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

Now there is some original thinking!

In fact, we are posting meta troll posts, which is something entirely different.

Here's one - I face an opponent where I get Black and he plays an overly lame exchange French, and I kick him where it hurts in under 40 moves.

HE calls for the rematch, I even accept this time, I play 1.e4, he then aborts and demands a rematch.  And people think I'm a pompous female donkey because I don't frequently accept rematches.  How about this donk?

Its the internet.  Its always someone else's fault.

I understand, but all they want are posts, they don't care who you are addressing.

Never said it was.

I don't know what trolls want and I honestly don't care.

Well done on a conversation starter. A good controversial statement always gets the conversation flowing. 

 

i just made my comment after reading the first 8 posts.

ha. it looks like i'm not the only one thinking this is just flaming.  fun though. ..  

one of the earlier posts said it was an unwritten rule of internet chess to rematch. anyone heard of this before? I'd say it was probably the opposite given the number of opportunies (players)

I've been playing chess on the internet for 23 years now and at more than a dozen sites.   There is not, nor ever has been,  any rule, written, unwritten, real or supposed about rematches.  Such rules only exist in the fantasy world of those with a need to advance their agenda. 

+1

 

+2

 

+4

+6 7/8

+9
Yes, my agenda is: if you lose a game and your opponent doesn’t give you at least one rematch, then you win.

But you lost.

If you made like one blunder to ruin the game, then yea, but if you just got outplayed then it didn't matter

And what makes you think you won a game that was never played? Your opponents aren't obligated to give you rematches for a number of reasons.

At my level, both players typically blunder at least once, but you make a good point. Even Magnus Carlson makes moves that aren’t perfect. I played five games with one person; lost the first two, won the next three. You would think that would invalidate my argument; however, I am fairly certain he’s a better player than me. Or maybe it was a she. It felt good to win overall, but I recall the 5th game I won on time, not skill. My opponent was beating me. So really, my opponent beat me. And there you have it, the first two games told the whole story. Magnus tied all games in the last championship; hence, the first two games told the story. I realize it’s not always the case, but I’d be interested in seeing a study that showed how often the first two games tell the whole story. Naturally, if you win the first and lose the second without blunders, then the third tells the story. Perhaps further games would prove the two opponents are evenly matched. Then the first two games would have told the story.

My last comment was for Nubbycheeseking

Winston, you’re correct. No one is obligated to rematch. I believe that when they can rematch, but they don’t, they would rather be afraid of losing than lose. Better to hope I think they’re better than prove otherwise.