> It would be an excellent option
Considering how many suggestions from the forum were implemented, it wont be at all
Chess.com is flooded with cowards
Sort:
I always send rematch, but I do because I want to improve every time I can and waste time. If I saw you played good then I will send it, If I saw you are just bad, below my level, or not usefull, I will play a next game with somebody else. You let people affect you so much, play a next game, and stop crying.
3 days ago
0
#84
Where is it written in the rules of chess that best of 3 format is mandatory?
In tournaments, there are swiss tournaments where you play the same opponent once. There are round robin tournaments where you play each other twice.
There are WC matches, but there you play best of 14.
Best of 3 is pretty rare, because it is not good enough to determine a winner of a match, and it is not practical for a chess tournament either. For instance, if best of 3 games was the default format, Bobby Fischer would lose to Spassky in their WC match, and yet Fischer won convincingly 12.5-8.5, after 2 losses at the start.
I think that even in world blitz they play something like best of 4 in the knock out stage.
So suffice to say, best of 3 is pretty uncommon.
Online that format is even more unreasonable, because online games should remain flexible as they are now. You can play 1 game, or you can play 1 000 bullet games against the same opponent, if you wish to do so. Those are casual games after all, not the matter of life and death.
On top of everything else, the goal of playing games in a random pool is not to determine who is the better player, but who is the better player in that one game. You are free to make it a multiple game contest if both people agree, but that is up to those 2 players, it is not the default.
nklristic wrote:
Where is it written in the rules of chess that best of 3 format is mandatory?
In tournaments, there are swiss tournaments where you play the same opponent once. There are round robin tournaments where you play each other twice.
There are WC matches, but there you play best of 14.
Best of 3 is pretty rare, because it is not good enough to determine a winner of a match, and it is not practical for a chess tournament either. For instance, if best of 3 games was the default format, Bobby Fischer would lose to Spassky in their WC match, and yet Fischer won convincingly 12.5-8.5, after 2 losses at the start.
I think that even in world blitz they play something like best of 4 in the knock out stage.
So suffice to say, best of 3 is pretty uncommon.
Online that format is even more unreasonable, because online games should remain flexible as they are now. You can play 1 game, or you can play 1 000 bullet games against the same opponent, if you wish to do so. Those are casual games after all, not the matter of life and death.
On top of everything else, the goal of playing games in a random pool is not to determine who is the better player, but who is the better player in that one game. You are free to make it a multiple game contest if both people agree, but that is up to those 2 players, it is not the default.
we are discussing the option of adding it.
I mean, suposse You send a bullet match, I beat you, I bully you in the game, I play with my king and give you 10 free moves, I play stupid moves, and even so I check mated you, or you lose. What would I win from you playing a rematch? I mean, I will repeat the same, and bully you, and beat you, and then what? Nothing I learned . So for that reason after that I will continue with another person.
Dantex00 wrote:
I mean, suposse You send a bullet match, I beat you, I bully you in the game, I play with my king and give you 10 free moves, I play stupid moves, and even so I check mated you, or you lose. What would I win from you playing a rematch? I mean, I will repeat the same, and bully you, and beat you, and then what? Nothing I learned . So for that reason after that I will continue with another person.
good point.
3 days ago
0
#88
Mid-KnightRider wrote:
nklristic wrote:
Where is it written in the rules of chess that best of 3 format is mandatory?
In tournaments, there are swiss tournaments where you play the same opponent once. There are round robin tournaments where you play each other twice.
There are WC matches, but there you play best of 14.
Best of 3 is pretty rare, because it is not good enough to determine a winner of a match, and it is not practical for a chess tournament either. For instance, if best of 3 games was the default format, Bobby Fischer would lose to Spassky in their WC match, and yet Fischer won convincingly 12.5-8.5, after 2 losses at the start.
I think that even in world blitz they play something like best of 4 in the knock out stage.
So suffice to say, best of 3 is pretty uncommon.
Online that format is even more unreasonable, because online games should remain flexible as they are now. You can play 1 game, or you can play 1 000 bullet games against the same opponent, if you wish to do so. Those are casual games after all, not the matter of life and death.
