11796 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
No woman, no cry...No woman, no cry...
funny, this question coming from you since you're one of them. I'm sure you figured it out then. THEY ARE SCARED TO LOSE!
I think your question is wrongly formulated. You say “rematch” when what you apparently mean is “immediate rematch”. Most active opponents of within 200 points of one’s own rating one comes across again sooner or later, and one is then willing to play them unless they stand out in memory for rudeness or some other objectionable quality. I find as some of your other commenters do that after a lightning game I almost always need a break; and the first thing I do in it is normally look up my opponent’s home page. If he doesn’t give his real name I don’t play him again until such time as I’ve forgotten.
Who or what is the “Milgram” you refer to?
There is also the point that what 97% of people do should probably be regarded as normal behaviour.
I almost never offer rematches. On the rare occasions when I do , it's usually rejected.
There are times you know a rematch is coming. If you beat a player quite a bit bigger than you, they tend to want another game. Somehow I feel honor bound. Sometimes you fall into a nice conversation, which normally leads to a rematch. Interesting games will get a rematch as well.
I neither offer nor accept rematches with the 106% of players whom I suspect of cheating, the 187% of players who serve up garbage, and the uncountable players who require more than four moves to checkmate with two queens. Rematches offers from anyone who diables chat, or who chats during a three minute game are routinely ignored.With all the rest, I almost never offer, but usually accept rematches.
many reasons for this prob all covered in previous threads but it doesnt always mean they are scared of you or your abilities if ii lose to a player i want revenge but if the previous game drained me i want coffee and a cigarette not another head to head
I am far more likely to accept a rematch if the player is friendly. Do they say something in the chat?
I've found that people who just automatically rematch after a loss are more likely to be unsportsmanlike. There are people who will rematch you until they win, and then talk smack. Sometimes you'll rematch them a couple of times and then finally refuse one (especially if you keep winning) and they'll get mad at you.
So it's often easier to just refuse. Avoid the confrontaiton. Actually, I don't even always refuse, I just click new game and play who I play.
The difference is if somebody is being friendly and social. Then I'm inclined to think the rematch request means that they like talking to me and I'm more likely to keep playing. It doesn't take a lot, but, "Good move!" if I play a nice sacrifice, or "well played" after a game, or even a "whoops" if they blunder. That kind of thing makes me think that you're the kind of person who wants a rematch for nice reasons rather than because you're looking for an opportunity to be a jerk. So does resigning promptly rather than making me play out an obvious ending.
I'd be curious. Try it: Next time you lose, say "Nice game," and something specific and complimentary about how they beat you. Then ask for the rematch. I'll bet you get more rematches.
I usually decline rematches (I'd not want them to think we're going 'steady').
That really may make all the difference. People who are trying to quickly soothe a bruised ego are less likely to show basic social courtesies.
I never say no to a rematch if i have time to play. No matter the rating nor the taste or the outcome of the previous match. If you were face to face with your opponenet and he proposed a rematch, would you say no in his face? Would be a bit weird right? Also in times i've said something like ''could you wait 10 mins for the rematch?'' wich 98% is acceptable.
If I decide to play live,(rare, for which will become clear soon,) I will only ever play one game. It doesn't matter which color I get, or if I lose or win. I don't do blitz or bullet, so a 15/10 is about as fast as I'm willing to play. To me, that's too fast anyway, but whatever. I have to arrange a thirty minute block of time where I pretty much can't be interrupted to do that. With two kids, a wife, and life that is on constant overdrive, getting that thirty minute block of time is like arranging the universe. That's why I generally stick to online, so I can look at the board, think, get up, take care of a situation at home, etc. .... It's never personal if I play live. It simply will be one game only.
Even when this is a very late reply I still make it, since this subject has always had my interest. It touches on sensitivities in behaviour or rather etiquette when playing, that differ from player to player.
We all have good experiences with kind opponents and lesser experiences with rude ones. However, people have different ideas on what is proper behaviour and therefore also different attitudes towards rematches.
Personally, I consider it rude to not allow a rematch after a win, but when I win I never offer it, because I consider that sometimes rude as well. The loser can ask for it, if (s)he desires so, as I always do when I lose the first game (being slightly annoyed when the winning opponent offers it before I had the time to ask for it).
I am sure this is a more sensitive attitude on this subject than most people would care to think about. Most probably don't make much of rematches anyway and just play any random number of games.
But there are some instances that probably annoy us all. For instance, some opponents are all too eager to beat you again, even when they flagged you in a postion that was dead lost for a long time and still is when the flag falls. An unpleasent experience in itself and in my view it is very impolite for the lucky winner to ask a rematch in such cases, instead of waiting for the unhappy loser to decide to aks for it, or leave you alone, or even quit playing at that moment. Some will argue that offering a rematch after such a win is the fair thing to do, but that is not how I regard it. My take is in fact that it is up to the loser to decide to ask for a rematch, and that the winner is honour bound to allow it. There will never be complete agreement on this.
However, to solve matters it can be argued there is reason to include an option in a player's set of preferences to always play not just one but two games in a row against the same opponent (loss by default for quitting the second). Even when this migth take extra time queuing, it would solve this issue for some of us. Besides, we all can agree that having one black and one white game is always the fairest match up anyway!
Kardinal, maybe it is related to your tendency to write rude comments on people's wall?
There is no rule that says a person must do a rematch, therefore it is voluntary. If a person doesnt, what gives you the right to message, and belittle that person? Then to add insult to injury you block the person so they cant repond to your childish rant. Grow up and get a life and realize that everyone does not think or act like you and that is perfectly ok. If you try to remember that maybe your panties wont be bunched up all the time!
For me its if in the first game in short time controls a person plays immediate queen moves or fools mate looking for quick checks leading to mistakes rather then solid opening theory/ fundaments leading to a strategic miscalculation. basically moves that would not be played with longer time controls. So we played, you did the damn thing, and you won/lost. A player who's tactics were not deliberately trickish/trappish I almost always accept a rematch out of politeness.
Very few of my blitz opponents merit a rematch. If one of us crushes the other easily, there's little reason for playing more. If the game exhibited anything nefarious (lag, evidence of unfair play, rude comments, ...) a rematch would be absurd.
I actually see rematch requests after an opponent let the clock run out in a lost position. Blocking is a more rational response to such behavior than accepting a rematch.
12/10/2013 - Easterwood-Williams 2004
by rohan_dev a few minutes ago
by LogansportHS a few minutes ago
I'm losing for no reason.
by The_Ghostess_Lola a few minutes ago
Premium membership privileges transferring; blocking & verification
by sleeping-beauty 4 minutes ago
Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen
by diablo09 4 minutes ago
I drew against COMPUTER 3 - HARD in blitz!!
by macer75 10 minutes ago
Why Russians are so good at chess.
by chessredpanda 14 minutes ago
How do I go about studying the middlegame
by Goob63 16 minutes ago
Chess for girls
by 2200ismygoal 17 minutes ago
CHESS.COM is not fair !!! alas
by discoweasel 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!