And...in the playground there are children who stand around and think they’re better than, and talk down to, other children. Many of THOSE children have a Jesus complex.
Mostly cowards here...
Sort:
I wonder what kind of bad life decisions lead to obsessions about rematch obsessions.
And...in the playground there are children who stand around and think they’re better than, and talk down to, other children. Many of THOSE children have a Jesus complex.
And...in the playground there are children who stand around and think they’re better than, and talk down to, other children. Many of THOSE children have a Jesus complex.
😴😴😴
batgirl wrote:
batgirl wrote: There is no rematch issue .
There is no rematch issue .
chesstenor2018 wrote:
What about a best of 3 option?
I like Strangemover’s idea of having three out of five games and that you lose points if you abandon the agreement before it’s complete. Chess.com should offer that choice. That’s all I’d ever play, and I guarantee you a lot of these people who are claiming they don’t offer a rematch because they don’t care would change their tune real fast. It would completely solve the rematch issue.
What about just playing a game of chess? This great game has thrived since the 15th century without any rematch clause.
TheGreatAttorney wrote:
batgirl wrote:
batgirl wrote: There is no rematch issue .There is no rematch issue .
Indeed
You should rematch someone until one of you dies, if you believe in rematches, otherwise it's just hypocritical.
0
#69
My genius solution is to create a separate rating pool for players who select in Options "Accept all rematch requests". There seems to be plenty of players to warrant such a pool. This way, they can ALL play each other to their hearts content, re-matching every game. It'll be called "The No Cowards Pool."
"One-and done" is obviously just for cowards! But. frankly, half-measures like "2 out of 3," "5 out 9," or even "16 out of 31" aren't much better. How can you determine who the better player really is in a mere few hundred games?
You could also have a selection in Options that tells players you don’t wish to rematch, and you can filter those players out. Or a chat feature where are you can on-the-fly say that you won’t be able to do a rematch (Or that you can do a rematch), although that only works for players that turn on chat.
However the issue with this is it narrows the player pool, meaning match pairings either take longer or have larger rating differences.
all because someone didn’t give you a rematch and you felt you needed to defend your honour and prove to yourself you can beat them? Just... wise up.
The 'need' for a rematch implies you can actual distinguish any kind of difference between random internet handles people use. Otherwise hitting the 'New' button and playing someone different is exactly the same, just without the boredom of facing the same player again.
Same reason I find Tata Steel way way more interesting than the World Championship match. I have no interest in seeing the same players play (and draw, usually) with each other 12 or 14 times. Repetition is boring.
Anyway I don’t need to chat to tell you I don’t want a rematch... I just... decline your rematch...
The rematch issue has been posted over and over enough, over the years to warrant some kind of action.
But will the action negatively effect the rest of the community through time delays or huge rating differences?
In the past 3 years I’ve seen a lot of these threads, your right- but I’ve seen Far more people saying there isn’t an issue then say there is.
also, just because perhaps 100 people have brought it up out of around... 20 million (?) over 3 years, doesn’t mean it’s a big issue.
I’ve been blocked plenty of times for not rematching (because I was in between meetings or something) to know that the pool is already diminishing for me. Also, I’m getting tired of blocking others for doing the same to me. Just blocked several today. It’s the only way to eradicate these people who won’t even do one rematch because they’re cowards.
I think the two out of three and three out of five option is the best compromise all around. I would then unblock everyone and probably just play that all the time.
I think the two out of three and three out of five option is the best compromise all around. I would then unblock everyone and probably just play that all the time.
Remind me not to play you.
0
#80
chesstenor2018 wrote:
I’ve been blocked plenty of times for not rematching (because I was in between meetings or something) to know that the pool is already diminishing for me. Also, I’m getting tired of blocking others for doing the same to me. Just blocked several today. It’s the only way to eradicate these people who won’t even do one rematch because they’re cowards. *snipodoublestandards*
Because they couldn't have been in meetings or something and you definitely couldn't be a coward?
A block for a block makes the whole world constipated. Or something like that.
And a diminishing pool reduces the chances of drowning.
The bunny doesn't even know what he's saying anymore... But there just has to be some wisdom there.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Come join and play active 14 days per move team matches.. https://www.chess.com/club/fourteen-days