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

"Agree to disagree" is missing the point in any conversation. 

I think we got too hanged up in the ignoring thing. Yes, ignoring someone on the internet is pretty common (though I'd say in a lot of cases it's still rude), but we're not just talking about that. We're talking about having played just one single game, which you won, and then, while being aware that the opponent wants a rematch, not accepting a single one. That's the main thing I say is anti-competitive (which you already acknowledged is true) and rude, since you're leaving your opponent hanging just like that. Again, yes, it's not your obligation to any second game, but not doing it, nor now nor in the future, while fully aware that the opponent wants to, and on top of that not saying anything, is not very nice.

You may say that ignoring people is common on the internet and debate whether it's rude or not, however this is not just about that on itself, but about how it just makes worse a gesture that's already bad.

Your starting point is totally wrong: "a gesture that's already bad"??? There is nothing bad in declining a rematch. If another player wants it it's his problem, I am not here to cater to his desires. It's no different from sex. If you want to have sex with someone and that person doesn't want to have sex with you there will be no sex and no explanations have to be given. The fact that you already had sex once (analogous to your first chess game) doesn't change anything. That's basics that you don't seem to understand.

If you're making an analogy with sex, you seem to think that I'm saying that simply because you did something with someone once you should do it at least twice, as the only thing that and a chess game have in common is being something you did with someone. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying you should do something twice just because you did it once just for the sake of it. We're talking about a sport here. The problem with not accepting a single rematch against a player you're aware wants it, specially after having won the first one, is something I already explained.

Yes exactly. We are talking about a sport and nobody can decide for me when to compete and when to do other things.

I am not sure what explanation you are talking about. Please give me a post number or repeat it.

lol

No one with a competitive spirit would want their first match with someone to be their last match (even if you say you might maybe still be paired with them by the algorithm among the ocean of players some day), specially when you have in front of you a person who you know does want to continue competing. You're leaving your opponent hanging without that second chance after having won the first game. Yes, it's not your obligation to grant a rematch, but not giving it, neither now nor at any point in the future, specially in this situation, is not the best thing to do, being this a sport environment.

We start going in circles.

As I've already told you I don't think that more competitive spirit is always better, especially not when we talk about a hobby done for fun. One game at a time is an optimum for my competitive spirit.

Giving second chance to my opponent is not my goal, I play for my fun, not for his.

Regarding "a sport environment" - official competitive chess is a sport environment par excellence, en example for us all. There are no rematches there. You play only what is predefined by the format of the competition. No "let's play another game". Have you ever played official OTB chess?

If you don't see competitive spirit as a virtue, that's on you, but it's what would be the best to see in people in a sport environment like this.

I don't know why you are bringing up again the thing about tournaments not having rematches within each of them (which isn't true in all, or at least not in all sports); when I already explained that as well. Just because you're only going to have one match with someone in a tournament that doesn't mean your first match should be your last match. There's no reason to reject having a friendly match, for example, and there's always the next tournament.

"Chess is a recreational and competitive board game played between two players" (Wikipedia). I prefer its recreational aspects, if you prefer competitive ones that's on you, it's a choice everyone makes for himself. I am fine with your choice, it doesn't bother me if you compete 24/7. But somehow you don't like my choice and are trying to tell me what to do.

You failed to find examples of rematches (in the sense "let's play another game") in competitive chess. I bring the competitive chess as a counterexample to your claim that rematches should be played in a sport environment.

I don't do anything to prevent a game with same opponent in the future. The simple fact that nobody of them has ever asked me about a rematch in the future shows that all they want is a rematch right now.

"I don't want to play now" is a perfectly valid reason to reject a friendly match.

No that's totally untrue, since if I won a match against somebody and refused a rematch, I've still won since I won the first match. If you agreed before the game it's going to be a best out of three or five games for example and you beat that opponent in the first game, and then don't agree to the rule's that you and that opponent agreed upon before you started playing. Then well that is what's known as very bad sportsmanship. However, you've still won, not lost the game. 

Again, even if there are no rematches in competitive game, by which I imagine you mean a tournament (though I think I've heard of tournaments that have it, and even if they didn't, most sports do), that doesn't mean your first match with someone should be the last one. There are always friendly matches and the next tournament.

