Hello,
I have a personal policy that I wrote on my bio : "no resign? no rematch"
Why did I decided on this policy? Because I was annoyed by all those players who get a completely lost position (I'm not talking just about a few pawns off, but like a king left against four pieces and stuff) and keep playing like nothing happened, maybe hoping to flag me (even when I have lots of time left).
Don't get me wrong, people have the right to be stubborn and to be honest sometimes their strategy work, not so rarely I ended up losing on time, losing because of a big blunder or drawing in a stalemate trick.
But what I find a bit much is when guys like that offer me a rematch. I did not enjoy playing the part of the game where it was just a formality. If I won it was at best boring, if I lost it was annoying. So I want to discourage this behavior, and I don't accept rematches in that case.
Would it make sense to make this systematic? That is, you can't offer a rematch unless you resigned? Granted, there would be an issue for people who got checkmated by surprise, but still.
The most rude behavior is to request people to resign. The material is only one aspect of the position. There are many more things. I have checkmated opponent when I had only king and rook vs lots of material. So a rook or a queen can checkmate alone. A knight can deliver a smothered mate with help of opponent's pieces. I have done that too. There is draw by perputual check and stalemate. If your opponent refuses to resign in a position you believe is hopeless, play carefully. Your opponent may see things you don't. Once your opponent loses hope, he or she will promptly resign. It's usually one move before a forced checkmate.
Regarding your policy, nobody cares. You are not that important for anyone to get inconvenienced if you decline a rematch. It's very easy to find a different opponent. Your policy should be, if you lost a game and your opponent played 0/0/0 or any other reason you believe your opponent has cheated, no rematch. If you don't have time for another game, no rematch.
Watch game completion rate. Some players abort and milk clock. Those with 80% or lower game completion rate. Don't play long games with these people.
It would not make sense to make this systematic. You can ignore the rematch if you want. It's pretty obnoxious to assume anyone who asks for a rematch does so out of malice or ill-intent.\
"Granted, there would be an issue for people who got checkmated by surprise, but still."
But still what? You have a counter-argument for your proposition. A valid one. You can't discredit it by saying "but still".
"to be honest sometimes their strategy work"
If it's by the rules, and you lost, then you deserved to lose. I don't mean any disrespect, but time controls exist for a reason.
If you didn't like your opponent, don't play. I find this suggestion to be unsportsmanlike.
#1 I have an alternate proposal: in the name of quality chess, increment should be mandatory for all games. That way a player should not lose on time.
#5 I strongly disagree. There is no point in playing timed games if time is not a factor (being "unable" to lose on time). Furthermore, having short increment (1, 2 seconds) won't be of much use to people who get regularly flagged. Playing with short games and (or) games without increment has its risks, and some people enjoy that. Why do you think so many people are ready to berserk in tournaments? Nobody is forced to play without increment, so I don't see the point of forcing people to play with it. And also, zero-time moves (premoves) exist.
#6 I didn't suggest that time is not a factor. I'm responding to forum trolls (intentionally or otherwise) who don't enjoy zero-increment games but for some strange reason will protest use of an increment (perhaps because it's more difficult to find an opponent). In other threads players ask to enlarge the clock which we recently enlarged.
"Having short increment (1, 2 seconds) won't be of much use to people who get regularly flagged."
Fine, at your suggestion players who regularly flag should require long increments.
"Also, zero-time moves (premoves) exist."
Only for users with steady (constant latency) internet connections.
I don't think this will work. Playing until the you're time is out is not unsportitive when position is equal or you have better position or when both players are very low on time. A lost game can also end with a checkmate.
Summary: Not resigning doesn't mean you execute the behaviour you mentioned above.
But I agree the behaviour is annoying. Mostly I don't accept rematches from such players for the main reason that I was bored. Doing this systematic seems a far-fetched option though.
#7
@Toadofsky You do realize you're also trolling here?
Change your outlook, hold off on forcing checkmate as long as possible to hunt down all their pieces in new and ingenious ways, at the end of the day they are just trying to improve their endgame, you should too, instead of looking for sneak checkmates, use the opportunity to practice dominating materially.
Finally if they are harrasing you in the chat and just playing on to waste your time you can corner their king and take it to 49 moves after the last piece take, and checkmate on the 50th its more satisfying than you'd think, exercising perfect control of the game.
