Hi,
I didn't know you all had such a negative opinion of peole asking for rematches.
Asking for a rematch does not necessarily mean you're an egomaniac, I only ask for rematches when I enjoyed playing my opponent (win or loss) and felt it was a close game.
However I agree with you, a rematch is not mandatory and I agree that no one should be blamed in case a rematch request is declined.
FWIW I don't think people who ask for rematches or egomaniacs, I was just mocking that guy's poor argument.
rematch should be obligatory - hand people a game and then they disappear; cowards; too many [censored] around here
rematch should be banned - hand people a loss and then they feel entitled to try again; egomaniacs; too many [censored] around here
this is exactly the type of [ ] indeed; people get one easy win a then go away, that's not chess but indeed egotripping
Rematches should not be compulsory. I am going to give site feedback for a Best-of-3 Queue and a Best-of-5 Queue, because I myself would like the format.
Something I find fascinating across all of these threads are two common sentiments.
(1) "You can't admit you were outplayed."
Of course you were outplayed. That's why you lost. And sometimes it's fun to see if you can muster something stronger and more creative the next round, inspired by your desire to win. I played someone OTB three times today, lost every time, and each time, played stronger, and with more determination. We even analyzed our last game, because I flagged in a very unclear position. I was batting closer and closer to his level. It was fun.
(2) "I would like to move onto a stronger opponent from whom I can actually learn something. You're trash."
You obviously don't know how rating systems work. If someone is close to your rating, you should each win against each other half the time. That does not mean that half the people your rating level are actually just trash. I also seriously doubt you think, on every loss you have, "This person beat me, will always decisively beat me, and can learn nothing from me. I should let them get on with it." ...Because if they're close to your rating level, that would be stupid.
too many players are leaving when they win, i always offer a rematch!
Nonsense. People have limited time and desire to play. Nobody owes you, or anyone else, a rematch. By the same logic we can make people to play 10 games. Of course the more you force things on people, the less they will comply and move to greener pastures.
too many players are leaving when they win, i always offer a rematch!
The funniest thing is that you only play 20|0 rapid games which can take up to 40 minutes
thanks for all the replies! didnt realise this topic is so hot! i've taken on board a lot of what has been typed, so i will change back to a hard chess player, no chat, no rematches, just chess
I usually will decline a rematch, mostly because I glance over my games after playing. Chat is welcome if it’s civil, they can even talk about the game, have no issues discussing the game I’m playing, but I won’t normally initiate the chat.
Clock is part of the game, I will use it to pressure if I think that will help. I don’t understand why people get upset by that, what is the point of using a clock if there isn’t a penalty for exceeding the time?
Best of three is no good because there are two whites and one black for someone. Also someone might lose their connection or have to go. Do they then lose all three games? So it's silly.
Already covered in a more spectacular fashion
Best of 3 means someone plays white twice. You have no honor. And why should white go first, you racist.
Sorry but I'm required to overreact by chess.com's unwritten defacto TOS.
Black used to go first, around 1850. Obviously there was no racism before 1850.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/why-the-forums-still-need-fouad
[Political discussion is not allowed in the forums -CrystalMoon].