Welcome to the internet, young man. A place where you have literally no say in how others behave. Not giving a rematch is bad sportsmanship, is it? Well that's what you say, and what you say has no weight whatsoever. You can whinge until you're blue in the face, but people will do what people want to do - that's life.
Take me for instance. I like to sit back a look over a game whether I win or lose. What can you do about that, huh? Do I care about your teenage requirement to try and win one more time if I beat you.
No, I don't.
So perhaps instead of throwing a tantrum and posting a spiteful comment to someone (great sportsmanship, by the way), you can learn to take a loss like a man some day.
Or perhaps not.
Of course you owe a rematch
Sort:
Oldest
Mar 20, 2016
0
#104
Internet boas pull you into one game and then expect game after game while they slowly strangle you. Get out while you can.
I still think there should be an automatic rematch decline setting....
Well, it has become clear to me that I was wrong to suggest those who refuse to offer rematches after winning in white are cowards, though I do believe some of you are. I have come to determine that most of you are just socially awkward. When I tried to use a reference of athletics and how internationally it is recognized that honor and code and sportsmanship are symbolized by the structure of the contests, referencing wrestling, tennis, etc...that most of you probably didn't participate in organized sports and don't comprehend the references. And when a bunch of you use tough talk, under disguise of anonymity it is because you were probably bullied as children and the last kid picked in gym and this site is a way to claim back some sort of masculinity and manliness. And I become a little sad when some of you try to take a cerebral, teaching approach to make your point because, well, it falls short of your lofty goals, and if I try and correct you on any of these points, you may become humiliated and seek refuge where ones shouldn't. So anyway, I apologize to the bulk of you who are not cowards. I have learned my lesson.
Mar 20, 2016
0
#107
What on earth is the point of playing the same person again? Doesn't matter what colour, doesn't matter the result, you just click new and play someone else. If you had black againstthe last player you'll probably have white against the next. At low levels the difference between white and black is entirely psychological anyway since players don't have the skill to make the white advantage count.
People take things far too personally when they come to demanding replays. I don't give two hoots who my opponent was in the last game so why should they care who I am?
Possible reasons for declination:
1. A hard-fought victory against an opponent whom the winner considers superior (especially true of beginners) is very satisfying. Consider one's own victories against superior players - was that not borderline euphoric? Under this scenario it should come as no great surprise that the player wants to mentally enjoy the victory without jumping into another draining match against the same superior opponent. Simple human nature can explain this declination.
2. The winner may need to go and perform other tasks not related to playing online chess. Players do have responsibilities and lives outside of this app/website.
3. Fear of losing could also play a role. This is related to the first reason mentioned above. A one-game victory is preferable to a split match: one win and one loss.
4. Some players have a natural preference and by extension, a natural aversion, to certain playing styles. If losing player exhibits those game characteristic that the winner dislikes, this player may not want another match.
5. The defeated player may be considered as weaker, so the winner has no interest in playing the same weaker opponent for a second time.
As to the original point, chess is a genteel game, and the type of people that are attracted to this type of game are usually more deliberate and less impulsive (?); however, this does not override the fact that chess is a game, and like any other game, it is a competition where the goal is to win, as in defeat one's opponent and not give that opponent another chance at victory.
On a personal note, I would agree that a declination for other than reason number 2 I mentioned earlier is in poor taste...and so is asking for a rematch and demanding a positive response. Would that not be disrespectful to the winner? The underlying message in such a request would be that the winner is a sub-par player who was simply lucky, and the next game will prove it!
1. A hard-fought victory against an opponent whom the winner considers superior (especially true of beginners) is very satisfying. Consider one's own victories against superior players - was that not borderline euphoric? Under this scenario it should come as no great surprise that the player wants to mentally enjoy the victory without jumping into another draining match against the same superior opponent. Simple human nature can explain this declination.
2. The winner may need to go and perform other tasks not related to playing online chess. Players do have responsibilities and lives outside of this app/website.
3. Fear of losing could also play a role. This is related to the first reason mentioned above. A one-game victory is preferable to a split match: one win and one loss.
