Why do people get so mad when you don't wanna rematch?

Sort:
bbeltkyle89
robcameron wrote:

I don't know if I would go so far to call people immature or morons simply because they want to play an rematch. I think games should be the best out of three as this gives both people a chance to play with both colors, as some people are better with white than they are with black and vice versa. Some people will let the server abort the game if they start a game with black color, so stop with the name calling and be understanding about the advantages and disadvantage in chess!

You do understand that 1 and 3 are both odd numbers right? if you play best out of 1 or best out of 3, one player will still have white more than the other player.  

OMGChess14
AIM-AceMove wrote:

What a silly topic. It seems you don't understand what is chess about. Let's assume you have played bullet or blitz game. Wait, first we need to make clear that chess is not equal game as white and black pieces. Chess is not some other online game .. hm i don't know .. backgammon? Where nobody cares when they lose single game. This is battle of the mind. It is very easy to understand when a game of chess is played for fun and when for the absolutely win. A one can read your emotions, your skills just from observing how much time and what move you make in specific position and even when you make a move, other player can 100% say with that move you are not sure or don't know what is happening or with that move you disrespect your opponent or you are not resigning in lost position.  One can easily assume he is better than you and that you have won very luckily even in a way embarrasing your opponent. Bullet or Blitz game can be very agreessive. Ofcourse one is absolutely right to claim rematch and to say bad words agains you when you don't accept. And is absolutely right that person to not wish to play 2nd game. But if you did not prove in that game you are better etc. and you won very suspiciuos, and you do not want rematch and take black pieces, then sir, you are exacly what that person says you are. If you play chess for fun you can do it with unrated option.

 

Just no.

1) "One can easily assume he is better than you and that you have won very luckily even..."

 

This is an ego problem of yours.  Normal people shoud not feel this way after a game of chess.

2) "Bullet or Blitz game can be very aggressive."

Any time control's game can be aggressive.  Has no bearing on the subject.  The fact that you take a loss personally is your problem, nobody else's.

3) "if you did not prove in that game that you are better, etc."

This is not what playing a chess game is about.  Again, this exposes that most of the problem here is your own ego.

4) "and you won very suspicious"

Not sure what you are getting at here.  Cheating?  Winning on time (this is a completely valid way to win)?  Blunder (also nothing suspicious here).  My guess here is that you feel like if your opponent won when you weren't playing your best or he won on time that it is somehow suspicious and doesn't count towards showing he's better than you.  Again, an ego problem.  Chess isn't about being better than someone else.

5) "If you play chess for fun you can do it with unrated option."

You can also do it with the rated option.  You don't get to decide this.  Most people enjoy the game more with ratings.

 

In summary, this is entirely a "you" problem.  Most people can just play a chess game and not have their ego crushed or manhood questioned or whatever you are introducing.

I almost never accept rematches because 1) I don't like encouraging the ego thing--subsequent games are almost always more contentious, opponent behavior gets worse, etc. 2) along the same lines, a lot of times "revenge" is so important to my opponent that his play becomes let's just say a lot more precise in the next game(s).  With so much ego involved, the temptation rises for them either way, and I'm just not interested in fueling that.

 

Tip: don't take games so personally, just play somebody else.  You may think your opponent is chugging beers and high-fiving a room full of his bros after beating you, smug in the knowledge that he is your superior now, but aside from the chessbrahs twitch stream, this is very rare, and should be pretty irrelevant to you even if it was happening if you are not really insecure.

OMGChess14
robcameron wrote:

I don't know if I would go so far to call people immature or morons simply because they want to play an rematch. I think games should be the best out of three as this gives both people a chance to play with both colors, as some people are better with white than they are with black and vice versa. Some people will let the server abort the game if they start a game with black color, so stop with the name calling and be understanding about the advantages and disadvantage in chess!

 

You may think that a game should be a multi-game match, but your opponent did not agree to that with you beforehand.  Chess is not setup as a multi-game match by default, though, obviously you can agree to that.  Where I take issue is when people decide it should be without consulting their opponent first.  They just decide it is so and get really upset when their opponent doesn't just agree.

 

Tip: not everyone wants to play more than one game with you.  If you want to play more than one game with an opponent, you should discuss that with them before playing them.

