Failure to accept a rematch indicates your opponent feels they got lucky. It is rare people come on this site to play just one game then leave.
Some players behave in a way they would not in person. They may leave to give you a "slap in the face" or another rude gesture. If you only have one stradegy then this is usually the case.
IMO failure to rematch is cowardly unless explained with a short message on the chat board.
Failure to accept a rematch indicates your opponent feels they got lucky. It is rare people come on this site to play just one game then leave.
Some players behave in a way they would not in person. They may leave to give you a "slap in the face" or another rude gesture. If you only have one stradegy then this is usually the case.
IMO failure to rematch is cowardly unless explained with a short message on the chat board.
There is nothing wrong with not offering/accepting a rematch. Win, lose, or draw, i very rarely offer/accept rematches. Its a choice, dont read to much into it.
Failure to accept a rematch indicates your opponent feels they got lucky. It is rare people come on this site to play just one game then leave.
Some players behave in a way they would not in person. They may leave to give you a "slap in the face" or another rude gesture. If you only have one stradegy then this is usually the case.
IMO failure to rematch is cowardly unless explained with a short message on the chat board.
I have chat disabled after so many insults after winning games.
I don't have to explain anything if i don't want to play again.
Panda, just lose your games! It works for me!
I offer a rematch when I want to. Usually I offer a rematch because I feel like there's "chemistry" in the way my opponent and I play: I feel our next game will lead to inspired play, perhaps in the form of some great tactical combination, some strange position that hasn't been studied, or just something totally unexpected.
I play on chess.com to learn. That means that I'll gladly lose a game, especially if my opponent plays great chess, because I learn from playing.
I DO NOT play chess to validate myself in any way, socially or intellectually. However, I recognize that many chess players do. Many (not all, but many) chess players have thick egos. These are the players who taunt or trash-talk their opponents.
Some players seek "fairness" in chess: "you just won, so now I should have a chance to win"; or, perhaps "I want another chance, because I hung my queen by accident."
Because I don't seek fairness, I always experience my games as fair: we both played our moves, and the result of the game speaks for itself. If I lost because I blundered away my queen, my opponent is under no obligation to rematch me; I might ASK for a rematch, because I feel an affinity for playing this particular opponent--but I am not, not ever, owed a rematch based on some (relatively immature) idea of fairness.
This only applies mostly to my blitz games -
If I lose, I ask for a rematch. If they don't accept, I don't care. One click of a button, and I have another game.
If I win, and they ask for a rematch, I accept. I have found that if I lose, there is rarely a 3rd tiebreaker game. But, again, no problem, click a button and I have a new game.
100% ethics free.
Now, is it ethical, when I win a game to point at the monitor and shout 'BAM BIATCH!!!'?
i do my best carl weathers voice and pant, "aint gonna be no rematch; don' want one" 
I'm just amazed how bent out of shape people get. While I don't do rematches right after, if we get paired in live chess another day, I'll play.
Chess etiquete dictates both parties to play at least one time with each of the colors. So 2 matches for me is good sportsmanship.More than that it's anyone's choice and depends on many factors.
I think the question should have been about what we do after getting an offer of rematch.
I think generally people offer rematch in following situations
1. to revenge after losing
2. to increase rating after winning against higher rated opponents
3. playing with friends
No 1 urges ethical (according to me) decision from the one who is offered to play rematch because if he continue "live chess" he should not decline if any strong reason occurs.
How many more times will this point be raised?
How many more times will this point be raised?
Probably about as often as any one of these regular CC forum topics:
Was Fischer really one of the greatest players?
Can women play chess?
Why won't people resign when they are losing?
Is chess a sport?
How many more times will this point be raised?
Probably about as often as any one of these regular CC forum topics:
Was Fischer really one of the greatest players?
Can women play chess?
Why won't people resign when they are losing?
Is chess a sport?
Quite so.
I would have no problem offering/accepting a rematch if more than .0001% of my opponents would act like human beings.
But i get insults...excuses...cussed out...disconnectors...opponents that play on 5-8 pieces down...and just your general online you cant see me so im gonna act like an idiot responses. On the rare occasion my opponent is respectful, and plays a good game i will offer/accept a rematch.
I usually give a rematch if I win the first game, especially if I had white I like to give them their " white " . However , if they are rude or unsportsmanlike in the first game they get none .
never play someone twice.
Not unethical, but I think that whoever lost should be the one to decide on a rematch.
No, it's not unethical, but if he wanted a rematch, he could just offer it.
Some people cry when they aren't given a rematch, but that's their problem. Their fathers raised them to think that they are entitled. Their lives will become very unpleasant if they do not adapt. The sooner they discover that the world does not revolve arount their wishes, the sooner they will begin to live like a man and enjoy life.
According to whose ethics?
Ethics of the chess community. Morals and values are more individual. Ethics are more universal.