If there is no conversational exchange from the start the message should be clear. That person wants no social exchange. Only to play chess. Why is that offensive? I was recently asked "why don't you resign when I was losing". The answer to such a question should be quite obvious. I am trying for a draw. My games run long. Until just recently I resigned very few games and now it for a very specific reason and will be short lived. My rule of thumb. Do not, I repeat, do not start a conversation when your opponent is losing. It sounds smug. And with me you can expect a snide reply. If you wait until your winning a game to start a conversation it doesn't speak well for this (social propriety) to which to infer. If that last was gramatically incorrect, my most sincere apologies. Contrite enough?
Originally posted by surtismIF you go back Sir, and look closely, that statement was for Grampy Bobby. Unless of course you are also Grampy Bobby!
In an earlier post I made it very clear that I mean it when I say 'Good luck'. I'd appreciate it that you would confirm that you do not consider me dishonest.
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI appreciate your request for an affirmation of my intent. The ability to ask a question suggested in the first instance an appearance of intelligence. However, you then managed to ruin it all by your inane babble afterwards (anybody unsure of what I mean, please see the copy of Iron Monkey's message above), why did you try to put words into my mouth? A truely ignorant way of being.
what is it exactly that you mean when you say good luck before a chess game? it is not a game of chance, so presumably you do not mean it literally. but it is problematic if you mean something like 'i hope the game goes well for you', since your every move will be calculated to make the game go as badly as possible for your opponent. in other words, your ...[text shortened]... that playing a good game in a good spirit is what you value, rather than winning at all costs.
I wish people good luck. I mean by that, that I wish them to play well. Nothing more, nothing less. Your other suggestions are, frankly moronic interpretations of who I am and what I mean and your attempt to include these words as my thoughts is idiotic.
For those reading this for whom there may be confusion, I think that Iron Monkey is an ignorant fool, with all the intellect of rabid primate!
Originally posted by SuzianneThe standard is indeed to shake your opponents hand at the start of a match. There is nothing that says: The proper Chess Etiquette is to say good luck ! I have been in many Chess tournaments, I have always said "Good Game" , which is showing good sportsmship. I certainly don't have to wish my Opponent "Good Luck" !
Only if you're boorish enough or insecure enough to take it that way.
But you're right here, it *is* the standard thing to do, the *proper* thing to do, and, not so long ago, the *expected* thing to do. This "good luck" wish is proper Chess Etiquette. In OTB tourneys, you're expected to at least shake your ooponents' hand and mumble some sort of greeti ...[text shortened]... luck wish is truth or a lie and focus on greeting your opponents with some respect.
Now if my opponent extended his/her hand and I just shrugged my shoulders, that would be considered "Very rude, and unsportsmanlike"!
1 edit
Originally posted by surtismyou're obviously an idiot. there were three parts to my post:
I appreciate your request for an affirmation of my intent. The ability to ask a question suggested in the first instance an appearance of intelligence. However, you then managed to ruin it all by your inane babble afterwards (anybody unsure of what I mean, please see the copy of Iron Monkey's message above), why did you try to put words into my mouth? A t ...[text shortened]... nfusion, I think that Iron Monkey is an ignorant fool, with all the intellect of rabid primate!
1. 'good luck' in chess can't mean good luck literally, as it is not a game of chance.
2. 'good luck' can't sincerely mean 'i hope the game goes well for you', since this is belied by your every move, designed to make the game go as badly for your opponent as possible.
3. what then, could 'good luck' mean in this context? i ventured an opinion, preceded by 'imho' to mark it as such. i didn't put words in your mouth at all. the only mistake i made was in expecting an intelligent response from you.
does that make it easier for your tiny mind to grasp?
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI say "Good luck" when opponent says it first, but I don't mean it. In fact, it sounds stupid, given that my rating is low, it implies they'll need luck to beat me, which is laughable. Or is it to mean good luck in not timing out, or good luck in avoiding blunders?
you're obviously an idiot. there were three parts to my post:
1. 'good luck' in chess can't mean good lck literally, as it is not a game of chance.
2. 'good luck' can't mean 'i hope the game goes well for you', since this is belied by your every move, designed to make the game go as badly for your opponent as possible.
3. what then, could 'good luck ...[text shortened]... ligent response from you.
does that make it easier for your tiny mind to grasp?
I'd use "Cheers", because it's simple and friendly, but then I sound like a euro-wannabe, and that's just lame. "Hi" is equally lame. Anything else opens too many doors for chatter, which I really don't even like unless it's a game with an e-acquaintance. So, I usually opt for silence.
1 edit
Originally posted by jonnytI don't want to flog a dead horse but the first and fifth lines you quote are genuine questions
I don't want to flog a dead horse but the first and fifth lines you quote are genuine questions and the last two are from my final message where I fully admit I had got to the end of my tether and was responding in kind. Which leaves me calling him rude (which most people seem to agree with me on) and questioning his personal 'rule' about no chatting after th I should have done this earlier but was genuinely intruiged as to what had upset him.
They are at least challenging if not confrontational and likely to inflame the situation.
but that hardly makes our exchange tit-for-tat.
it wasn't my intention to suggest that there was any balance going on here - just that you inflamed the situation rather than calmed it.
Of course, if someone is rude to you, you can placate them ad-infinitum
Ad infinitum? Your first response was challenging and inflamatory
surely a point at which you lose your rag?
I'd agree that you seem to have lost your rag
to gauge the general opinion on when it is appropriate to message your opponent.
You could have just asked the question.
I didn't want to be accused of giving only one side of the story so I copied in everything I wrote,
You were assured of how right you were - but please don't be surprised that I'm not whole heartedly agreeing with you.
even the stuff I admit in hindsite I'm not proud of.
This sentence appears to be a conciliatory but it's immediately followed by this challenge:
Maybe if someone slapped you, you'd offer the other cheek again and again but I'm afraid I'm a little less perfect and after a few slaps, I'd punch them in the face...
But this analogy fails on three counts. The obvious one is that a slap in the face is very different to someone asking you why you took so long to send a message. Secondly you say "again and again" but given that your first response was inflammatory the idea that you had to tolerate insults "again and again" is misleading. The "again and again" element was surely to do with responding to what your comments. And finally your analogy is bordering on being personal (towards me) and has aggressive undertones. It seems to suggest that I would be a wimp whereas - when pushed - you would give someone a righteous "punch in the face". Should I be intimidated by this?
EDIT: I have since convinced my opponent that we should continue the game with no more chats.
You should be complemented for this. This person has been rude to you (something I've never contested by the way).
Yes, of course I should have done this earlier but was genuinely intruiged as to what had upset him.
You attempt to pass off your actions as merely the natural consequence of mild curiosity as oppose to the self righteous anger and indignation that - in my opinion - seems to permeate your text.