I played a game of 1+1 bullet just now. I gave my opponent 45 seconds and 2-3 massive takebacks. I win, and they just leave without even responding to my "Good Game." Why can't they just be courteous and respond? this isn't rated either.
1) You weren't necessarily being nice, giving time might be condescending, too. Patronizing.
2) If you feel obligated to receive a "good game" comment, it means it is not a polite commend to you, it is just a formalism. As such, who are you to demand a formalism? The pope?
3) What is the point of playing super-fast time controls where every game, even GM games, are decided by blunders, and then giving takebacks and extra time? Just play to win.
2) If you feel obligated to receive a "good game" comment, it means it is not a polite commend to you, it is just a formalism. As such, who are you to demand a formalism? The pope?
3) What is the point of playing super-fast time controls where every game, even GM games, are decided by blunders, and then giving takebacks and extra time? Just play to win.
<Comment deleted by user>
@binjetzterstbeimArzt said in #3:
> I wouldnt even want to take you a first time, why would i want to take you back once let alone twice.
I'm a good sport, why not?
> I wouldnt even want to take you a first time, why would i want to take you back once let alone twice.
I'm a good sport, why not?
Honestly those who add time when they are clearly winning annoy me. It comes off as condescending.
And takebacks are also pointless.
I avoid both, and I think you should do the same.
And takebacks are also pointless.
I avoid both, and I think you should do the same.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Aighearach said in #2:
> 1) You weren't necessarily being nice, giving time might be condescending, too. Patronizing.
>
> 2) If you feel obligated to receive a "good game" comment, it means it is not a polite commend to you, it is just a formalism. As such, who are you to demand a formalism? The pope?
>
> 3) What is the point of playing super-fast time controls where every game, even GM games, are decided by blunders, and then giving takebacks and extra time? Just play to win.
1. I was giving time because the opponent had an unestablished rating. Does that come across as condescending? if so I'm sorry.
2. I do feel like it's fair to receive a good game comment in return. It wasn't that great of a game but why just leave? 3. I just enjoy fast-paced chess.
> 1) You weren't necessarily being nice, giving time might be condescending, too. Patronizing.
>
> 2) If you feel obligated to receive a "good game" comment, it means it is not a polite commend to you, it is just a formalism. As such, who are you to demand a formalism? The pope?
>
> 3) What is the point of playing super-fast time controls where every game, even GM games, are decided by blunders, and then giving takebacks and extra time? Just play to win.
1. I was giving time because the opponent had an unestablished rating. Does that come across as condescending? if so I'm sorry.
2. I do feel like it's fair to receive a good game comment in return. It wasn't that great of a game but why just leave? 3. I just enjoy fast-paced chess.
@esmiro said in #6:
> Honestly those who add time when they are clearly winning annoy me. It comes off as condescending.
>
> And takebacks are also pointless.
>
> I avoid both, and I think you should do the same.
My apologies, I didn't mean it rudely. I'll avoid both.
> Honestly those who add time when they are clearly winning annoy me. It comes off as condescending.
>
> And takebacks are also pointless.
>
> I avoid both, and I think you should do the same.
My apologies, I didn't mean it rudely. I'll avoid both.
So you wish someone well...then get pissed off when they don't respond to it. So what happened to all that polite well-wishing? ;)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.