I`m starting to think that most online players don`t like a rematch offer when they get hammered. Or is it just a coincidence? (maybe they need a break).
I don't see how it would be considered an offense
Me personally, I like a chance to try a different strategy against the same opponent, especially after getting unexpectedly hammered.
Some people want to analyse a game after a checkmate.
I think it would be best to let the loser propose a rematch.
It is normal to see our rating drop when we lose and their rating increase, but it seems we are destined to lose too much on our rating if we persist with a player that can constantly win the games.
In general, during over the board tournaments, we do not play the same player twice. Therefore, the attitude of changing players immediately after a game is similar to playing in a tournament.
I think it would be best to let the loser propose a rematch.
It is normal to see our rating drop when we lose and their rating increase, but it seems we are destined to lose too much on our rating if we persist with a player that can constantly win the games.
In general, during over the board tournaments, we do not play the same player twice. Therefore, the attitude of changing players immediately after a game is similar to playing in a tournament.
There is a more subtle dimension to this. Most players start games as White. Sometimes they start as black. Either way, it's only fair to let both players play as both sides, wouldn't you agree?
I believe in chess integrity. Selecting random colors, displays the players integrity, especially against someone you do not know.
Normally the tradition is a player picks an opponent, than a color is drawn and then the chessboard is orientated accordingly.
If we are to assume there will be a minimum of two games, then an option is required to show the players intentions of playing example: «Best two out three».
Normally the tradition is a player picks an opponent, than a color is drawn and then the chessboard is orientated accordingly.
If we are to assume there will be a minimum of two games, then an option is required to show the players intentions of playing example: «Best two out three».
@Hellball
i agree and it really pisses me off when people join my matches, but leave immediately if they don't get to play white (i always put the color select thingy on random)
it's such a douchy thing to do.
i agree and it really pisses me off when people join my matches, but leave immediately if they don't get to play white (i always put the color select thingy on random)
it's such a douchy thing to do.
Toscani, you have a point. However I would rather see that each second match you play against a certain opponent is opposite colour than last.
Alternatively it would be nice if you could choose not to play guys that only play white (players that have a certain % of white only games finished).
Alternatively it would be nice if you could choose not to play guys that only play white (players that have a certain % of white only games finished).
It's up to your opponent to consider himself offended by your offer. If I win a game, I offer my opponent to take revanche. When I lose a game, I'd like to take revanche.
I agree with Toscani on his notion that one does indeed not play the same opponent twice in a row during tournaments. However, thats also the case with tournaments here on Lichess. Though, when you play blitz games at a chess club it's not unusual to play a couple of games in a row against the same opponent.
I agree with Toscani on his notion that one does indeed not play the same opponent twice in a row during tournaments. However, thats also the case with tournaments here on Lichess. Though, when you play blitz games at a chess club it's not unusual to play a couple of games in a row against the same opponent.
There's nothing to be offended by with ANYTHING on online chess except people being rude, racist, or offensive in other ways. Whether it is pre-moves, offering or not offering re-matches, only playing one colour... you have the choice to take it or leave it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.