@Firethorn15 "1. If you're losing to players much lower than yourself, you shouldn't be rated where you are."
The problem with your assumption is pretty straight forward. First, you don't mean to say "if you are losing." You mean to say "if you lose... then you shouldn't be rated where you are."
Now, to this correctly asserted argument, I am happy to say that it is simply built atop an inaccurate premise. I do not regularlary lose to players two hundred rating points below me. And, I never said I do. I said that when such happens, and of course it's exceptional for anyone so rated, it should follow that since they are forced to play said players they be given the chance to get their points back. :) Sounds pretty simple to me, but hey, if you want to try to do gymnastics around it, that's your problem.
"2. Your opponent may have a life and want to get on with it rather than spending more time than he has free giving someone he doesn't know a rematch. People don't always decline rematches because they're running away from you."
Yes, but then if this were true they wouldn't keep playing (and according to many human beings wouldn't be playing at all, but hey, who am I)... they would genuinely stop playing and go be alive somewhere, as you said. Also, I'm not sure what knowing someone has to do with "giving" them a rematch. I don't know you, but I'm "giving" you a response. Your further replying or resigning from your position is your problem, not mine. It's the notion that you should be forced to talk to me because chess.com thinks it necessary if to be fair (that's an analogy... in case you didn't get it). Finally, your adverb "always" is very obviously an oversimplification. I didn't say that if ever a person plays and then stops they are automatically "running away." You embedded such a pathetic assumption into my statement and then argued against it as though arguing against what I said. Best of luck in the future.
"I usually say that four games is enough, three if I'm Black in the first one. The problem is, often people who offer rematches consistently don't give you one when they finally win. This doesn't bother me, but is more than a little rude."
What's funny is one paragraph up, well, maybe "paragraph" would be a bit generous on my part, just a sentence is enough for you to indent, you say "just because someone runs away doesn't mean they are really running, maybe they have a life," yet here you seem to be conceding that "often, people are are "given" rematches don't do the same in return." Hmm... imagine that. You're saying that people consistently refuse to play in a series when it does not benefit them and leave, whereas when I say that such is the case... oh, "that's not necessarily always the case."
Yes, the site does indeed force you to play people who are, sometimes, or, well, exceptionally, two-hundred points below yourself. There is no choice. It's like if you don't use the premove and your opponent does. You must play the opponent with that option even if you are here to play chess instead of a modern variant of chess. Too bad. You must play it. This assumption is of course based on the premise that everyone will compromise their integrity as a chess player and "premove" pieces. Like I said, though, there is no point to try to argue with people, even from the outset I anticipated many such replies.
The policy and rules playing at live chess
@kingofshedinjas,
"Do you have the option to play a rematch against another player OTB if he beats you and "steals" your rating points?"
Are you forced to play that player when he is two hundred points below you or you are docked points?
Your response?
"No." :)
Your further response?
"So why should it be different here?"
Exactly. It shouldn't. People shouldn't be forced to play one anoter if they don't want to. And, if they are going to enforce such rules, then be sure to make the rules fair for everyone, rather than in one player's favor and not in another's.
Now, as to the first and only positive attitude regarding what I actually said versus what it is people want me to have said and against which they wasted our time in responding, the five-star system would only be a way for people to be able to anticipate what to expect. For example if a player has .5 star out of five yet a 2000 rating, many, many people will not play that person because it will be very easy to see that their rating is not necessarily genuine reflection of their skills. Also, it could take into account only those times when one decides to stop playing, (whether for technical reasons or others) versus trying to dock the person who doesn't decide such but, who, like players today, is merely resigned against yet has no retaliatory answer. Chess.com's answer is "you've been resigned against. Bummer." The star-system would take such into account and future players would know before starting that they are playing with someone who cares or doesn't care about actual fair play. Or, actually, to even simplify things further, and this would perhaps be the best solution of all.
Simply make a separate area on the site for people who want to play any kind of chess but who are willing to give their opponent a fair shake. That is, five games miniumum. Can't finish today because of technical issues? No problem, the series is put on hold and when both players log in at the same time in the future, the series is resumed automatically and can take precedence to other games that can be played. That is, if both parties are logged-in and one logs in before the other, the one who logs in has to wait until the player finishes his current series and then their game will start again. Or, to avoid issues of the sort, the five-star rating can be applied only on that part of the site where people agree to a mininium of five games. If a player consistently resigns in such series they can get a lower star rating. In this way, at least the player who resigns for technical reasons won't be docked and the series itself won't hold the other player hostage in future log-ins.
