Forums

Offering Rematch after winning?

Sort:
Anonymous_Dragon
Optimissed wrote:
blitz2009 wrote:
Anonymous_Chess_Warrior wrote:
Whats bad is that if an opponent lose and they offer a rematch until they win and the refuse to play more.

i agree 100%

Why?

Such people actually do exist. They will keep rematching you until they get a positive head to head score against you . And the moment that happens they won't accept the rematch anymore 

Optimissed

But what is one game lost? If you beat them five times and then they win one and stop playing, what's wrong with that from any perspective, including the rating points you've gained?

Anonymous_Dragon
Optimissed wrote:

But what is one game lost? If you beat them five times and then they win one and stop playing, what's wrong with that from any perspective, including the rating points you've gained?

I don't have any issues personally . But the mindset such people have is kinda disgusting . They expect us to accept their rematch when they have a negative head to head score but won't replicate the same when we offer them a rematch after they are ahead 

assassin3752
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

But what is one game lost? If you beat them five times and then they win one and stop playing, what's wrong with that from any perspective, including the rating points you've gained?

I don't have any issues personally . But the mindset such people have is kinda disgusting . They expect us to accept their rematch when they have a negative head to head score but won't replicate the same when we offer them a rematch after they are ahead 

+1

Khalidm123456789
Optimissed wrote:
Khalidm123456789 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Khalidm123456789 wrote:
1d3_1-0 wrote:
AntiMustard wrote:

I am trying but completely fail to see what is disrespectful about offering to play another game after winning the first one.

Your rating is too low , you are not good enough to argue with Mr. Arrogant 

 

You are the one who is arrogant and disrespectful. I will admit that he said some things that are rude, but offering rematch after winning is disrespectful. I said this but no one read it: It is  disrespectful to offer a rematch especially while playing in chess.com. Why? Because you don’t know if your opponent is mad from losing. If he was really mad and you offered a rematch then it will be rude, and if that was rude, which means it is disrespectful . So is that really disrespectful? If your answer no, then you are a BAD person, and if you are a bad person, then why will we hear your excuses and your reasons? Although you might offer a rematch if you are sure that your opponent is not mad. AND this is not an opinion this is a fact, because it makes sense and I have a prove that it happened to people online. And all your excuses

Your reasoning is so funny that it's easy not to take it seriously and, perhaps, it isn't meant to be taken seriously. Perhaps you're having a bit of a joke?
(You are trying to make me feel scared or embarrassed right? You shouldn’t think of me like that)
I'm only doing what you're doing. You shouldn't object to that.
If so, then you are a BAD person because it would mean that you disrespect Mr Sanju. You shouldn't try to make a fool of him like that. If you aren't joking then perhaps you're a crazy person, who gets all tangled up when making arguments. Let's see:
(I didn’t made disrespect Mr. Sanju, and I am not a crazy person. YOU are the fool person for not thinking that I am agreeing with him.)
"If your opponent was angry and you offered a rematch, that was rude and therefore disrespectful."
You are agreeing with him because you are not joking and so you don't disrespect him. I know English isn't your language and so maybe you should be excused, but you mustn't think that anything you're saying is making sense. From here on I'm putting your argument in simpler language, that others and even you can understand.
Well, no, because losing at chess isn't a reason to be angry and, in any case, you didn't know he was angry. Is it rude to ask a policeman the way, if he's angry?
(Hahaha you are good at telling jokes but I am smarter than that, I said YOU don’t know whether he is angry or not, and that was my reason, because instead of making bad moves on offering a rematch when he is mad, you just don’t rematch him and just play with another person,  you don’t need to rematch him unless he ask for rematch you have the choice to accept or decline)

Do you know whether a policeman is angry, though? If he's angry, then perhaps you shouldn't ask him for help.


"If you answer correctly, by saying that it really doesn't matter if he's angry because that's HIS problem, then you're a bad person."

(Wow so American people doesn’t have feeling of others huh?)

Haha, well, I'm not American and it is you and Mr Sanju who "don't have the feeling for others" as you put it. I'm paraphrasing your own argument and sending it back to you but you're apparently too dumb to understand that.

Not at all. There are very few instances where it's morally wrong to be truthful. They probably do exist but not regarding something trivial like this.
(I didn’t understand this part)

I think perhaps you've missed out the part that it was in reply to. But you are condemning others for being truthful and disagreeing that Mr Sanju has the moral right to pass judgement on others, especially according to the false criteria he's using. It is honest to call them false criteria and that doesn't make someone a bad person to say so, because they're being honest. Untactful, maybe.

"If you're a bad person then why will we hear your excuses and your reasons?"
Well, no, because not giving someone a fair trial shows YOU to be a bad person.

(Okay maybe you are right about that, I wouldn’t say that you are wrong about this one)

At least we seem to be making some progress, finally. And, believe it or not, the entire thing hinges on that, because Mr Sanju is acting as judge, jury, witness for the defence and executioner.

"Although you might offer a rematch if you are sure that your opponent is not mad. AND this is not an opinion this is a fact, because it makes sense"
Definitely not, because before we can be sure that your opinion is a fact and not an opinion, we would probably like to know a number of things, which include whether you are mad.
(I didn’t understand this part)
To try to be clear, representing one's own opinion as a fact, when it is most obviously not a fact, is not very clever. And that's a fact.

I labeled each part you may now reply to me.

Thankyou very much.

 

 

Well, I don’t want to make an argument. I will just leave how you think as it is. Also, since I am not American, I thought people in U.K and U.S are both considered as American people so I used the word “American”. One last thing, I actually don’t understand what you mean by me “disagreeing” Mr Sanju.

Optimissed
assassin3752 wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

But what is one game lost? If you beat them five times and then they win one and stop playing, what's wrong with that from any perspective, including the rating points you've gained?

I don't have any issues personally . But the mindset such people have is kinda disgusting . They expect us to accept their rematch when they have a negative head to head score but won't replicate the same when we offer them a rematch after they are ahead 

+1

The argument was that they keep offering a rematch until they win one. That's what I was replying to. Obviously, in that case, they can't be ahead and you could have seen that from what I wrote.

Optimissed
Optimissed wrote:
blitz2009 wrote:
Anonymous_Chess_Warrior wrote:
Whats bad is that if an opponent lose and they offer a rematch until they win and the refuse to play more.

i agree 100%

Why?

 

Optimissed
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

But what is one game lost? If you beat them five times and then they win one and stop playing, what's wrong with that from any perspective, including the rating points you've gained?

I don't have any issues personally . But the mindset such people have is kinda disgusting . They expect us to accept their rematch when they have a negative head to head score but won't replicate the same when we offer them a rematch after they are ahead 

 

p1mpinpauly

dont worry, be happy, he apologized, let it be! theres bigger fish to fry..!

p1mpinpauly

i apologize also for being mean and rude and mocking.  

Kowarenai

revived lol

Thunder7

Do

Thunder7

Not 

ActionVolt
Sanju_1996d wrote:

If there is one behavior except for cheating, that can come under violation of sportsmanship, I will call it offering rematch after winning. This IMO is one of the most, if not the worst etiquettes one can have. I instantly block any player who offers me rematch after winning. I'll even request chess.com to blacklist players who go on offering rematch to players after winning. This shows a lack of respect towards opponent and this isn't what chess.com should promote. 

If he/she wants to play another game they offer rematch and if you can't handle loses don't play lmao