So far, reactions to my proposal only confirm what I said...
Proposal for a "Gentlemen" setting
Sort:
Oct 8, 2015
0
#5
A rematch required option for those who always want one sounds like a good idea, but there are a few drawbacks. The biggest one is probably that it splits up players into more groups and it takes longer to find matches for everyone. Also, it does happen that you get interrupted in the middle of the game, or that your internet conenction dies. If that happens you lose 3 games, not just one. And if your opponent turns out to be a jerk, do you really want to be locked into a 3-game match with him?
Oct 9, 2015
0
#6
First argument is valid : yes, if you are disconnected, you lose 3 games (or 2 if you won the first one). But hey, I have been disconnected by the server a 100 times already... And I still here. Second argument is a bad one. You have to disconnect yourself completely from the rest a world if you really want to avoid jerks. Or you would only play lighning games, 10s, to make sure you spend as few time as possible with them. You do not increase the probablity of spending time with one by setting a 3 games mini-tournament.
Oct 9, 2015
0
#7
You missed the first objection, which I think is the strongest. It splits up players into more groups and it takes longer to find matches for everyone.
Oct 9, 2015
0
#9
I think you still aren't quite understanding. I wouldn't use the new option, but I'm sure a lot of people would. So if half the people playing 3-minute blitz are using the new setting and half aren't, then the 3-minute blitz players are split into two groups and it takes twice as long to find a pairing for everyone.
I prefer it the way it is. If my opponent is a good sport at about my level, I can play them 3 or 5 or even 8 times if they want, and I have lots of times. If I run into a rude player, I only have to play them once. If my opponent turns down a rematch, it only takes a few seconds to find another match, so it's hardly the end of the world.
it could, of course, that some people are just here to play chess and not engage in smalltalk with you.
Oct 9, 2015
0
#11
Sure, meanwhile you should read again my proposal and try to understand before commenting.
TrickyMonkey wrote:
it could, of course, that some people are just here to play chess and not engage in smalltalk with you.
Nov 25, 2015
0
#12
Small talk is one thing, but if you play face to face - you say hello and sake hands afterwards. When I started playing you would see good game or gg - or thank you or thx much more often ... find it sad that it went away.
Nov 25, 2015
0
#13
3 games means one player plays black twice and white only once. Totally unfair. You should be forced to play best of 300 instead where the chances of a 50/50 split are increasingly rare compared o just 2 games.
It would be completely ridiculous. No one has the right to a rematch whether they win or lose. No one needs to be forced to play 3 games in a row with the same exact player. The only people who would use this feature are people who are already demanding rematches in the first place. Also, a good way to really stiff your opponent with the same exact color TWICE! What's so "gentlemanly" about that?
Nov 25, 2015
0
#15
To be inclusive of the women chess players you'd need to find another name for this proposed setting. Actually I clicked on this forum post cause I thought it was about a wedding "proposal" lol. I was looking for some feel-good news!
Nov 25, 2015
0
#16
newengland7 wrote:
It would be completely ridiculous. No one has the right to a rematch whether they win or lose. No one needs to be forced to play 3 games in a row with the same exact player. The only people who would use this feature are people who are already demanding rematches in the first place. Also, a good way to really stiff your opponent with the same exact color TWICE! What's so "gentlemanly" about that?
Yeah, you have a point. It does seem elementary to force people to play best of 3. I might add that it also seems too prideful. It could become more about winning than improving your chess. Also, this doesn't do anything to encourage people to say "hi" "bye" "thanks" and so on. It just means you'd be stuck playing impolite people for 3 games.
Nov 25, 2015
0
#17
Steen008 wrote:
Small talk is one thing, but if you play face to face - you say hello and sake hands afterwards. When I started playing you would see good game or gg - or thank you or thx much more often ... find it sad that it went away.
Shake hands yes and sake even better.
Nov 25, 2015
0
#18
"Reveals their true nature"
You're judgmental over trivial things. I find you just as disagreeable / unpleasant.
We are constantly confronted to players who don't say hi or good bye or thanks (anonymity reveals the true natures of people), and nothing can be done against that, sad world. There are also players who refuse a rematch (unless they lose...), and behave as if they were playing against machines. Highly irritating. But something could be done for that : add as an option in the games setting, the possibility to play a "best of 3". That should be technically easy. Runing away after one game in a "best of 3" setting would automatically result in losing the last two. You could only stop if you win the first two games. I would call it the "gentlemen" setting...