a
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
May 23, 2011
0
#2
also, the two manditory games end up with one win each, there should be a mandatory tie breaker. and if white wins the third game then black should have the option to force another rematch to make it fair again. simply repeat as above until you have a clear winner.
May 23, 2011
0
#3
Nah, if it's tied after two games, King_Fernando should decide who is the overall winner.
May 23, 2011
0
#4
King_Fernando wrote:
I dont like when a player wins the first game and then leaves like a coward. I never do that. when i win i always accept a rematch no matter what,. I think is fair to my opponent. they need to do something about it, you know, thats no chess, win and leave. It should be for ex. 2 games mandatory. black and white. I hope this helps.
you are assigning your own subjective value to your opponents decision not to accept your rematch request. You say he "leaves like a coward." Maybe your opponent wants to get another beer, go get some action off his girlfriend, take a leak, play fetch with his dog.... etc.
Sounds like someone can't deal with losing.
Just sayin'
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
It's just that the "mandatory" bit is a bit over the top. Some people have other responsibilities. Sure if it's a 1 minute game they probably have time, but there are many non-bullet games played on chess.com.
Godspawn wrote:
King_Fernando wrote:
I dont like when a player wins the first game and then leaves like a coward. I never do that. when i win i always accept a rematch no matter what,. I think is fair to my opponent. they need to do something about it, you know, thats no chess, win and leave. It should be for ex. 2 games mandatory. black and white. I hope this helps.
Unless my opponent is polite i never accecpt a rematch, so basically i only accept rematches .00000000000000000000002% of the time.
This isn't the first time I've heard this about rude players, but it still I'm a little surprised. I rarely encounter rude people on this site. When I played on yahoo, it was much worse.
Godspawn wrote:
People have differing views of rude EP...
A very good point.
AnthonyCG wrote:
It's also rude to disagree with corndogs.
Do not mock corndogs.
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
I agree that it's polite to play two games if possible, however you can't make people do it.
King_Fernando wrote:
Come on guys all im saying everybody deserves a rematch. thats all
That I can agree with... it's polite to give a rematch. If someone doesn't though, it's not a huge insult, and it's best to just move on :)
May 27, 2011
0
#17
waffllemaster wrote:
It's just that the "mandatory" bit is a bit over the top. Some people have other responsibilities. Sure if it's a 1 minute game they probably have time, but there are many non-bullet games played on chess.com.
Exactly... Who has time sit down and keep playing games? Life does occur...sometimes you have put your kids to bed, pay your bills, interact with your wife, hell set the sprinklers, entertain company that shows up, talk to a client...ect. Its chess online... Who care if the person accepts or declines a rematch...?
King_Fernando wrote:
Come on guys all im saying everybody deserves a rematch. thats all
Everybody deserves the freedom to spend their time how they like. If I've got 10 spare minutes to play chess and I want to play a 5 minutes each game, you're telling me I can't do that.
May 27, 2011
0
#19
Accepting a challenge is nothing more than a two-strangers-investing-N-minutes-together contract. There is no implicit rematch clause.
Other dogmatic ("of course my view is the only view!") requests along the same vein include asking to keep playing even after the flag falls in casual/club games and making repeated draw offers because you feel there's nothing left to play on with, even if your opponent disagrees.
Life's too short to lose sleep over not getting your rematch every time.