The reason most people don't ask again for the rematch later is because of how harshly you rejected the first. But even if that does show them having less interest for that rematch as they could, that doesn't justify your first rejection. I guess it means they accepted the loss of the second chance, but that doesn't justify taking it away in the first place.

"I don't want to play now" is a perfectly valid reason to reject a friendly match, yeah, but if you want to have it later, then send a message or a friend request, because that first wordless rejection will make it very unlikely that they're the ones who approach again, as I just explained. Unless you do want it to be your last match (save for the possibility of being paired by the algorithm). If you do want it to be the last match, that's valid too; but do understand that it shows a lack of competitive spirit, which I know you don't have a problem with, but also understand that you're probably leaving a disappointed opponent without that second chance, so you might at least say something.

One mouse click can't be more harsh that another.

I don't care whom I will play next time and will make no effort to play the same opponent.

Disappointed opponent is not my problem.

I don't say it's harsh because it's a mouse click, but because you're ignoring them. I don't know why you bring the mouse click thing again when I already explained this several times.

It's not your obligation to make any effort to play the same opponent, that's true, but if you know the person in front of you wants to play again, doing so would be the best if you can.

"Disappointed opponent is not my problem." Not even when you caused the disappointment? I'm not saying you should accept to play a game you don't want just to not disappoint the person, but if you're aware this is how you're opponent is likely to feel, specially being after one single match which you won, at least say something; or at the very least don't express such indifference here in the forum.

That's powerful

Being ignored on the internet is normal, nothing harsh.

Playing the person in front of me because he wants to play again would be the best for him. I chose what is the best for me - not to play.

Disappointed opponent is not my problem, not even when I caused the disappointment. He knew he can loose, he knew there will be probably just one game. He can also say something. When I loose OTB I am the first to congratulate my opponent and to thank him for the game.

I will ask you for the second time: have you ever played rated OTB game? I am asking because I have over 10 years at chess.com and in competitive OTB play and I have a feeling that I am being told how to behave by someone with much less experience and exposure to chess culture.

Being ignored on the internet is normal. That doesn't make it better or less harsh, specially depending on the situation. But either way, it discourages people from approaching you again.

If the best for you is not to play again, that's valid. Just, again, do understand that it's disappointing for a lot of people and, if you don't provide any reason for it and just leave, it looks bad for the reasons I've been explaining.

OTB means playing in person, right? I have played those, though I don't know if any of them was rated. Regardless, what you're presenting here is an argument of authority, which is a cognitive bias. Just because someone is older or has more experience in an activity or sport that doesn't mean they know worse or better about good behavior and politeness. And, no offence, but saying stuff like "A disappointed opponent is not my problem, even when I caused the disappointment" isn't really a good indicator of having such knowledge. I'm sorry, but if you have a feeling that someone with much less experience and exposure to chess culture is telling you how to behave, it's probably because it's happening.

I have seen dozens of disappointed players after loss in an official OTB competition. No rematches were offered to them because they are nonexistent. Nobody was trying to do something to comfort them. They were taking there disappointment as mature adults, who understand that the result of the game is their own responsibility.

You were playing OTB but don't know if it was rated? Thank you. That's all we need to know about your level of understanding of chess as a sport. Thank you and goodbye.

Why do you keep bringing up the tournament thing? Again, even if there are no rematches within tournaments, that doesn't mean your first match with someone should be the last one. There are always friendly matches and the next tournament. That's not a reason to have no rematches here.

Now I think you just started talking about something completely different that has nothing to do with this. When they say "they were taking their disappointment like mature adults", you're talking about the disappointment of losing a game. I am talking about the disappointment about not being able to try again. And yes, I know you're going to say that you can't try again in a tournament, but you'd be missing the point; there's always the next tournament, and there's also getting another round with a player.

The thing about "taking disappointment as mature adults" is actually irrelevant to this topic. It's like I said earlier: whether I overreact or let it slide doesn't change anything: a rude gesture is a rude gesture. It's like saying there shouldn't be a problem with me punching people in the face, because adults shouldn't cry about pain in the face.

Now, what does my level of understanding of chess as a sport has to do with all of this? What I'm saying applies to any sport.

No one is obligated to give a rematch. Just because one person may feel sore after losing and not getting a rematch, just carry that feeling into the next game and crush them. You'll feel a lot better than worrying about a past match. 

Haven't been offered a rematch yet. Well, it will probably happen eventually.