Why no one accepts rematches??

I just don't get it.

I'm guess a lot of my fellow players here follows chess content creators and pros, so surely we all see that most of them play matches instead of single games, right? Why almost no one likes to do the same?

In a lot of situations when I get to play a few games with someone, usually is a good experience because we both tend to use our favorite lines in each game, so you get to test your openings/defenses in a lot of ways. I think it's great training. You can even grasp how this other person approaches the game after a few games like "i see this dude is very tactical, let me try this closed line to see how he works that out" and that's interesting.

Sometimes we don't to play more, but declining rematches seems like a second nature behavior, no context needed. People seem to put so much ego in the game that they never accept a rematch offer if they lose. I don't even try it anymore. But many players also don't accept when they win, which always leave me with the feeling it's about the points and they don't want to risk giving them back? Or don't want to check if they were lucky in the 1st game? Or maybe they simply imagine the other player is foaming at the mouth and it's funny not to let him/her have his desired revenge. But sometimes we just want to play another game and there's nothing more. But what annoys me the most is when people declines a rematch after a draw. Come on guys, universal unwritten law, if it's a draw we play another, no?

Well, it doesn't seem to be the case. But it's a shame. Playing a series of games against someone is the moment where playing here comes a little closer to playing OTB in a bar or something, instead of playing a series of random flags and usernames. But what to do, I know it will keep being like that, guess I'm just venting. Peace

Here's a tissue.

When Australia beats Brazil at soccer, we don't play another, no?

that comment shows just how this community is full of d-bags unfortunately, and some of them even have chess for a living, like yourself.

Wrong. I can't even think of anyone who mostly plays matches. Who does that and why?

The default in almost all competitive online games is: go next (ie no rematch, select search new game). It's no surprise this carried over to online chess.

Also yeah like magipi I can't think of a single content creator that does mostly match series.

Maybe at very high rating (3000+) people tend to do more rematches because there's barely anyone with a similar rating online.

We have better things to do. We could care less abt sportsmanship. Actually, declining a rematch isn't even bad sportsmanship. No one is obligated or as their duty, give a rematch

Like idc, if I just flagged you in the most disgusting way. I also don't care if I scholar's mated you or if I hung my queen in 10 moves.

My experience with playing Daily games is that most of the time, rematches are accepted. It may be that players who prefer slower time controls are less focused on ELO and more on just enjoying chess. The Daily game format also allows time for in-game Chat, which tends to establish a relationship between players. And translate apps are cool for chatting across language barriers ...

if you're wondering why streamers and titled players offer rematches, you may have also noticed that the opponents who they rematch are also titled. This is because at their level, many players are cheaters and playing them would be wasting the streamer's time. To avoid this, they rematch other titled players since the title is a verification that they are most likely not cheating and they still give a decent challenge. If it is a lower rated player that they rematch, they are likely going for adoption or something else like a double disambiguation bishop checkmate or Aman Hambleton's set the board back up checkmate. Hope this clears up your concerns!

omg another one

who needs rematches? why?

@AdhvaithAjay titled players cheat too (proof - chess.com claims that many titled players get banned), maybe even more often than non-titled because Caruana estimates that over 50% titled players cheat in titled tuesday.

That sounds like a bunch of completely unfounded conspiracy bs.

It's very simple - if you rematch, on average your opponent gains 1200 elo. Not everyone, but enough. (If someone friends me and/or discusses the game we just played a little, I'll always give a rematch. If they instantly mash the rematch button, 90% rage rematch likely....)

If I play against a mature adult, I will happily play them again, win or lose. But this website attracts many trolls, nuts and immature people. When I encounter them I just block them and move on.

My point is not that anyone HAS to accept, obviously no, but why is so uncommon for anyone to accept or offer, you see?

I was just wondering if there's something like a general opinion that rematches suck and I'm missing a chess unwritten rule, like the london sucks or en passant is forced hahaha

Let's vote:

https://strawpoll.com/2ayLQbx33n4

Sometimes, players just don’t have time for another game. Many play a quick match and then need to get back to other tasks, and they may not want to get drawn into a longer series.

I usually decline a rematch, but recently agreed to a couple and it turned out that they weren't sandbaggers. Often though I get requests from 5 minute 900-1000 blitz players for a rematch after I beat them who also have a 1300+ rapid rating. That's a sandbagger.

It's rare that I get a request for a rematch after I lose. That did happen the other day though when I blundered in the middle of a good game so my opponent requested a rematch and we played a couple more games.

You not going to get a lot of students with the constant snarky responses on the forums.