@JackStone73 said in #1:
> Why many players after winning don't offer a rematch to the opponent? We call "rivincita"
> There's no translation for this word, literally Re-winning.
> This is a second chance for the opponent to win a game against the same player.
>
> In my culture, a good player always offers a rivincita.
>
> I would like to know why many players I meet don't offer it?
Just because it is considered good form in your culture doesnt mean that the rest of the world is A.) aware of this cultural norm of yours OR (B.) is obliged to adhere to it. I personally have a rule that I like to stick to as much as possible, that I analyze my previous game before I play another one, that way I am guaranteed to analyze my games. I am certainly not going to change that up because of rivincita or some other random cultural norm. And as LinearStork said, and I am assuming he has played some OTB games in the past because it used to be common in OTB settings, I very much appreciate when my opponent joins me for post game analysis. After the analysis, time permitting, absolutely I'll do a rematch. In my opinion, something that is really lacking today in chess is the post mortem, because nowadays people just load the position into their phones, see if they blundered and what their ACPL was, and they move on. When it comes to rivincita, people should be careful about pushing their cultural norms onto other people.