Ettiquette

Good day chess players. I would like to know what everyone here thinks about what would be considered proper ettiquette, not so much for the game itself, which, obviously is governed by a strict and immutable set of rules, but for the correct way to conduct oneself either side of the game. I often see behaviour, which, initially at least, would totally baffle me, however once I started to realize how much some people care about their rating, it made slightly more sense. The rating, to me, was always nothing other than an incidental consequence of being able to play online, against a great number of opponents, spanning a broad spectrum of skill and experience. I have now come to realize that, to lots of chess.commers it's the rating itself which is the be all and end all, and tragically the game itself is nothing more than a means to an end. I have seen this manifest in several ways, from the instantly aborted games (Now, I can understand this, if there is a huge discrepancy between the skill levels of both players as it would be a waste of one or both of their time.), when both players are of a similar rating, but the opponent, whenever he was not assigned white, would simply abort. The other thing which really causes indignation on my part was those who would play one game when assigned white, but then refuse to play the next game allowing their opponent that advantage, thus meaning they competed over an even playing field. Surely the whole thing about chess is that it is a game which enables a true battle of will, mind and skill in a completely even medium. It does not, for example introduce any elements of chance, unlike poker or scrabble. So it is in mind of this that i am a bit confused by the actions of what seems like a sizable proportion of the users of the site in trying to use these little tricks to gain such an advantage. Surely this is utterly conterproductive to the true point of chess, which surely above and beyond any opponent, those who come and go,  is that it is a enabler of self knowledge, a process of self improvement. Maybe I would be in the minority with this view and lot's of you also see chess as a cutthroat business where the rating is king, either way I woulkd like to hear as many other view points as possible ranging from benign agreement to raging consternation.

Players may abort games for any number of reasons. Each such instance is individual. People who have faced five game abortions in a row may think that they have found a trend; they may think, "What is going on? Why does everyone abort?" In fact, each player may well have a legitimate reason for aborting. The reason may or may not be that he had been assigned Black. Unless the player overtly states his intent, it can only be inferred.

Also, players may decline rematches for any number of reasons. The most logical one is that the player doesn't have any more time to play. The fact that the player had played White may be immaterial. Personally, I seldom accept rematches because I want to play a large number of different opponents, before I replay past opponents.

Basically, unless a player states his intention to be unsportsmanlike, these issues are not necessarily indicative of poor etiquette.

White space?  I'm for it.  I'd read the rest of your post if it had more of it....

Aborting a game because you were not assigned the white pieces is simply against the spirit of chess and is also, quite frankly, just childish. You will get to play as each side in turn. Claims of practicing for your white repertoire are unacceptable as you can do this on your own with an analysis board.

I might add that the belief that you can see an improvement in your rating by striving to only play with the white pieces is deluded.

There is only one 't' in 'etiquette'.

Yes, actually there are 3 but you know what I meant.

Actually, there are three.

I suppose that the rating is very important to some. Speaking for myself I would not turn down a game if I was playing black. Heck, just play. We are never going to play at the pro level. I have only played 2 people online that I did not know. And they challenge me. I have only played my sons and a couple of best friends online here. And their  ratings are higher than mind and I get my hind end beat most of the time. So rating is not a factor in my case. Can't speak for anyone else.  I do like to chat if I play a game with someone. So if you challenge me say hello and  talk a little. Allway,s  be polite. Never rude.  Doesn't take much time.  So seumasmac. are rating is the same . send me a challenge and see what happens.

For everyone else. I only play 2 or 3 games at a time. I don,t want 2000 chalenges. LOL.

I can understand the occasional need to abort games - such as something else suddenly demanding your time.  I don't really accept your reasoning about a huge discrepancy in skill level.  This one always gets me.  Why not simply set your parameters to play those within your range?  It is simple to do and allows different ways of setting it - either with absolute values or a plus/minus range.  Then, no one has their time wasted.  Another waste of time which irks me far more than an instantly aborted game, is when a poor sport is obviously going to lose, and then let's the time run out.  This to me, is the ultimate rudeness with online chess.

As far as rematches, well, I don't see a huge advantage with white so I don't care either way really.  Maybe if I was a better player I might know enough to see a difference in white or black.  Frankly though, I never feel I 'owe' an opponent a rematch such as was originally implied above  "...was those who would play one game when assigned white, but then refuse to play the next game allowing their opponent that advantage..".  Sometimes a person simply does not feel like playing a second game.  Another thing I notice about rematch requests is that more often than not, it comes from the loser.  Are they saying it was 'such a joy to play you that I want to play again', or, "damnit, my ego is bruised, I know I can beat this person, and I want another shot".  After certain individuals got nasty after I refused a 2nd game, I was curious, and checked their games.  More often than not, when I saw they played the same player twice in a row, they had lost the first game.

Of course there are cases where it was a close game, worth a rematch, and both players feel like playing.  In that case, great, let's go for it.  Correspondingly, I'm always impressed when I lose a close game and the winner asks for a rematch.

Anyway, enjoy all.

The strange thing is: after a game, you can click the "new game"-button and get a new game. Even then your last opponent has the possibility to ask for a rematch. If you accept that, the other game you just started is aborted.

So it is not always the etiquette of the player, it is a bug ( I think) that you can be challenged while playing a game. Even if you don't accept, the challenge is a distraction, especially when you're playing fast games.