Accepting rematches

Then there's no point bothering to explain

There is no point to tell me when to analyse, when to take a break and whom to play next game.

Ok man, just cool...

Really depends. Odds are, if I'm playing a 1 or 2 minute game, it's because I have barely any time left. That's all I got time to play. However, if you just manage to scrape out a win (ie they run out of time when you have .6 seconds left, or you have been losing / the game has been mostly equal the whole game and they just miss one thing near the end that screws them over, a rematch would be polite. However, you are under no obligation or requirement to offer or accept one. That being said, when you win, at least have the courtesy to say gg. Don't just leave the second the game is done. Show some basic respect. That would be my definition of a runner: wins the game with a cheeky tactic and has dc'd within a second of the game ending, without so much as a humble gg.

I agree

Interesting answers, at least one conclusion you can make is that there can be several reasons for not accepting a rematch, in which some should be very understandable even for people that thinks rematch is an obligation, why would you want to be late for a meeting, why would you want to ignore your baby that starts screaming and so on.

Ofcourse one of the reasons i started this thread was to highlight the mentality of people calling out people that does not accept rematches in not so nice ways, I have never understood why you would be mad for losing one internet blitz game.

Also in my personal opinion I think there is a legit point in that it can be nice to give your opponent a rematch in any lighthearted competition, simply because they want to play another game, but in a place like online chess you will never know the reason for your opponent not accepting the rematch and if you want to play again you might as well just find another opponent and not waste your time insulting the guy that might think differently than you about rematch obligations and which you don't know the reason for not playing again.

Complicate things, I'm always ready for a rematch. Again I say. Opinions differ, it's nice and fair to give a rematch, and the reason why someone would not give a rematch could be and did not want to lose to the same guy. It is also human nature - to be the least of someone better. We can now talk about this endlessly, but I'll go back to the point of chess. The only meaning of the word rematch and same that act of geaving a rematch have in a chess match.

If there wasn't the arbitrary internet handle up there above or below the board people wouldn't even know if they were playing the same person again so quite why it matters when you can see the internet name that tells you nothing about the person will forever remain a mystery.

A game of chess is just a game of chess, whichever faceless individual it happens to be against.

If I won and my opponent wants a rematch, I'll grant it if I have time.  If I lost and he just wants to beat up on me some more, I usually decline.

There is no requirement for a rematch, but I think a lot of one and doners are just lame.  They play blitz with no increment, use a stonewall opening and do ANYTHING to win on time.  Then, they decline to replay because they know you are stronger, have figured them out and would beat them in games two to infinity...

Yes...that is true...

So...And if it makes you feel strong, but it is not the real power and knowledge, but a virtual one.

Indeed. Another forum on this particular topic. Heh. I really don't know why there's soo much dispute. I think most players on this site or other sites have a sense of decency. Some do not but whatever the case may be it's ultimately not out of bounds to refuse a rematch. I play just to play and I like playing on this site because of the convenience of playing on my own time and not being obligated.

I never request a rematch and expect none given even if I lost on my own merits or some technicality. I fully expect my opponent to respect my right to refuse their request as I would respect theirs if ever I wanted one. I don't take it personal if it's one n done. If it's a friend or acquaintance yeah, I'd probably play them again. Or if it's an opponent I've run into occasionally at different times and they're cool. Sure, why not? But bottom line is people respect me as I do them. What's lame is players calling others lame just because their request is declined. There are Soo many games to be played. Just move on and just play guys.

All nonsense, you can not rely on people to do the right thing or be decent, you make the rules fair.  End of story.  There is NO excuse not to give a rematch after you won with the white pieces in a blitz or bullet game.  If your time is running low, or you have some other BS excuse to run like a coward, you should have the option to play black to avoid a mandatory rematch, but when you start as white, and win, a mandatory rematch rule should be in effect.

If you agree with me, copy/paste the following to all profiles who run after starting as white in blitz or bullet games:

Copy/paste this to everyone's comment section who plays white and then refuses you a rematch to submit your vote!  In Blitz, and Bullet games, when someone wins as white, and black requests a rematch, it should be MANDATORY!  If someone only has time for one game, they can play black!

I suggested this to chess.com, and the guy agreed that it was a good idea, yet it has not happened yet.  None of the arguments above to refute my idea are worth spit, becasue simply put, if you only have time for one game, you can play with the black pieces.

... You do know color is determined randomly, right?

Well my suggestion would change that slightly now wouldn't it?  It would still be random, unless you prefer to avoid the MANDATORY rematch rule, which would only apply when the black player loses, and then requests a rematch.

To avoid the MANDATORY rematch rule, your game would obviously NOT be random.  You would be black every time, until you are ready to stop running away like a big fat cowering little baby.

There's no need to be insulting.

I sign up for one game of chess.  I couldn't give a flying fig what colour I am or who my opponent is or whether I win or lose.  Next game I'm going to play someone else, if indeed I even play a next game.  Those who don't like it can grow up and realise it really doesn't matter who they play.  They could also learn to play with the black pieces.

I'd be more than happy if chess.com added an option for multi-game matches, then I can avoid them like the plague and the rematch obsessives can all play each other and be happy.  Sadly such an option doesn't exist though so I just have to block such people instead.  The ones who whine about no rematch are mostly just people who are angry they missed the opportunity to switch their engine on for a revenge rematch anyway.

Although you seem intent on agressively defending your right to run like a cowering little baby, you just agreed to support my suggested rule glamdring27, so I commend you on that.  Even better, you just came up with a good idea I did not think to include in my suggestion to chess.com.  They could easily make my suggested rule optional, so that only people who select this rule on the preferance settings page would be affected, and thus not have to block such people like you all the time.

Anybody who whines over a rematch is a special kind of stupid. If somebody doesn't want to or have time to give you a chance to repair your fragile ego after they beat you then big whoop. Get the F over it and play one of the other TWO MILLION blitz players here.