Sigh... This topic has been discussed here so many times. Yet there's always someone who wants to start a new thread to let everyone know that they consider people not accepting their rematch requests bad sports, cowards, rude, disrespectful, <insert your favorite insult here>, etc.
No one owes you a rematch. No one owes you an explanation of why they refuse your rematch request: https://support.chess.com/article/1342-is-it-rude-to-refuse-a-rematch-request
100% with BlueScreenRevenge. I get stressed out my rematches sometimes because I always have this subconscious sense my opponent will try harder. So I accept rematch requests when I'm feeling relatively not stressed. There's nothing fair or not fair. Other times I decline because it's the last game in a run and I message the opponent to rematch later if they want (I don't think this has ever happened yet.)
You’re thinking too hard. It’s easier to decline a rematch than to accept a rematch because if you click new game you are 100% guaranteed to get a match faster than if you rematch.
i click which ever button appeals more at the time
shiny button yay
That is the question....
That is the question....
Chess by Shakespeare (Revised V Edition)
That is the question....
Chess by Shakespeare (Revised V Edition)
Yes. The revised edition.
it is that some chess players intentionally play really badly (say, in a bullet or blitz game), basically allowing you a win.
then they ask for a rematch (knowing you'll most likely accept, because you would want another win). However, after expecting him to play at the same level, he suddenly goes from playing like a 400 rated player to a 1500 rated player.
is this technically sandbagging? because he, originally, was not playing at his real rating level.
is this technically sandbagging? because he, originally, was not playing at his real rating level.
Yes. It doesn't make sense to do it for only one game, unless he's intentionally slowly deflating his rating against lower rated opponents in a series of games. Sandbagging is when you intentionally play/perform below your ability level repeatedly to lower your rating, or in other sports like bowling & golf to gain a score adjustment (handicap level) artificially below your ability level.
Then when playing in a league or tournament, you can turn your best game on when you need it to gain a valuable win or beat a tough opponent you could not normally beat in a fairly handicapped competition. In bowling I've seen teams do this for the entire league. Only turn it on enough to squeak a win when needed and then continue winning at a lower level when not needed. They retain the higher handicap and use it in league finals when, "they are on." It can be worth "money" in league final competitions in some sports.
The advantage in a chess tournament would be playing artificially below your ability level, and then being placed into a lower competition level tournament and destroying the competition in that tournament.
because i see a lot of the times the first place in tournaments are rated 400 (although most times it's not sandbagging purposes)
although playing bad intentionally, then knowing the opponent will accept a rematch before playing with unexpected skill is very annoying, especially in bullet, where you'll lose many pieces if you're not careful
although playing bad intentionally, then knowing the opponent will accept a rematch before playing with unexpected skill is very annoying, especially in bullet, where you'll lose many pieces if you're not careful
I recommend you join the Cheating Forum, they discuss all forms of cheating it's very educational.
Refusing a rematch used to be a trend, rather a minority, it has now become the rule, although to be precise, the statistics clearly show that most players are more likely to accept a rematch if they have lost... and to refuse it if they have won. Even if they won with the whites. I can't quite figure out the logic, or the motivation. Especially since those players who refuse the rematch mostly stay online, and play other players. But it seems to me that one of the interests of this game is precisely to learn to analyse your opponent's game and to learn from it for the following games. What does this lack of fairplay, this lack of respect for the opponent, encouraged by anonymity, really reflect? What do professional players think about it? Couldn't we foresee a mini-tournament format on chess.com, which we would call for example best of three or best of five... ?