If you don’t accept at least one rematch after you win, then you lose.

Photographic memory doesnt exist, memory is a constructive process. Whatever, I wont debate that, lets assume that you do. The point is that you can differentiate the same player playing two different colors against you vs a new random player. You might do a bit better, but to say there's this significant difference between the two is outrageous, even by your own words where YOU stated 99.9% of all games are novel positions. Why are you fighting so hard?

@youreacoward69

I think you're right when saying there is a psychological preference for those who don't want to do rematches, but honestly my reasoning is that if a person is unwillning to play for a rematch he is unwulling to play the full life of the game. I think people are just afraid to losew, and since they aere afraid to lose they don't play again. However it is not that deep, you win some, you lose some, and you keep playing. If you(not you but people in general) want to beat the more people then you need to play and improve the more.

That's how I view it. If you look at my archived games you can see a bunch of games I try to get rematched with, but even if not I don't hesitate to start a new game or rematch with another person, as again chess is a game, and there is no need to for too much thought, as such as we are doing an analtyical lab experiment, the only tihng we are doing is playing a board game. With this said I now do think it is physcological and in that case, I think it is a waste of energy if this is the case, and with this said the full life of the game is not being played either because of fear factors of losing(in which is more funny than ridiclous as that is how you improve) or pride(in which is equally as ridiculous or worse, as it is not a matter of how a person thinks how good he/she are, when they are not, but a matter of how great they are). I can definitley so I am not a strong player. I am solid, but a strong player is someone who can consistently beat IM's. If someoen can do that, consistently then they earn my respect, otherwise people can lose rather simply as it doesn't take much. 

I guess this is why I have the way of thinking when it comes to accepting rematches. 

Because they´re fighting for a cause they believes in.

yes, because you've played many games on both colors with the same person. There's a huge difference between that and a random pool of the general population to which the only data you have is the game in front of you. If I was chatting with my friend who I was very familiar with, had their sentence structure change and the way they spoke, I might be able to do the same thing

thats my entire point. Im just stating something. Im not demanding anything. 

1. "Photographic memory" has nothing to do with differentiating two players, though it certainly helps

2. Oh you got me, a person who studied neuroscience would have no idea about photographic memory. There are a handful of people who do remember every event from their lives thats true, but as ive said, its only a handful in. 

3. So your argument is that my point is invalid because of a single data point who doesnt represent the population at all? Almost no one has that ability, therefore makes no sense to use In a data point arguing against the general population. If photographic memory was common amongst humans, then yes, it would reflect the data in a population and therefore could be used.

4. Even with that ability, I would almost bet anything if we did an actual experiment, you would not be able to tell in a statistically significant way the difference between two players being the same or different in a large enough sample size. If even you admit 99.9% of games are all different, what would memorizing a previous game benefit you? Especially if theyre playing as a new color. I told you, since youre experienced in the game and have "photographic" memory, you might grade a little higher, but not statistically significant. How about the rest of the population without as much experience and doesnt have PGM? You could be the exception, the outlier to the data for extraordinary reasons, but I think given a proper study and data points, the average person cannot tell, I would doubt you could either if im being honest. And if you couldn't, even with having pgm, than I doubt anyone could

Not gonna lie, the idea of actually constructing an experiment with this is getting me excited. 

You don't lol just because something can happen doesn't prove that it's normal. The odds of winning the lottery in some places are 1: 177,000,000. Would you say its normal for most people to win the lottery even though a few do? And its completely through luck. There's a difference between luck and causality. As ive stated, someone who could do that is an outlier in the data set, not the rule.

I know but I was stating that it could happen not that it would

Whats the point of saying that? It would most likely be a series of lucky guess. It's like saying if you gave a monkey a keyboard and an infinite amount of time, by just mashing buttons, eventually he'll rewrite one of Shakespeare's plays. Given a large enough number of anything, almost anything is possible, but its not really worth mentioning because thats assumed and accounted for.

Also what kind of argument is that? I wouldn't know because I don't have it? haha so people that dont get cancer cant know it exists? Jeez. Also, photographic memory has never been proven to exist, just look at any reputable scientific source. But hey, maybe you'll make history. So if you look at a single page of a book, you can read perfectly transcribe it? Because thats what a photograph is, a permanent representation of the thing. If you cant do that, "click" the picture button in your head and perfectly remember every detail, It is by definition, not photographic. And if you CAN do that, you'll be the first person to prove that and be in textbooks as long as human civilization exists. 

lol

I'm new here. I have been immediately clicking on "new game" after I win or lose (50/50). How long should I wait to see if someone wants a rematch? Thanks!

No, you dont photographically remember 90% of the games you've ever played, thats just not true. And if you can't do the things I've said, you DO NOT have photographic memory. Just do a google search hahah thats just not it, no matter how super special it makes you feel to keep repeating. Theres a difference between a good memory and a photographic one. You've just admitted to not having a photographic one, so just stop. You're still special though, don't worry. And maybe if you really had photographic memory you could scan a statistics textbook so you could actually learn how they're done. I'm not changing it. Each participant would have to go through the level of variable, and only after a number of significant number of participants have gone through the variable, then data could be collected. Your stats would reflect your 100 games, and combined with the other participants from the population, would be run through a statistical test of significance to see if there is a SIGNIFICANT ability for chess players to be able to blindly tell the difference between a new opponent and a rematched opponent. 

And me not wanting to rematch you means nothing to my point. I know that I will keep losing if I play against you (the only verifiable one of your abilities you've laid claim to), I know im not going to win and I know you're only doing it because you think you're "getting" me. 

And I would accept a challenge from anyone, I don't really care about that. But realize the ridiculous comparison you're making: your rating is near professional level, while mine is amateur level. Why would I be afraid? I know the reality of our skill level. There's a difference of not wanting to lose 100 games in a row and not wanting to rematch someone of roughly equal skill level. I admit my psychological reason, I don't wish to lose 100 in a row.

I give it a few seconds. No one is saying you have to or should do anything. Wait as long or as little as you'd like

 Also the person who won the game may be tired and not wish to play another game. I would say that we will play again some other time. I have been in this situation and it is not one more game, it could be two more games because a third game may be needed if the second game ends in a one win, one loss tie.

Methinks you're just a coward, I don't care what you say I must be right.

Eidetic memory (/aɪˈdɛtɪk/ eye-DET-ik; more commonly called photographic memory) is the ability to recall an image from memory with high precision for a brief period after seeing it only once,^[1] and without using a mnemonic device.^[2]Although the terms eidetic memory and photographic memory are popularly used interchangeably,^[1] they are also distinguished, with eidetic memory referring to the ability to see an object for a few minutes after it is no longer present^[2][3] and photographic memory referring to the ability to recall pages of text or numbers, or similar, in great detail.^[4][5] When the concepts are distinguished, eidetic memory is reported to occur in a small number of children and generally not found in adults,^[2][6] while true photographic memory has never been demonstrated to exist.^[5][7]

true photographic memory has never been demonstrated to exist.

Simply put- there are varying levels/degrees of eidetic memory.

If someone claims to have a photographic memory we can be assured they know not of what they speak.

It’s quite a rare ability. Generally people don’t brag they possess the skill, have researched their unique skill and don’t use the misnomer photographic memory.

Most all of the elite chess players possess an eidetic memory at some level. It’s an advantage when playing/ studying chess. We rarely hear them speaking of it.