LordMuckontoast

Any action to justify oneself is an act of the ego. The OP posted out of ego, the supporters of the OP acted out of ego, the attackers of the OP's post also acted out of ego. To brush aside one who wants a rematch as a therapy deprived egotist, is also an act of the ego.

To clarify what AIM-AceMove wrote, in blitz and other short time games, it is possible to win on time (I know right) so if you won on time in a lost position (down a piece or two pawns or mate in 5) and then declined a rematch, then you are quite likely a coward, hard pressed for time, or in denial. I have declined rematches because I was afraid of losing the next one, I admit it, they have every right to assume that I would run away. However, one should resign in lost positions, especially in blitz. I say this, because the best use of blitz is to learn openings and improve "muscle" memory. Winning a won game deters this exercise by psychologically paralysing the winner, and causing immense frustration should he/she lose to time or a random blunder. But I digress...

 On the other hand, in a standard time game, declining a rematch should not be interpreted as anything other than a need to analyse or to head off to a predetermined task. I would then say that the post-game volcanoes are in error.

PS> To address the assumption that chess is "just a board game" it is not. Board games are monopoly, snakes and ladders, and other games that rely on the luck of the roll or draw. Chess, comparatively, is an intellectual sport. It does not require luck; it requires skill.

 

DrSpudnik

They have abandonment issues.

rsvan

I just smile at this topic, have a nice day everybody

uri65
LordMuckontoast wrote:

Any action to justify oneself is an act of the ego. The OP posted out of ego, the supporters of the OP acted out of ego, the attackers of the OP's post also acted out of ego. To brush aside one who wants a rematch as a therapy deprived egotist, is also an act of the ego.

To clarify what AIM-AceMove wrote, in blitz and other short time games, it is possible to win on time (I know right) so if you won on time in a lost position (down a piece or two pawns or mate in 5) and then declined a rematch, then you are quite likely a coward, hard pressed for time, or in denial. I have declined rematches because I was afraid of losing the next one, I admit it, they have every right to assume that I would run away. However, one should resign in lost positions, especially in blitz. I say this, because the best use of blitz is to learn openings and improve "muscle" memory. Winning a won game deters this exercise by psychologically paralysing the winner, and causing immense frustration should he/she lose to time or a random blunder. But I digress...

 On the other hand, in a standard time game, declining a rematch should not be interpreted as anything other than a need to analyse or to head off to a predetermined task. I would then say that the post-game volcanoes are in error.

PS> To address the assumption that chess is "just a board game" it is not. Board games are monopoly, snakes and ladders, and other games that rely on the luck of the roll or draw. Chess, comparatively, is an intellectual sport. It does not require luck; it requires skill.

 

99% of people at chess.com are happily playing by well-established rules. But there are some players who invent their own "rules of conduct" - when to resign, when to rematch - and try to force those rules on everybody else.

It's ok to have ego issues, it's ok to be mad because of rematch denial - as long as you keep it to yourself. But insulting your opponent because he doesn't follow your "rules" is plain rude and uncivilised.

LordMuckontoast

Hmm... So if time was introduced because of aggravated physical health issues (due to exhaustion) shouldn't a computer evaluated result be calculated post match to decide the winner to avoid aggravation of psychological health issues? Don't mind me, I'm just being facetious : )

solskytz

You generally get "rematched" with someone else with a rating more or less similar to yours. 

It all evens out eventually, and the rating shows you how much "better" or otherwise you are than anybody else.  

A rating isn't about "how well" you play - it is about how good are your results on average. 

It is probably very true that your rating is decided not by your best moves, or by your highest understanding, or by your most brilliant concepts - but indeed, by your poorest moves, by your most undisciplined decisions, and by the areas in which you show the least amount of understanding. 

So on to the next game, against whoever it might be.

If you're really a brilliant player, it will show in your rating at some point, so long as you manage to avoid frequent "unbrilliant" moves or plans. 

Pulpofeira

Every time I read about people who feel they are putting something in risk when playing chess, I remember this quote:

Connor_Macleod1518

Nobody has ever asked me for a rematch.

Is it cos i'm a new member?