| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Suggestion - Start Game - Restrict users already playingMy suggestion? That GAMEKNOT put in an option to restrict to "Not currently playing with". That way we could put out our 3 challenge limit, and each user taking the challenge would have to finish that game before being able to take the next. PLEASE GAMEKNOT, for our love of variety, please give us this option. Thanks! ) |
||
|
maca 08-Jan-10, 12:58 |
... Regards, MaCa. |
||
|
This is the prime reason that you will get one opponent eating up your 2 or 3 game post most times.An option like you mentioned is fine,but in the meantime you got to do it other ways.... If you do not want to use the ignore list,fine,but tell the opponent one game only.Sometimes you are forced to do things(legally)that you might not want to do...but alls fair in love and chess! |
||
|
Thanks Tactical_abyss! |
||
|
To tell you the truth,I lean on the side of extreme caution myself.What I mean by this is that I rarely play more than one game with a "new" opponent at one time whether it be opposite colors or the same color,unless it is unrated...then it dosen't matter to me.In tournaments and other type of play,you may have to accomodate more than one game with an opponent,but not in a game post. The reason for me to select only one game with an opponent is simple:I really do not know the true abilities,strength,tactical and positional skills that this opponent is going to throw at me.So a little voice in my head says....why risk losing 2 games instead of just one game if the worse case scenario happens?Logic dictates playing one game at a time,not two....then if I lose,I will probably not just "jump into the fire"and play again!That is,until I analyze my weakness's and my opponents strengths and weakness's deeper OR I have the option to not play this opponent again,which may be possibly a WISE decision!If I win the first game with this opponent,THEN I can decide if I want to play a second game.If I lose the second game but have won the first game,then very little is gained...but certainly little is lost. So unless you are certain of winning 2 or 3 games with an opponent in a rated game(and who is?)it makes more careful and logical sense to play only 1 game at a time and decide if you want to play another later with the same opponent.But of course,you may have other reasons than rating risks.Perhaps you just want a new opponent for every game,and thats ok too. |
||
|
baronderkilt 08-Jan-10, 18:05 |
rikved ... In a way, it is not so bad doing the cancel. Since you get to "pick" which of the games you favor to play. One thing you might do tho, for you and your opp's sake ... to put a note on your Profile stating you do not want to take more than 2 games per opp at a time. Then there is nothing to complain about if you do have to Cancel a game or two. Regards, Craig |
||
|
Most players just end up challenging the post and not even bother reading the other players profile.Or the ones that "do"read it tell me that they did not read "down"far enough! I tend not to believe that,but this is what i've been told time and time again.Another example is in my profile now.I state clearly "no teams or GK tournaments".Yet I constantly get team play offers!I write back and state..."not interested,as my profile states...no teams or GK tourneys".Then they write back and say...oh,I didn't read your profile!I also have the same team recruiter,ask me a few weeks after i just told him no!So,then comes the "ignore list"! So,placing a note in your profile is a good idea,but I have a strong feeling that it won't work very well.But it might as you say,make both parties feel better if canceling is necessary. Using an ignore list may indeed become necessary on occassion however when some players try and keep applying multiple challenges to someone against their wishes. |
||
|
|
||
|
baronderkilt 08-Jan-10, 20:46 |
Tactical_abyss ... So I only suggest it as a courtesy for those who do. But it is somewhat more like a "Beware of Dog" sign, I think. It does not count for much after the bite, but you can point and say "See, I put up a sign!!" }8-)) |
||
|
tactical_abyss 09-Jan-10, 03:10 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 09-Jan-10, 04:33.
|
||
|
tactical_abyss 09-Jan-10, 03:29 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 09-Jan-10, 04:33.
|
||
|
I wrote back to him telling him he was incorrect and basically told him his message to me was improper etiquette as well.At the time,I also said..."I'm playing only white right now" and "only 1 game per opponent" right in the game he accepted,but it didn't matter.We all have the justified right to play as we please.If I choose to play 1000 white games and no black games,this is my right.If I want to play 10,000 black games and no white,this is also my right.If I choose to only play 1 game with an opponent(for some of the reasons mentioned above),this is also my right and has nothing to do with "etiquette". Had to place him on the ignore list,unfortunately.But of course,I beat him in the white game! I could almost see the steam coming out of my computer screen! So,in summary,do what you have to do to play as you choose,whether it be ignore lists,writing a game message,canceling a game,reposting or what have you,but remember,there will always be someone on GK somewhere who will have a difference of opinion and try to cause "waves"as we say in America,by messenging you with their disagreements on how you desire to play only one game with them.If it happed to me,it can happen to you.Just be nice and do not say anything nasty back to them.Ignoring them is better! |
||
|
Personally, I don't play these "Let's play chess" games. I prefer mini tournaments, team games and the occasional private challenge. There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that these are the places to find the established players who will play their best and not timeout very often. I also prefer to play a person as black and white, to get a fair comparison. You can't know that your are better than someone else if you beat them marginally as white and then not play them as black. You need a net advantage to be certain of you dominance and be genuinely happy with your performance, in my opinion. I also enjoy team games because of the extra pressure I am under, I will analyse team games deeper because I don't want to let the rest of my team down by playing sloppy. If I drop a bishop in a tournament, I can shrug it off, resign the game if it's now lost, and move on quickly. But if I do it in a team game, as I did recently, costing me a win (I drew), then I feel bad for costing my team points. There is extra motivation to play better, and while I do play badly sometimes in team games, I make far less mistakes than in do in mini tournaments, and my best performances are generally team games. |
||
|
Excellent suggestion! Oh... and I agree with abyss: I would expect that many players don't read the player's profiles when choosing games from the available list because if they go to check the profile, often the game is gone when they return to the list. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 14-Jan-10, 00:56 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 14-Jan-10, 13:11.
|
Log in 