At any rate, the idea could of course be developed, but the point is that the "I win even though I'm two hundred points below you and now I fly away" crap is a child's game and not how chess is meant to be played any more than some amateur's running into the boxing ring, punching their opponent one time in the face and then "resigning" isn't how boxing is supposed to occur either.
Is your ego bigger than a football field? Because it looks so. You're not the first dude who can't stand losing against lower rated players. And yes, that's the whole deal here. Congratulations and pity at the same time to anybody who has or will read the whole posts.
@theconciser,
Just a question. One question. Have you ever considered, just once, what "ego" means? Do you even know what the word means? Tell me, please, what do you think "ego" actually means? "My ego." "Your ego." "That's guy's ego is huge." etc. In such usages, what does ego mean to you? Answer that for me and then we can continue. :) Don't worry, I know you won't and can't, and that's exactly the point. See my next response for further clarification. :)
Also, "theconciser," best of luck in English. "the whole posts." I think you mean to say, all of the posts. Or, "all of the posts in their entirety." We don't say "the whole posts."
Good luck with critical thinking, as well. Ego, wow. (And don't worry, I fully expect for you to tell me that I should know what it means, which will conveniently allow you NOT to give me an answer to the question) :)
@MuyangChen, well, you managed to write one complete, imperative mode in the English language. Very good job. Now you just have to ask yourself, perhaps like "the conciser" what "troll" means.
A. Person I don't like.
B. Person who is being... "mean." (Lion roar).
C. A catch-all word that is popular on the internet and applied to any number of people as the two former answers and or who argue a point that others can't debunk, won't, or found to be annoying to said people.
Even if your answer is right, is that supposed to be some kind of deterrent for people? Are they supposed to say deep down, "oh no, she thinks I'm a fake monster who tries to make other people mad just for the hell of it..." I'll stop forever?"
You're the "troll." You add nothing constructive to the discussion, can't, and only want to make people feel bad who don't immediately agree with you on some or other point. Wow, where have I met you before.
@wanmokewan,
Sorry, I would have responded to your points, but you didn't make any. Instead you condescended to name-calling and pointless drivel.
Next.
So the real deal isn't losing games to lower rated players? It's not that you're hurt by it, and by their decision to not grant you a rematch? Hmmm... I find it hard to believe, bugiardello
That much was obvious, but thanks for the redundancy just the same. :)
Theconciser, as I said. You can't answer the question. Next :)
Also, you mean "you find THAT hard to believe." [It] is a pronoun, not a demonstrative determiner. :)
You could, but that would only further exemplify that you are here to try to aggravate, not argue.
@MuyangChen, well, you managed to write one complete, imperative mode in the English language. Very good job. Now you just have to ask yourself, perhaps like "the conciser" what "troll" means.
A. Person I don't like.
B. Person who is being... "mean." (Lion roar).
C. A catch-all word that is popular on the internet and applied to any number of people as the two former answers and or who argue a point that others can't debunk, won't, or found to be annoying to said people.
Even if your answer is right, is that supposed to be some kind of deterrent for people? Are they supposed to say deep down, "oh no, she thinks I'm a fake monster who tries to make other people mad just for the hell of it..." I'll stop forever?"
You're the "troll." You add nothing constructive to the discussion, can't, and only want to make people feel bad who don't immediately agree with you on some or other point. Wow, where have I met you before.
This is so fun. Got to love sites like this.
Okay, so, first, to the relavent points:
@thegreat_patzer: :)
"ok. I AM trying. Your issue is with what you call Fairness, supposedly in Live chess you are 'forced to play people hundreds of points lower than you' and then Chess.com does NOT enforce stalling- and they Win on technical grounds."
Okay, great, now you are actually paying attention. Good boy. Next time you might want to try that from the beginning rather than not doing that and then trying to blame me for your own confusions. Would have thought that was obvious, but hey, what can one expect. Paying attention and thinking... not exactly everyone's strong point.
As for what you say here, which was much better written than your previous keyboard efforts, "what" I call fairness (we don't capitalize fairness or nouns generally in English, just for your future reference) is not an equivocation. To equivocate means to use a word in a way in which it is not defined by standard definition and to argue with it embedded as though it were being used in a standard way. Hence, your assertion "what I call fairness" is just that, an assertion. If I am being foced to play people 200 points below myself, sorry, that's not fair. :) Also, when you say "I looked" no, you did not. I'll explain why I say such.
