Accepting rematches

I wonder who the most stubborn pair of rematchers in chess.com history are.  Because obviously the only way to not be a coward is to carry on playing the same opponent until one of you dies, either of old age, hunger or some other means.  Anything less is just people whining!

I have a better idea than the mandatory rematch option I previously suggested.  A simple statistic like our ratings for the percentage of rematches we accept based on the past 100 rematch requests we receive.  We can then select a range of rematch percentage acceptors to play against, just the same as we can select a range of rated opponents.  I will suggest it to Chess.com now...

Deleted mod KS 

The more filters you apply the longer it will take you to get matched in a game.  For something of 0 importance that seems a bit of a pointless delay.  The difference between relaying and just cliking a new opponent is nothing.

welcome to the MOST discussed subject on chess.com.

I'm firmly in the "NO" camp.  If I HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM I'm not playing a rematch!

I don't see why it is unkind.  Some unknown internet person plays some other unknown internet person.  Then they go and play some other unknown internet person.   There's almost certainly a higher percentage of engine users amongt people playing replays since a lot of them just want revenge for losing so that's a good enough reason to move on.

I completely agree

I think MOST problems would easily be resolved if polite were just polite. if you can't do a rematch, send a little note saying why.  if you want to rematch, perhaps a pm is better than clicking the "rematch" button.

courtesy-  its beautiful Thing!  

if you were there in Person, wouldn't you be polite if you wanted a rematch?  

as for engines, I spot them SO infrequently at my level.

I mean usually me and MY opponent are making huge obvious errors.  and yet SOME people see engines everywhere.  I'm just NOT convinced.

"if you were there in Person, wouldn't you be polite if you wanted a rematch? "

That's pretty much the point though.  We're not here in person, we're on a server of some 20,000 people.  If I was in a chess ghall with 20,000 potential opponents I certainly wouldn't play the same person twice and it wouldn't be rude because they would also have a huge number of new opponents to play.  If I'm going round to someone's house to play some chess then sure I'd play a bunch of games if they are short games.

If you are sat opposite a real opponent you know who they are too so there is more of a personal connection.  On the internet people might as well be robots rather than humans for all the difference it makes.

It's not just about trust, it's just about one internet person is no different to the next, but will at least likely play a different style of chess or range of openings so might as well go for a new unknown person as the same one.

Nonesense, my idea would be just like the rating option.  If you set your range too narrow to find matches, you could just widen it to include those who accept rematch requests at a lower percentage, until you at least mostly play against other players who prefer to play more than one game against opponents.

It is not of 0 importance.  There are several advantages to playing rematches.  I always accept one rematch request from everyone I beat as a matter of prinipal and good sportsmanship, but only accept or request multiple rematches when I enjoy the style of play of my opponent; such as if he accepts my opening.  Win or lose, I prefer to practice the various lines that follow when my opening is accepted.

     Normally, I limit myself to one game per day on chess.com.  I try to work hard in each of my standard games and frequently I am worn out after the game is finished. 

     I'll play you the next day, just not right now.

I try and take on rematches untill one player has three wins I feel that is fair. See for the most part I am playing in the odd moments between class work and all the other trials of life we all have, so I dont always live up to this, but I try. That being said I agree people who play chess while attacking with words I will not replay as a point of pride.

Your Servant,

 Thayne Thomas Keele

My heart tells me to accept rematches b/c it is chivalrous and polite as explained by many players here. But after encountering many players who demand for MORE rematches even after I beat them 5 times consecutively, I find that those players are always going to insult you unless they get at least one win from you. The fact of the matter is that rematches come from the will to avenge his or her loss, and if a player fails to do so (after several rematches), he will insult you no matter what. 

It might be chivalrous if you wear a coat of armour and sit on a horse with a sword at your side.

I'm too lazy to read all the answers. But I think it would be fun with a "best out of 3" option when you invite someone to play. That way people who are too annoyed with runners can choose "only accept best out of 3 games". And if the other person only wants to play one game, he'll loose the other 2 automatically if he runs. 

That's a good idea.

Me neither.

     I can't give you a re-match because it is 8 p.m. and I always clean the lint out of my belly button at this time.  

Makes plenty of sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that I got a notification for this thread when the most recent post was seven years ago.