On top of everything else, the goal of playing games in a random pool is not to determine who is the better player, but who is the better player in that one game. You are free to make it a multiple game contest if both people agree, but that is up to those 2 players, it is not the default.
we are discussing the option of adding it.
If it is just the added option, that is fine. Adding options is ok, but not removing the option of playing just 1 game. I don't see them doing that anyway.
And imagine playing 30|0 games and someone forces you to play best of 3... Ridiculous. 
> Don't take this seriously, it's just some dumb ragebait
Deal
nklristic wrote:
Mid-KnightRider wrote:
nklristic wrote:
Where is it written in the rules of chess that best of 3 format is mandatory?
In tournaments, there are swiss tournaments where you play the same opponent once. There are round robin tournaments where you play each other twice.
There are WC matches, but there you play best of 14.
Best of 3 is pretty rare, because it is not good enough to determine a winner of a match, and it is not practical for a chess tournament either. For instance, if best of 3 games was the default format, Bobby Fischer would lose to Spassky in their WC match, and yet Fischer won convincingly 12.5-8.5, after 2 losses at the start.
I think that even in world blitz they play something like best of 4 in the knock out stage.
So suffice to say, best of 3 is pretty uncommon.
Online that format is even more unreasonable, because online games should remain flexible as they are now. You can play 1 game, or you can play 1 000 bullet games against the same opponent, if you wish to do so. Those are casual games after all, not the matter of life and death.
On top of everything else, the goal of playing games in a random pool is not to determine who is the better player, but who is the better player in that one game. You are free to make it a multiple game contest if both people agree, but that is up to those 2 players, it is not the default.
we are discussing the option of adding it.
If it is just the added option, that is fine. Adding options is ok, but not removing the option of playing just 1 game. I don't see them doing that anyway.
And imagine playing 30|0 games and someone forces you to play best of 3... Ridiculous.
Oh, I missed that part, I don't support that.
Dantex00 wrote:
I mean, suposse You send a bullet match, I beat you, I bully you in the game, I play with my king and give you 10 free moves, I play stupid moves, and even so I check mated you, or you lose. What would I win from you playing a rematch? I mean, I will repeat the same, and bully you, and beat you, and then what? Nothing I learned . So for that reason after that I will continue with another person.
That’s a pathetic excuse. With how pairings work on chess.com, there’s no way you can play like that and win consistently against players in your actual rating pool.
If you could, you’d have no problem repeating the performance in a rematch... but clearly, you know you can’t.
3 days ago
0
#93
#60, @Mid-KnightRider it was called "Chess.com is flooded with feminine cowards." It got 1000+ comments but then it slowly vanished. It was from the same account in the same topic.
Fetoxo wrote:
#60, @Mid-KnightRider it was called "Chess.com is flooded with feminine cowards." It got 1000+ comments but then it slowly vanished. It was from the same account in the same topic.
ok 
that is a little far.
nklristic wrote:
If it is just the added option, that is fine. Adding options is ok, but not removing the option of playing just 1 game. I don't see them doing that anyway.
And imagine playing 30|0 games and someone forces you to play best of 3... Ridiculous.
Learn to read with comprehension. I clearly mentioned 'short time controls'
at higher levels i see the point of rematches say 1000 and up -- makes sense to rematch when you lose or win to see if that stragery you where employing was working or just luck or they play making you are using just sucks -- but at low level;s under say 500 there is no point one player is the same as as another the fact you won or lost does not mean anything till you can constantly win in a pattern way -- showing what works and doesn't work - so I do agree with original poster about playing the same person over again to see, if two 1500 players play each other what works against what stragery but anything less is wasting time
3 days ago
0
#98
It makes sense to rematch when it was close, but it doesn’t if you had an easy win.
degorbu wrote:
It makes sense to rematch when it was close, but it doesn’t if you had an easy win.
The only real way to prove it was an easy win is by doing it more than once. Maybe your opponent wasn’t fully focused in the first game.
So why be afraid of a rematch? I don’t see the logic.
Personally, I sometimes play a bit off in the first game just to test unorthodox moves. If I lose and get a rematch, I play seriously... and win the second game 90% of the time.
If I could make a political analogy, please: In America, the Republican Party in Congress is "flooded" with cowards as well. They are fearful of offending Trump.
I think you mean the democrat party and trans people.