Rematching

You are not entitled to a rematch. Get over it and move on.

Only cowards fear rematches

I think the polite thing to do would be

a) if offered a rematch accept at least one if the match was reasonable

b) if you do not wish to play more rematches then end the match on an even number of games.   For example after 2 games, or 4 games etc.  

No one can complain if an opponent wins twice and then leaves.  Or loses twice and leaves.  Alternatively it may be a draw.  

Always try to give at least one rematch if requested because while it is nice to be important it is more important to be nice.

I log in, I have about 1 1/2 hours to 2 hours to play a game.

So I play a SD/60 minutes game, it is a brutal match, we both use almost the full 2 hours to play.

I now need to get ready to go to work. But wait! I have played an odd number of games! Oh, the humanity. The horror! 

According to T-Misha77 I am as bad as Adolph Hitler and the scourge of the earth. I am not fit to be a human, I am a coward (because I choose to have a job to support my family), I, quote, "do not care for their fellow humans", I am, again quote, "coward, the mean spirited, judgemental or the selfish".

And he is so rude about it because he can hide behind the anonymity of the internet, just as he claims, and I quote, "the anonymity of the internet is what promotes such unsporting and callous behaviour."

When you get on your high horse about manners, it helps your credibility to make a minimal effort to spell the name of the one whom you call all sorts of derogatory names.

Only trolls do not read the previous posts that refute theirs.

Some players always hit "new game"; others hit "rematch". Some play games during breaks at work, and rarely play multiple games at a sitting.

What difference does it make? Chess is chess. One can play, or one can get his knickers in a twist over some perceived slight. Short of badgering your opponent with lazy and noxious comments like "gg", there's not much worth complaining about.

Loser is more entitled to a rematch if they lost with black than with white. Nobody else said it, so I will.

No I am not tired of people not rematching after one victory. It's ridiculous that people think the reason someone doesn't want to play anymore is because you beat them the first time or vice versa. Then you get stupid messages on your profile. I don't want to play the same person a lot of the time although I recently played someone 22 times in a row. I won most of the games but at a certain point it was funny and I just wanted to see how often I would play before he would stop. It's the internet people. Just because I lost or won and don't grant a rematch doesn't make it the end of the world, and certainly doesn't warrant derogatory messages being posted on my profile like what happened to me (not that I care).

I wish this site had more intelligent people like Ziryab.  He pretty much hit the nail in the head.  Nobody OWES you anything.  I've had many 1-game matches where I had Black.  Many of them I've lost, especially on ICC, where I've played well over 10,000 games, a mix of Blitz, Standard, 5-minute, 3-minute, Wild, etc.

And then to tell people that they are obnoxious for not offering or accepting a rematch is only something a retard would do.

The world doesn't revolve around the loser of a blitz game.  I might be at work and only have time for 1 game.  I might be at home with my almost 3-year old complaining.  I might have a heart attack after winning.  I might not want to play you because you play garbage!  I don't accept rematches against people that play utter crap like 1.e3, or 1...f6, 2...Kf7, 3...g6, or other trash like that as they are a complete waste of my time - I could care less that I had White and smashed that player.  Worthless players like this are merely trying to grab ratings points via making opponents run out of time due to unfamiliarity, but little do they know that their moves are so weak that I only need 1/2 the time to smash them.  What's worse?  Players like this, after they lose, will tell you that you got lucky, and were losing all the way, and how you are such a pansy for not accepting their rematch.  Worthless people like this need to go crawl in a hole and never come back.

Because of people's ranting on the forums, I've taken up the habit of saying "sorry, ciggy break. gg" or something similar after a game.

Not for the first time I find myself thinking whether it would be possible for chess.com to implement a ´best-out-of-three´ option in the seek parameters. Not playing the second game would automatically award rating points for the dismissed party. Either that or give out a warning, similar to that they give for stalling, aborting etc.

Just wondering...

the best of three option would certainly seperate the players who are just trying to get rating points from the real players. I think it's a great idea. As of now, I'm still blocking anyone who plays 1 game and runs... 

Still difficult to separate the 0.1% of players who "are just trying to get rating points" from the 99.9% who deny a rematch for some other reason. Anyway, if you and the other guys who insist on rematching built a separate pool, all would be happy. 

+5

if this thread goes on for a few more pages though, I wil take the "pro rematch" side and troll the hell out of it.

I think people assume far too much... And where these assumptions are coming from I really don't want to know...

@Savage....when sb gets a win with just 0.1 sec and u ask for a rematch and they dont give u one is in my opinion a  coward action but when sb plays against me ,i got a queen and a rookvs king and at least 10 secs advantage and he plays there is no way i'll give a rematch to that guy,but if for example i got a pair of rooks but just 4 secs left and he plays for a time win and he loses i'll give a rematch....

If you ask for a rematch after losing by .1 seconds it means you are a poor sport, and are unable to take a loss gracefully. Someone who asked for a rematch in that case would lose all respect from me.