Why? Far too many opponents play to the bitter end in dead lost positions and almost never rematch (instead, they go off and play new opponents). Obviously, nobody *has* to rematch, but I'm curious why people almost never do (time constraints, analysis, etc., being laid aside as a reason).
What is the psychology behind this?
It's the internet, and they have as much freedom as they want.
On shorter time controls, a lot of players may try to play out a lost position in the hopes that they can get a flag. Lots of people have the philosophy that you should never resign because you might be able to force a stalemate or your opponent might blunder and let you back into the game.
The rematch thing... I'm on the other side of it. I basically never play rematches and find it surprising that there's a contingent of people who are very insistent on it (this may be a related to the fact that I haven't played OTB in over a decade, not sure). Generally I feel that having a new opponent each game takes the psychology out of it. You play your best game without having to think about stuff like "Well, this opponent did really well against the Sicilian last game, so maybe I'll try Italian instead".
I’m so confused, what’s wrong with trying to flag your opponent or giving him a chance to make a mistake? And why rematch??? Are we in a relationship or something?
"What is the psychology behind this?"
That is an effect explained in Social Psychology. For example that experiment from Yale University (made in a prison where the actors began to confuse reality with fiction and some 'cops' began to act in a violent way and that went so far that the experiment had to be stopped).
If you play for a long time where your opponents dont rematch you tend no rematch too. After some time lichess gain a egregora where 'players do not accept rematch'.
People are not such idiots so many of their actions are conditioned by the environment (egregora).
I believe that not accepting rematch is a subconscious decision. The player 'understands' that in the long run there would be a coin-flip (break even), so he prefers to keep the taste of victory. On the other hand, some players understand that even if he loses 2 or 3 games, he is able to win 2 or 3 games, so he asks to rematch to prove it to his opponent.
Sometimes some players understand he can beat you in a consistent way, than he ask to rematch when he beat you (make no sense, rematch is more interesting for who lost and want other chance to proof he can win, if the guy won, rematch offer is for humiliate you).
And, of course, sometimes our opponent play creative chess, put chalengers you consider stimulant, than you ask for rematch!
But I guess many players dont accept rematch because he dont wat give you the chance to show he is not better just why won a single game. And some players dont ask for rematch because know he will not be accepted and avoid get angry when it is refused...
If you beat someone they know little of your playstyle and if you lose the next game, you will lose more rating points. Not that I don't accept rematches tough.
It seems, based on the above responses, that people generally do not grant rematches (i) because they do not want to have their "playing style" revealed and countered (ii) are afraid to lose points. Which, to be perfectly honest, is exactly what I suspected.
People want to play *unprepared* opponents because they are scared that, otherwise, they would lose.
Does nobody else find that to be a tad .... eh ..... cheap?
@TheNuttiFropessor wow! thanks for repply in a more clear way. I think you are right, and that is my experience against high rated opponents.
When I play high rated opponents they like offer rematch and I accept. But sometimes I draw the 3rd game, and win the 4th game, my opponent stop play! It is like I was able to adapt... By playing against random players no one have a chance to adapt you!
This is certainly a psychological defense mechanism, more than just the missing rating points.
Not all players are prepared to accept that 2100 Vs. 1800 can be 6/10 which is almost coin-flip. They prefer to keep the appearance of it being 10/0 through 1 single game.
@will_is_myth Agreed. I find it strange that so many people defend this particular status quo. From a psychological perspective, however, it makes a lot of sense. Losing does not feel good so people will do what they must to avoid losing.
In my view, adaptability is one of the things that makes chess *more* interesting, not less. How many opening does your opponent know? Can they play equally well as black? How are they in a tactical battle as opposed to a positional one?
I understand that it is the internet and expecting civility is naive, but there should at least be some options available where the players can agree to play a match (i.e. best of 3 at 3/5, etc.). Sadly, these options do not exist.
As a low ranked player, I don't often resign because we (low ranked players) can blunder even a solid victory.
That said, I will resign more quickly if I play in a tournament to higher ranked opponents.
I often only play 1 game at a time and will only rematch if I liked the style of the person I played. (some people's play just makes me unhappy).