The main reason to decline rematches. FEAR

It’s kinda sad that you feel so insignificant and insecure that you feel the need to post kick up a fuss on a chess website and try to prove yourself by denying what hundreds of different people are telling you ( including masters) and having a ridiculous tantrum about a tiny and trivial thing such as a select few amount of people that you have played not doing what you would do. It’s ok to think something and maybe even raise it in a calm way, but right now it’s blatantly obvious to everyone here that you just want to find something to complain about. Do us and the chess.com community a favour and go back to your therapist.

Before you say anything I always accept rematches

The only valid point I have seen you make is about the best out of three idea, and even that is not great since their would be an uneven distribution of colours

"Let’s take a step back here. I don’t think the original poster deserves this kind of hostility. They raised a fair point—declining rematches, especially after a lucky win or time scramble, can feel unsatisfying and against the competitive spirit of chess. It’s something a lot of players notice and discuss.

Sure, the tone may have been passionate, but that doesn’t make the idea less valid. Forums exist for players to share opinions, frustrations, and suggestions. Dismissing someone’s point of view as 'insignificant' or telling them to 'go back to therapy' doesn’t help anyone—it just makes the conversation toxic.

Chess, like any competition, comes with etiquette and sportsmanship, and accepting a rematch can be seen as a sign of respect for your opponent. Whether you agree with that or not, the original poster’s perspective isn’t outlandish; they just care about keeping the game competitive and fair.

Let’s keep the discussion civil and constructive. After all, we’re all here because we love the game of chess. There’s no need to checkmate each other in the comments. 😊"

You do have a point, but in fairness most of what I am saying is no worse than what he has said. I just feel there are too many of these people who are clogging up forums with their views and denying whatever is being said against their argument. Yes I do recognise that declining rematches is annoying and that maybe having multiple games in a match could be a good format to play in but their have been some valid points made against that, and withought the aggression that I have showed, and he has dismissed them all as excuses and acted like he is better and more right than many respected and well spoken members of the chess.com community. If he didn’t call people cowards when they had legitimate reasons not to accept a rematch then I would probably listen more to what he had to say, but the fact that whenever someone has said something he has quoted them to in some way or another to tell them that they are wrong really is not the right way to go about raising a legitimate problem and seems more like a troll post.

also just look at his games, he is either a cheater or a sandbagger

chess.com should just force games to be in matches of 2 anyways. fair for both players to get white and black at least once.

Implementing something like this might need to be optional, as not everyone has the time or patience for back-to-back games. A good compromise could be offering a 'Best of 2' mode as a default option in casual games while keeping single games available for those who prefer quick play.

There is no Luck in Chess.

Ah, the classic stalemate out of spite—truly one of the finest power moves in chess. 🏆 It’s like saying, “You can have the board, but you’ll never have the win.”

And the emojis? Well played. You turned his ‘smack talk’ into an instant karmic boomerang. I can just picture him frantically spamming rematch requests like, “Come back, I wasn’t ready for that!” 😂

Honestly, refusing that rematch was the right call. He deserved to sit there, staring at his screen, wondering how his ‘😂’ turned into a 😭. Chess isn’t just about moves; it’s about the mind games, and you sir, won that round brilliantly.

Needs to ba an acronym; like maybe N.O.Y.A.R. (nobody owes you a rematch)
even if someone had a nice win against you and wants to end their session on a high note, what's wrong with that? It was YOU who lost and are responsible for it. Rematch Insistence Syndrome (R.I.S.) is a sign of psychological immaturity.

Ah yes, N.O.Y.A.R.—Nobody Owes You A Rematch. It’s not a rematch denial; it’s a graceful exit strategy. 🎤

Here’s a thought: If you want a rematch so badly, maybe try winning the first game next time. You know, W.I.T.F.G.—Win It The First Game. 😂

Exactly. There are many good reasons to not rematch. The OP just refuses to accept it, I understand it feels less competitive to decline rematches, but the reasons are there to decline a rematch.

In practice, I usually honor rematch requests, but I mostly play turn-based, where there aren't a lot of blunders to excuse losses, and I figure if I beat the guy the first time I'll probably beat them again.

Free elo farming technique unlocked.

The thing is, as one gets older one can't perform as often or as frequently as one used to. Whereas once as upon a time it was possible to go again almost as soon as mate was achieved, nowadays a good deal of rest and recovery is required before the action can resume.

Can you clarify as to what your point is please?

True competitors don’t shy away from a challenge.

There are lots of good reasons not to rematch. Most have nothing to do with how well one side played or who won.

Usually declining a rematch has to do with something more important or interesting happening besides another game of chess with that particular person.