What happened with offering a rematch?

@Sybotes. Like you I sometimes do rematches and sometimes I do not - because for instance I happen to have to go. I than say sorry I have to go :). I never suggested that I expect my opponent to have half an hour and it is no issue at all if someone just plays one game because he just happens to have time for one game, is bored, needs to go to the loo, has a wife that shouts for dinner, or Gods know what. I really could not care less. I am talking about people who just move on to the next opponent (this is easy to see on lichess). I noticed that this is almost the standard practise these days (unlike two years ago) so I just wondered what people's opinion was and if this is the new "fashion". I thought it may have to do that people play more on their phone or was curious if there was any particular reason. Surprisingly some people seem to be even offended by the idea that offering a rematch is sporty, or saying good game etc. :). Maybe at the chessclubs one day people get offended when you ask shall we analyse the game or if you attempt a handshake at the start of the game :). I did not anticipate that and find it quite fascinating. Anyways, in general, if you like to run out the time when you are lost that is fine - if you like to use abusive language that is fine - if like to avoid any communication because you suffer autism or you believe communication is related to a disease that is fine too :). I always have the choice to block opponents as suggested by Bonzerpeach. Happily the chess community is broad and there are opponents for each and everyone. Good games all :).

I don't mind doing one rematch, just so that we can play with colors reversed. But I'd rather not have a psychological opening battle when I just came here to have fun. I suppose if I keep on winning , I might consider further rematches to gain rating points, but that's really just me being greedy. It doesn't help me get better at chess.

@ArnaudW Instead of all those pejorative straw-men you could have done much more by simply answering my original question: what is so sporty (or polite) about offerig a rematch?

That would be (a) polite, and (b) communicative.

Laatiko Apologies, I am pretty sure I already explained that in the previous posts - it is in my view polite to give your opponent the chance with reversed colours. It also gives a chance to your opponent to improve on the previous game if they lost.

thanks Nimoamerican, that is indeed exactly what I was talking about - one rematch to give your oppenent a chance to play with colours reversed (if you have time etc). Of course it can be fun to play a match but that is not what this thread is about.

Anyways thanks all for your interesting and intelligent responses, let us now play chess again :) - I wish you all great games here:)

@ArnaudW But that begs the question: why is it polite to offer your opponent another chance with reversed colours? What I'm after is this whole discussion feels like there's something very important going on in a game: if you win you'll be happy for the rest of your life, and if you lose you might as well commit a suicide. Therefore you offer your opponent a chance to overcome his terrible emotional and existential crisis caused by losing. Recognise your opponent's existence, don't disturb them, thank them for the time wasted, but there's no need for a second chance, unless you've agreed on that before the start of the first game. On the contrary, assuming to get a second chance when you haven't agreed on such, would be impolite.

Laatikko@ thank you, I appreciate your logic it is an elegant reversal of the argument and you could indeed see it that way too :).

But by the same token though one could wonder what is against offering or accepting a re-match - in line of your train of thoughts - is it really so important for you to move on to a new opponent? Are you sure that it has nothing to do you are afarid to lose rating? Will you commit suicide if the other guy wins in the rematch? Is your online rating really that important that you can not afford to be kind to a fellow chess player who for whatever reason likes to play another game of chess with you again?? :) Is it it morally wrong to offer someone another game?

If we lift it to club level you could argue the same - why shake hands why analyse the game afterwards with your opponent? You already lucky they waste their evening in your company (according to you) why would you even spend more time and analyse the game afterwards??Well somehow shaking hands and analysing the game afterwards are seen as traditions (at least in the UK) and good manner and this is part of chess club' culture'- but of course 'culture' differs (maybe where you are from people do not talk after the game?) and can change over time (sometimes for the better other times for the worse). So perhaps at some point it is not longer seen as good manner to shake hands or analyse the game afterwards at club level. Same for the offering rematch 'culture'- somehow I (and some others) believe it is a good manner because you offer the other person a chance to play again with reversed colours. So if you playing anyways why not make the other guy/girl happy was our thinking. You disagree obviously so you happily are not forced to play the same person ever more than 1 time.

Anyways this discussion starts to feel a bit like offering and accepting rematches. I did enjoy your arguments though so thank you for wasting your time just as I hope you appreciate I am wasting my time too :).

@ArnaudW As I stated earlier I will usually get bored of having the same opponent again (in online games). The outcome is I'll just wait for the game to end and I'll pay no attention, and then it won't be fun. It's not about the rating because I don't like rematches in casual either.

Then there are the opponent's motives for just wanting to play another game with me. There are many kinds of motives and it's not necessarily the right thing to accept a challenge from a player who just can't take a loss, is pissed off and wants to get his revenge. Maybe it's better not to interact with such people at all. I know I don't want to participate in some weird ego battles over a meaningless online game of chess.

You shake hands because it's a part of greeting and showing respect towards your opponent (in our shared cultural patterns). It is interaction that shows you acknowledge the existence of another subject and respect him. If you could do this in some other ways, it would be ok too. Imo.

You analyse the game afterwards because you are interested in analysing the game. If you have something better to do, go for it.

Most of my otb experience is from tournaments, club or other, and there's no idea in having a meaningless rematch that won't go to the results, not to mention the lack of time and energy for it. If I play against my friend, then there are "rematches", but actually it's about playing many games in a row against the same opponent, while eg. waiting for the tournament to begin. What you say about rematch offers' politeness might be based on the custom you've got used to, and nothing more. When you don't have that kind of experience for framing the situation, you don't think there's any politeness involved. It's just a game. "For some reason he wants a rematch." I play as in any official tournament, new opponent after a new opponent. :) Happy gaming!

Why do we play chess? To boost our ego by winning? To enjoy the tussle of fairly equal abilities? For the intellectual satisfaction of analysing something (and getting it more right than wrong)? For the beauty of some of the positions and combinations that sometimes arise? As far as I am concerned, there is an element of all of these. And if I have had a close game with someone who I think will give me another good game, why would I not want to play him again? Better him than a random player who might be easy to beat. [I play only 5 minute chess so the games are over within10 minutes]. If I win and he's a good opponent I give him time to offer a rematch (unless the wife is calling me for something). If I lose I usually move straight on to a new opponent because I know 99 per cent are going to refuse a request so why wait to be rejected? My games are therefore against opponents I never meet again, or they develop into non-stop blitz and may last for up to 8 games against the same person - all depending on available time.

I fully understand the desire to analyse a game straightaway rather than jump into the next game (I often do this). But I don't understand the frantic desire to avoid a particular player where the first game could have gone either way. But don't worry. I'll never ask you for a second game.