4. Some players have a natural preference and by extension, a natural aversion, to certain playing styles. If losing player exhibits those game characteristic that the winner dislikes, this player may not want another match.
5. The defeated player may be considered as weaker, so the winner has no interest in playing the same weaker opponent for a second time.
As to the original point, chess is a genteel game, and the type of people that are attracted to this type of game are usually more deliberate and less impulsive (?); however, this does not override the fact that chess is a game, and like any other game, it is a competition where the goal is to win, as in defeat one's opponent and not give that opponent another chance at victory.
On a personal note, I would agree that a declination for other than reason number 2 I mentioned earlier is in poor taste...and so is asking for a rematch and demanding a positive response. Would that not be disrespectful to the winner? The underlying message in such a request would be that the winner is a sub-par player who was simply lucky, and the next game will prove it!
There are a vast number of reasons someone might not want to give a rematch, and hence one should not be taken as a given. This is patently obvious to everyone except children who haven't mastered the art of losing with dignity yet.
Perhaps to mitigate the distress of people like you we should always post "Sorry - I'm not giving a rematch for X reason, hope you don't mind" - but honestly, just get over it.
Often i have technincal problems where i have to refresh my browers and cant find the rematch afterwards and when i try to rematch they have done something that makes me unable to challange them
Mar 22, 2016
0
#111
this is ridiculous. no one owes you anything
I don't like to play another game immediately as I prefer to analyze/cool down so I can focus hard on one game. It's much more effective for me to play one 10 min game than to keep playing and playing.
People have things to do with their time. Do you not have any respect for other's lives? THEY PROBABLY HAVE REAL THINGS TO DO, YA DINGUS!!!
The OP is being ridiculous. Black or white, it's pretty immaterial and generally I don't even remember after a game whether I moved first or second. I have noticed that most of my rematch challenges come from people I have beaten (for brevity I will call them 'losers'). Most times After a game I will want to review the game or unfocus my eyes from the screen. My time is my own - I don't owe it to anyone, even losers. These losers could easily message me to say they would like to play me again and I would happily oblige them, but they never take the time, even if they have plenty of time to spam the forums. As a rule I don't rematch unless my opponent uses the chat box. I will wait a few seconds to see if they have any comment. If they are just a silent lurker I do not respond. The most flagrant are the ones who drag every last drop out of a game and force you to demonstrate that you know how to mate with K&Q vs K. They have already had a free minute of my time! If you want a replay, be respectful, be polite and talk - you will almost always get one. Just clicking a box only entitles you to one click back; "decline".
Someone post where chess.com says a rematch is a requirement...I anxiously await...
Mar 22, 2016
0
#114
Rematch is not important to me, but I think it would be nice to have an option to play a series. That is, just like you can have an option to play a game (and then play the same person again), you can choose to play a series, amounting to any number of games from two to whatever.
I like having a rivalvry against players and find the only chance I get to do this is in the correspondence games. Whenever I make a connection while playing a five minute game or a fifteen minute game, it seems almost impossible to hook up with the player again, even when we agree to be on at the same time.
Daballs1106 wrote:
Nothing is more irritating than playing a first game with a new opponent in black and then having the same opponent not agree to a rematch if he/she defeats you. I consider it a complete lack of guts to simply slink away after winning playing white, and have left notes on other players' accounts telling them that. Recently, someone commented back to me that there should be no expectation of a rematch, ands that he found my language offensive. My response back is that he is a hypocrite, and here is why.
True, there are no rules governing this on this site, but there is precedent in virtually every organized sport, particularly when it is two opponents facing each other, that should the game offer an advantage at the beginning for one, than it equals out by offering the same advantage to the other before the match concludes. In tennis, each opponent has an equal number of games in which to serve. In wrestling, should one opponent have the top position first, the other opponent has the top position next. In many cases, a coin flip will offer an opponent or team an advantage at the beginning of a game, but usually the sport is structured to equal out the advantage either at the beginning of another quarter or half. In other words, there is an expectation of fairness or, as some prefer, etiquette.
