What are rematchsickos? Sounds intriguing. Perhaps you'd care to expand on this fascinating new concept?
Is it a new brand of firelighter?
On chessdotcom I often refuse rematches and then somehow they find my seek and join me, so then I just block 'em.
I also hate it when people request the rematch multiple times. I clicked "no," get over it. I 100% would rather get a new opponent every game.
Seriously when a player beats me easily they always greedily request a rematch. They are assholes.
When a player loses, they think "Oh I'm better than this guy! Come on!" and request a rematch. They are assholes too.
I can only speak for myself (and I wouldn't wanna defend people who feel entitled to a rematch anyway), and I personally don't feel greatly offended when a person doesn't stay for a rematch.
After a first match with somebody, if I beat them I will not send instant rematch. That's rude (again, if it happens to me I can deal with it, but I know it can be rude, so). I will wait a moment to see if they want a rematch, and if they stay and I want a rematch, I'll send one.
If a person beats me, especially if it's a close match, and instantly leaves that sometimes can feel like an unfinished conversation. I know people got their reasons, and even if they didn't it's all up to them. But it can suck sometimes.
Imagine you're having a battle of wits and your opponent waits to get one up on you just one time and then instantly walks away. Just sucks. And "you're not entitled to a rematch" is not a refutation, however true it may be.
I think the problem in the forums is that people use this sort of fact of life to respond to a much gentler issue of sportsmanship.
Yo, no one's trying to police the interactions of chess players. Just because you're not entitled to a great experience doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have it. So stop being whiny c*nts about it.
I usually agree to play one game and I know that in advance. No matter how the outcome is: I am a free man after that particular game. DON‘T BOTHER ME WITH FURTHER IMPLICATIONS!
By the way, lichess mods even closed such „rematch“ and „takeback“ threads. Because there‘s no implication and no moralizing.
Is it so hard to understand that imposing your ideal of fairness is just bothering the majority?
The Point .
How many times do I have to explain that no one is trying to impose anything?
And it's not "my" ideal. Everybody knows that a rematch is part of sportsmanship. You CAN ignore it. And if you do, who cares.
Leaving before a rematch can take place is OKAY. It has minor "ethical"/"moral" implications that are not a big deal. But it IS a sportsman's thing to give that rematch. However: you. don't. have. to. And nobody's trying to force you to.
you know, when I don't care for a rematch and just hop to the next opponent I don't think a great deal of it - because it ain't a great deal. But I'm aware that it's sportsmanlike to give an opponent a chance at getting even with you.
And your whole argument is that you didn't agree beforehand to a rematch, as if the concept of sportsmanship is a legally binding one. L o l. Can it get any more formal and dense, please.
So, no: no one's trying to """impose""" anything on you. People just feel a way about opponents rushing to the next game after their match.
And here you are, acting like someone asking a the community a question about their behavior regarding rematches is like chess stalin forcing you to go to rematch gulag.
If its bad sportsman to refuse rematch then every player is bad of sport because you are going to quit play at some point. Otherwise you'd just rematch over and over in an endless loop to be not a bad sport, so yeah stupid argument.
Sometimes I accept rematch but I don't like rematchs and I don't offer rematchs. The rematch isn't a right of the loser.
In a Open tournament, simple round robin and in the team league when you lose to some people you don't have a rematch. Simply accept loss the game and go ahead.
I can't imagine a soccer player crying for rematchs after losing a soccer game. Well sometimes the losing team is crying about referee...
It's almost like people didn't read what I said.
Let's say that not staying for/ accepting a rematch is a -0.3 on your good boy card.
That's so little, and you don't even owe it in the first place. And the state doesn't legislate rematches so you're a free man who don't need no rematches! Doesn't that sound fantastic?!
Now imagine that in fact granting the courtesy of a rematch to a player who would like to make right against you gives you a +2 on your good boy card.
That's also great, innit? In fact, for the other player that's fantastic! It's a thing you do for the other, first and foremost. Which is what sportsmanship means.
However, since neglecting this virtue is only a minor inconvenience, and only gives you a -0.3 it's not a big driving motor behind the movement of making play more sportsmanlike, it's not a big deal not to do it.
Now you got me all f'd up trying to make granting a rematch something that is not tied to sportsmanship at all - presumably to make yourself feel better about yourselves (but who knows what really motivates you to do that). But that's where you're wrong, kiddo.
No one's telling you to feel bad about yourself for not taking the time to treat your digital opponent like a human instead of an awkwardly playing bot that you shouldn't curse at, there's just some people who feel a certain way about this tradition of sorts. Again, we agree that it's unreasonable to get your panties twisted because someone doesn't want to rematch you. But the general notion of trying to improve the community by bringing up the topic is not inherently entitled or wrong.
I think this sums it all up neatly.
"Let's say that not staying for/ accepting a rematch is a -0.3 on your good boy card." I don't agree with this. In sports you don't have rematchs.
"Now imagine that in fact granting the courtesy of a rematch to a player" now imagine this sentence in other sports...