Rematch Declined

Hey everyone,

Something has been bugging me for a while. Its when playing live chess. Its when your opponent plays white first up and wins and then won't rematch. While I would agree that it is their right to decline, it is not really very sporting. Unfortunately it is becoming more and more common, and it seems now that a lot of people do it because so many people do it to them, and so its the only way to correct the imbalance. The effect is a general feeling of unpleasantness. I would prefer that we instead experienced live chess as a friendly and fair interchange with a deeper feeling of camaraderie behind it all. There are many players who are nice and genuine and so on, but an increasing number are not.

Essentially, by avoiding the rematch which you know will be a black game, you are going back to a 50:50 chance of getting another white game because this is randomly chosen by the system. As a result you can finesse the system so you can get up to 75% of your games as white. This an artificial way of increasing your rating, but also a way to get more wins - cheaply.

 have had this happen to me so often that I have taken to comment on player's pages when they do this, and more often then not there is a string of similar complaints from their past opponents all saying things like that player is a coward or not a good sport or a #@!*&$!!!! and much much worse.

So I propose two things to address this. 

1. Chess.com could change the opponent select and black/white allocation from using a random selection of black or white for each new challenge (a fresh opponent), to a system that calculates what your historical ratio of B V W is. If you have a heavy white bias in your games - which can only be due to you deliberately declining rematches where you would be playing as black - then the system will set you up as black, and keep doing this until your balance of completed games is closer to 50:50 B/W. This would also guard against aborting black games on new challenges from others.

Note that the system could come up against the problem where it searches and finds an opponent that also has a low black count, in which case it should keep searching. The benefit of this would be that for the player who is trying to avoid playing black games will progressively find they have to wait longer and longer before the system finds them an opponent.

2. The other side of this is discourage bad behavior in the eyes of the community. I think if someone's ratio of black to white gets beyond say 55:45 then is very likely that they are gaming the system, in which case their name should be shown in a particular colored font. I suggest scarlet.

This would alert others to this person not being fair minded and not conducting themselves in the spirit of the game.

I feel that the combination of these two things should be enough to stamp this problem out.

I would be interested very interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Cyber

The site already does 1. When you get a new game it tries to balance both players with even black and white.  

oh. Thanks for letting me know!

I will do some further analysis of this.

I don't like playing the same person twice in a row. Why should I be punished for that? Color and whatever result the game doesn't matter to me. Also, calling out people just cause they won't rematch you is childish.

I never ask for a rematch to someone if I lose or win, I just wait for them to request one and I will accept it. I had a rematch with someone because I beaten him easily so we had another game and he decided to abandon the game because I was clearly winning. It's ok if people don't want a rematch, we have no right to force them, we just repsect the fact they don't wanna rematch because maybe they need to go or something. I know that playing with white has an advantage to the game because mostly I have more wins with white than black so I always feel weak when I play black. Well actually it doesn't depend on who starts first its who wins first so starting first or second doesn't really matter that much. The site is pretty balance because when I play on live chess I play white and black alternate. I don't know if the site has this thing where you play white if you have a low white count and you get matched with someone who has a low black count. In general if I were to request a rematch and it got declined , I would just smile and look for another match and not talk about it on the forums. Just because a lot of people are doing this thing doesn't mean you have to do that too. To answer why people decline rematches because that's how the world is!!! or maybe they don't give a crap

Hi there,

There a many good enough reasons why one would not want a rematch. Let me give you a few of them:

_ One is at work, and has to quit playing chess online for a while as some work related task awaits...

_ One is in the process of simulating a tournament, playing a certain number of various opponents in a row. A rematch would not fit the simulation.

_ One can expect some casual cheaters to "start the engine" for the rematch, in revenge, or because they suspect you you've win using an engine.

_ One gets a phone call right at the moment you're asking for a rematch.

_ One planned on playing "just that game" and go food shopping afterward.

_ One is tired after that (or these) game(s) and wants to take a break.

Etc.

So, take it easy!

There's not such imbalance at the level of most of us.

Time is definitely a factor. You're much more likely to get rematches when playing bullet than 10 min games where the other player has to commit to playing for a more significant amount of time. 

+1 .... make that +100

OP has played more blitz games with white than with black, which is what I notice about most of the rematch-complainers.  They allege that the system is being gamed but can't back it up with any proof  

Some people also analyze their games right after they play, so that's why they would decline any rematches.  I also avoid rematching people who play junk bullet openings where they premove the first 6-10 moves and shuffle back and forth, hoping to win on time.  There are lots of reasons not to rematch.  Some people also might want to rematch but have already hit the new game button before your rematch offer came through

I agree with Wanmokewan that it seems very childish to complain on people's profilepage just because they won't rematch with you. Nobody is obligated to rematch you, respect people's decisions.

It would indeed be nice if one could play chess in a friendly manner. Getting angry at and pestering people because they simply do not wish to play you again for whatever reason seems antithetical to this.

As for artifically increasing your ratings by only playing white. I think you greatly overestimate the importance of having the first move. If you're a titled player that 0.25 of an advantage certainly is significant, but say two 1600~ players playing against each other, each side will make numerous sub-optimal moves so that this tiny advantage is insignificant. 