So, even though chess.com does not require playing rematches if you win playing white, it doesn't make it right, and there should be a subtraction of points should the player refuse. What is worse, if you review the other player's games and see he doesn't offer rematches before you begin a game and decide not to play, chess.com admonishes you for not playing.
Finally, to the player who took exception to my language, I would question why he would have an expectation of proper language when he doesn't even think good sportsmanship should be expected by members of the site. In conclusion, I still say that if you refuse to offer a rematch when you win playing white, you are a poor sport, your rating is misleading and more likely than not you are a coward.
Mar 22, 2016
0
#116
Interesting.
I'm new to chess, but I feel that the 'loser' is the one that should ask for a rematch. Otherwise it looks a bit arrogant.
I tend to accept rematches on daily chess and I tend to refuse on blitz but I don't think that I am obliged to or not to.
I'm new to chess, but I feel that the 'loser' is the one that should ask for a rematch. Otherwise it looks a bit arrogant.
I tend to accept rematches on daily chess and I tend to refuse on blitz but I don't think that I am obliged to or not to.
Daballs1106 wrote:
Nothing is more irritating than playing a first game with a new opponent in black and then having the same opponent not agree to a rematch if he/she defeats you. I consider it a complete lack of guts to simply slink away after winning playing white, and have left notes on other players' accounts telling them that. Recently, someone commented back to me that there should be no expectation of a rematch, ands that he found my language offensive. My response back is that he is a hypocrite, and here is why.
True, there are no rules governing this on this site, but there is precedent in virtually every organized sport, particularly when it is two opponents facing each other, that should the game offer an advantage at the beginning for one, than it equals out by offering the same advantage to the other before the match concludes. In tennis, each opponent has an equal number of games in which to serve. In wrestling, should one opponent have the top position first, the other opponent has the top position next. In many cases, a coin flip will offer an opponent or team an advantage at the beginning of a game, but usually the sport is structured to equal out the advantage either at the beginning of another quarter or half. In other words, there is an expectation of fairness or, as some prefer, etiquette.
So, even though chess.com does not require playing rematches if you win playing white, it doesn't make it right, and there should be a subtraction of points should the player refuse. What is worse, if you review the other player's games and see he doesn't offer rematches before you begin a game and decide not to play, chess.com admonishes you for not playing.
Finally, to the player who took exception to my language, I would question why he would have an expectation of proper language when he doesn't even think good sportsmanship should be expected by members of the site. In conclusion, I still say that if you refuse to offer a rematch when you win playing white, you are a poor sport, your rating is misleading and more likely than not you are a coward.
What time control are you playing? No one 'owes' you anything, but I do agree it's annoying. Especially if it's 1 min unrated. I tend to block 90% players who do that. They can choose not to rematch, but I can choose not to play them again.
Apr 29, 2016
0
#118
Hi Daballs. Here are several good reasons why some opponents would not rematch.
*They think you are too weak (based on your moves), and don't want to play you anymore.
*They don't like the weird openings you play.
*They had 10 minutes before leaving; what's better than a 5 minute game?
*They want to play different players, for the sake of variety.
*Emotion: they want to savor a good victory against a good opponent (And a good game)
These have nothing to do with cowardice. Thus, it is not informal that players should owe a rematch.
It is, of course, completely ridiculous that rematches should be accepted as an official/formal rule.
Apr 29, 2016
0
#119
compactset wrote:
It is, of course, completely ridiculous that rematches should be accepted as an official/formal rule.
Until yesterday I always waited for opp to ask for rematch and I would always accept. But yesterday I played a guy who started using f*** style language while he had a seemingly winning position... and then he lost (he he). Then he asked for a rematch... I don't think so...
So that's another reason not to accept rematch: opp is an a**hole
there's a lot of Vague rule about ettiquette... which really means there IS practically no rules about ettiquette;
FWIW, (#14) Most of the time,I will resign if I see the opponent has unstoppable mate. your opponent has Won the game. why the delay?
if there's uncertainty that he sees it, I might play it out...
For that one, the only thinkg i can think of is that some feel there is a something better about losing on time than resigning.