If chess.com did not force players to endure games against opponents 200 rating points below themselves then you would have simply said "chess.com doesn't have people play each other who are rated 200 points away from one another, rather its rule is that people play one another who are within such and such a range of one another." [That's] what you would have said, since that's what would be the case and since that is what would have been the easiest thing to do. Why go to the effort of looking if you know your site's policy already? Further, no, I'm afraid [you] are now equivocating. You said you "looked"... but at which games did you "look"? I have played thousands upon thousands of games. If you looked, do me favor, tell me how many games I have played with this account? :) Should be easy, since you looked. And, then if you come back to report that you looked and the number is however many tens of thousands, then you'll see that you are the one with the problem. Either you looked at every game (which I'd think impossible within a single day) or you lied. :)
You see why it is pointless to try to talk to you? You are not here for integrity but to try to wallow in other people's self-loathing. Sadly, you're not very practiced at such. Maybe just stick to chess?
Hence, as I demonstrated, 200 points difference is allowed and does happen. Obviously such does not happen everytime one plays. Not at all. Still, even the notion that one should be forced to play (or be docked points) is itself what is inconsistent.
Why does chess.com do such? Easy, to ensure that players don't always only play higher-rated players. Okay, that makes sense. But then if I am forced to play players who are two-hundred points below me, which by chess standards shouldn't be the end of the world, then it should follow that I be guaranteed a series with that person such that both players are given a fair chance at determining where the points really belong. Why force people to play one game only but not five, for example? If the player who stands to win can leave at any time and the player who stands to lose cannot have a fair chance to regain his/her points, then such a policy only favors the underdog rather than treating both parties fairly. :)
You could respond "lol." Or, "yeah but we don't want to do that, it's just stupid." But then why in tournaments do players play ten games a piece? Why in boxing matches do boxers play until the opponent cannot play further or ten rounds? Why in poker do cardholders play until they have no more money or for a specified time: one hour or two hours etc.? Chess is no different. Coming to the table as a rookie or with considerably less skills than your opponents, winning by luck or some technical malfunction, and then running off specifically to irritate your opponent is not how the game is meant to be played nor is it fair for the player to which such happens when the "authority" forces the player to endure such. This is especially aggravated in bullet chess where players with considerably less skill and an excellent internet connection can play, win on time, and then run. It happens very frequently, and of course chess.com has no response. Just... "deal with it." Kind of like saying "don't say bad words in English, but saying them in Russian is okay."
You could respond, "yes, but since you yourself will later play a person who is 200 points higher than you, it is relative." Sure, it is relative, it's just that even if I am the person who stands to win (where my opponent, even if s/he wins, still won't really win very much), each player is hardly proportionate to each other. In other words, such an argument would rely on assumed consequences and not the fact at hand: only the player who is 200 points different from his/her opponent stands to win.
In conclusion on this point, if chess.com wants to try to force people to play one another when they are so far apart in terms of rating, then at least do the higher-rated player the courtesy of allowing a series where that person who potentially won on chance can see that it really was just chance and that their rating is where it is for a reason. Also, still another reason to have series rather than just one game and then, "okay bye," is because even if you try to force people to play each other, it won't necessarily work. :) What's stopping me from using a VPN and logging in with another account and using that account to play the rating that I want? NOTHING! Hence, your "TOS" do nothing for you. :)
Whereas, if as an authority chess.com were treat both players fairly (all the time) rather than relying on "well, it ends up being relative," most people won't have a reason to create multiple accounts. :)
"somehow people game this by having multiple accounts or something- but chess.com (in your opinion) refuses to adknowledge this as a popular tactic.
am I warmer??"
Here, sorry, your sentence makes no sense. So much for being "wordy," now you just have to learn how to speak English and you should be fine.
And, to sum up the rest of your points, I am sorry to say, IF YOU DON'T READ WHAT I WRITE... THEN... NO, YOU REALLY WILL NOT UNDERSTAND.
That is yelling, for the other non-native English speaker who doesn't seem much higher than elementary. Like I said, read what I write, think, then respond. Not that hard.
Succinct. I am convinced that you have no idea what such means. Succinct doesn't mean "using little words." LACONIC means such. To be succinct means to use as few words as possible to say something. If you want to read succint writing, go read a dictionary! THAT is succinct. As well, if you are going to demand that others speak succinctly, the LEAST you could do is speak STANDARD English and read what I write. That's just human.