess is just a game.
Some people may habe pride, but pride is not neccessary psychological, that is just an emotion people have built because they think they are better than others. However that emotion is not always tied with not accepting a rematch, in truth that emotion can be a plague and that can be tied to almost anything. So it is not so much about the pyschological point of view, it is probably people care about it too much, they think about it too much when in reality, the opponent just didn't want to accept the rematch because they didn't have the obligation.
That is how I view it, but you may have a different point of view, and that is ok, that is what the forums is for, to assert different thoughts in a social platform. However once more stated in my point of view, it just not something people often think about(or perhaps it is just me), usually I don't play too often but when I do I don't usually mind if a person accepts or rejects a rematch, as it just doesn't bother me.
I appreciate your easygoingness to accept rematches, I just dont understand the unwillingness of others. In regards to it being an emotional/psychological decision: We have to ask, is there any external variable that makes taking a rematch any different from playing a new player. When we assume that the person will be playing again in the same time format, take into account that there are no extra button pushes to engage in a rematch, that the ratings of the previous player vs the new player will be roughly the same, and the fact that the two games will be drastically different based on the color switch and large number of variations, we can only find that there is no external difference between accepting a rematch and going to a new player. So if the difference is not external, and playing a rematch and a new player are identical in every external way, then the ONLY difference lies in the persons psychology.
Actually the external difference is the opponent themselves
Holy_Crusaderr wrote:
Actually the external difference is the opponent themselves
Right, but you only know that because of a username. Objectively, I dont believe anyone would be able to tell if the opponent were different or the same if user names were blocked out. Say we ran an experiment. All of your next hundred games you didnt know the username. Some games would be assigned to you would be the same player twice, others a new one. Without knowing names, would you be able to significantly determine which were "rematches" and which were new players?
I mean I could make an educated guess lets say the order of games were random and I never ran into the same opponent back to back hypothetically the same player could have the same color and they could hypothetically play the same style/tatic they did before.
Exactly
Mkayluh wrote:
Probably. If they use the same openings as before, the amount of time spent for each move, the blunders they make, if they converse or not.
How could you use the same opening as black in the second game if you were white in the first game? And an educated guess is just a guess.
Its a guess based off evidence that you´ve gathered.
Of course if you guess you'll be right a few times, it's a 50/50 guess. That's why I used 100 games to offset lucky guesses. I could come close to guaranteeing there would be no significant way to know given the similar ratings, color changes, variations, etc.
lul
Mkayluh wrote:
There are a lot of openings you can use for both sides such as Sicilian Sveshnikov, French Advance, Nimzo-Indian, London system, many more.
So you think you'd be able to significantly suss out games (out of 100) that were the same opponent twice in a row vs a new random opponent? If you were REALLY trying, maybe you'd get a few right as more than just a wild guess, but im willing to bet on the whole, no one could.
Someone would eventually even if it is a small chance someone would.
Which leads to my point: that all external variables accounted for, the only difference is a psychological preference. We can start there
Holy_Crusaderr wrote:
Someone would eventually even if it is a small chance someone would.
Do you understand how statistics work? That would be called an outlier, which means most of the time, its either sheer luck and can be disregarded from the point. Its not "can 1 person in 100000 guess the right order" its who can say for sure they know. And since people will guess sometimes and guess right, you use a large sample size to offset "lucky" outcomes.
Clearly you care about what other people think to the point it's tearing you apart.
youreacoward69: *sends rematch*
other player: *declines*
youreacoward69: "WHAT THE F--- YOU F------ING P---Y WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WHY DID YOU DECLINE, YOU COWARD !!! I'M SICK AND TIRED OF BEING DENIED REMATCH ! I'M GONNA SPREAD MY PERSONAL NEGATIVE ENERGY WITH PEOPLE WHO'S ENJOYING THE GAME FOR HOW IT IS AND CONVINCE THEM THAT DENYING A REMATCH IS 'COWARDICE' !!!
lol