Go back
Too good for us?

Too good for us?

Only Chess

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by excalibur 8
Never accused anyone of arrogance, maybe an inflated ego, and how do you know he wouldn't get a competitive game; now that smacks of arrogance.
It is more a matter of probability.

It is perfectly reasonable to limit the number of games you take on at one time. That being the case, it is not so much a matter of not playing a 1200 player as it is choosing a 1700 player instead of a 1200 player.

Whose more likely to give a good game? A 1200 player or a 1700 player? Even if the 1200 player is new to the site and his rating is on the increase, it is not too much to ask for him to cut his teeth on 1300s, 1400s, and 1500s to prove himself before he is given the attention from a 1700+ player.

You may find a 1700 player who'll play someone at 1200, but it should be considered a favor, as they have nothing to gain. There is no reason to assume it is arrogance for him to decline.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Smaug Sicilian Bone Collector
Who was not accepting? Alekk or Excaliber?
Excaliber

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by excalibur 8
Just challenged 'alekk' who won't accept a challenge below 1550 rating.
Has ego anything to do with it?
I'll play against you!

Vote Up
Vote Down

If a 600 player challenged you would you play him?

Sort of the same situation but your in the other boat now, being the higher rated player. Why should you play the 600 player?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ChessJester
I'll play against you!
Okay.