Suggestion proposal : resignation required for a rematch offer

#7 Toadofsky, I thought this thread was about the "resigning required for a rematch" topic. Where did you get that "increment vs. no increment" from?

#11 It came from there being only a few ways a game can be decided:
* Time out
* Checkmate or stalemate (or draw claim)
* Agreement of result (resignation or draw offer)

I'm pretty sure OP is most concerned about players who play out "lost" positions hoping the opponent will either time out or blunder (presumably in time pressure). I shifted the focus to "we wouldn't be in this circumstance and an opponent is likelier to resign if the winning player were at low risk of losing on time".

Makes sense to me @Toadofsky, I always play with an increment makes for a better endgame, If OP is concerned with what 'feels' like a more satisfying game, it feels a whole lot better to win by dominating the board materially or forcing checkmate using the best tactical strategy, not just good flaggers who can timekeep. I'd add an increment and it might solve your problem all together about not wanting to accept rematchs.

Ultimately no lichess site developer is going to accept installing unilateral controls to stop 'non resigners' from being able to propose rematch, it goes against the spirit of the game. You can ask for a personal opt out option but that is beyond unlikely given the work developers already have on their plate.

I'd think about what it is you need to do to change your outlook on the situation, adding an increment, thinking about it as an opportunity to improve your endgame, etc.

Goodluck.

@Toadofsky
Why there is no rematch button after quick (little time used, few moves played: 5 moves or less) and decisive Atomic Chess games?

@Tangelo777 Beats me; I'm certainly not advocating for the feature!

#13 I entirely agree.

@Tangelo777 That happens in every variant and regular chess. It's move-related, not time-related. Basically done to prevent sandbagging, I believe, since it's not present in casual and anonymous games, only in rated.

Fine; let's assume it's move-based. How do you define "winning" or "losing"? Surely you don't blindly trust an engine evaluation?

#12 Toadofsky, I think OP doesn't mean he dislikes to lose on time when he is winning.

I think he is talking about situations when he has much time left and also is lots of material ahead and when opponent is sitting thinking many minutes/move. I have had such situations in standard. Mostly I block such players after one game because I get bored.

However I don't think condidtional rematch is a good solution. There are , in particular, in short games many situations where someone loses on time without executing the above behaviour.

@blackzombie to avoid the situation you described, check your opponent's game completion rate before starting of a long game. For me, this problem has occurred only with players that have game completion rate of below 85%.

Thanks! I will try