Ah, but you're just so wrong here. I was FFE rated 1690-1790 4 years long, and scored waaaay better with white than with black, to the point my captain in team play would almost always set me on a white board. Two reasons to that, as I analyzed the reasons:

1°) I was having a big problem figuring out an efficient defense with black against king's pawn opening, and that came from me being paralyzed from seeing so many white attacks possibilities, which is no BS since...

2°) I was very good at exploiting initiative and spotting attack opportunities out of it. To the point I was even able to ransack a 2100+ every now and then with white in less than 30 moves.

So, for a few years, until I've made progresses in understanding better some black defensive ressources, I scored like 75% with white and 25% with black... Yeah I know, it sounds crazy.

First of all, thanks to everyone who has responded to my post. I would say first up that I do very much respect people's right not to rematch, and I also understand that there are a number of legitimate reasons for not doing so even if you wanted to, like a phone call, or being at work and so on.

The main thing I want to respond to is the allegation of childishness. I am just raising the issue of wanting balance and a better playing experience. I make allowances for people having other reasons for not returning play as I said above, but the frequency of this occurring cannot be explained by external factors. The situation is pretty clear actually, just consider these stats I have compiled over many games:

1. After winning as black, people are over 3 times as likely to rematch you then they are if they just won as white. In other words they estimate that if they can win as black then they think they will probably win as white so they play the rematch. A cynical view I know but it seems to fit the data.

2. If they win as white, they decline a rematch around 80% of the time. My theory is that people don't want to risk equalizing, so take the win and run.

3. If they lose as white, they also decline with greater than 70% frequency because losing as black may be more likely than not.

4. If the lose as black they are about 50:50 on a rematch.

So, I am sorry but if it was other factors like the phone ringing, needing to go shopping, or fatigue than it would show up evenly across all four scenarios. But people just don't seem to have interruptions or pressing time constraints or bosses breathing down their necks after they just beat you as black. Suddenly they are available to rematch you. Funny thing that...

The purpose of my post was not to be labelled a 'rematch complainer' - (and I know it is popular in certain parts of the world right now to attack the person raising the issue as if they are the problem) - but rather to draw attention to it and canvas opinions in the hope that people may convince me that there are in fact sufficient legitimate reasons why we can't expect rematches any more than they occur. However, while I respect everyone's opinion, and a couple of them seem quite reasonable, I have yet to hear anyone really address my points properly, and provided satisfactory reasons for the low rematch count after winning as white and high rematch count after winning as black.

A few people were quite defensive and a couple were a bit aggressive, which I was surprised by. But in closing I want you to understand that I know it is people's right to do exactly as they please. That's fine. However I guess what I was hoping for was perhaps a little old fashioned, which is respecting one's opponent. White does have an advantage, and I think it is fundamental to the very idea of fair play and sportsmanship to offer one's opponent the opportunity to level the score. Perhaps to some of you this is a quaint, outdated, pre-internet ideal, but I think these values are worth highlighting to a new generation, conditioned as they are to anonymous unaccountable behavior.

Anyway, thanks to everyone. Best wishes.

Cyber

If you can show me someone who has played much more white than black due to declining rematches I might be interested in what you're saying.  However, I think that chess.com's pairing software makes sure that people play a near-equal number of whites and blacks.  I've never seen a "rematch complainer" who has a significantly larger number of blacks.  I remember a similar thread where the OP had the highest percentage of whites I've ever seen.  I actually have more blacks and I usually don't accept rematches.  If there's no one with a lot more whites than blacks then there is no problem

I'd like to see your "data" regarding rematch count.  Your numbers seem to be quite specific but I didn't see you cite any sources.

I think you also have to consider that some people wouldn't mind taking the rematch, but have already hit the new game button and have already been paired.  That happens to me a lot

In your last paragraph, about "fundamental fair play" and so on, you're not going to get much sympathy here.  The rules of chess don't require people to play a two game match.  Chess.com balances thing out by trying to equalize the number of whites and blacks each player has in the long term.  If you want true balance, then don't rematch anyone.  In some games you'll have a slight edge, in some games you'll have a small disadvantage, and in the long run it will balance out

Okay, imagine you sit home, on a day off, in front of a computer. You have got laundry to do, but you tell yourself "first a chess game!". Then imagine that, after the game, you stare at the re-match invite while your memory bells the ring you have to do the laundry...

Are you trying to tell us no one ever should have anything but a robotic and always even decision wether to postpone laundry or not, regardless of if they just won or lost? Some things are just human, and you can't hope for improvement until you find a way to set a gun on their head to force their decision to match yours. You can't fight the rain, drop it!

it's already a random selection if you and the other player are in the same point category if you play someone who is say 100+ rating I am always white in this instance. it's only a slight advantage.

I have this tremendous sense of deja vu

At our level it has very little to say if we play white or black. For example both of us has done better with black than white.

Calling someone a tosser, a coward, or even a naughty word with asterisks(we know what you mean) is mean spirited with absolutely no reason to be. Declining a rematch is not an excuse for treating people badly, thus it's childish.

If you don't agree the with the OP then you can just ignore this thread.

Can't believe you guys keep posting about your opinion about this topic.

What's the point if someone decline your rematch? It's not the end of the world or anything.

The OP said it would be fair if both play as white and black. There is no policy about that or anything.

Why would you be complain about people declining rematches? Can you just move on and accept it ike a man or complain about it like a chlidish person?