I rematch sometimes but being completely honest sometimes I just don't want to. It's not cowardly to not want to play someone again.
Chess.com is flooded with cowards
Sort:
The funniest thing about this thread is I'm sure that if Chess.com brought in Best-of-Three matches, the OP after losing would get angry and call people cowards for not accepting a 3-game rematch 
NoemiS05 wrote:
The funniest thing about this thread is I'm sure that if Chess.com brought in Best-of-Three matches, the OP after losing would get angry and call people cowards for not accepting a 3-game rematch
There wouldn’t need to be a rematch option in that format... it’s already built into the structure.
And just to be clear, I’m not upset about losing. What actually frustrates me more is when I win and the opponent refuses to play again. I genuinely despise that kind of cowardice.
TaterBoy37 wrote:
And why do you call them “cowards”. Maybe they just have a life outside of chess!
Pathetic excuse. Everyone has a life outside of chess.com.
IsraeliGal wrote:
You can cry all you want but no one is obligated to rematch you, end of story.
You complaining about it just shows you're salty whenever you lose.
You’re just talking nonsense.
Nothing you said addresses or even relates to any of my actual points.
Lol, some of you guys need to get out more.
Numbtongue15 wrote:
Lol, some of you guys need to get out more.
The topic has nothing to do with anyone “getting out more” or anything like that.
creepingdeath1974 wrote:
Let's talk about that word "coward" then for a bit. What is a coward? Oh yeah, it is someone who in the face of real danger (and a chess game does not count as real danger) who runs away instead of facing it head on. You know like in a situation where someone might actually lose their life if someone else doesn't intervene, for example. Here's a question I would like to pose then.... why do members on this site play bullet chess like its rapid chess, but also play rapid chess like it is bullet chess? Tell me somebody please how that makes any sense at all?
Stop making a fool of yourself
AutisticCath wrote:
Oh my gosh...for the umpteenth time, some people just DON'T LIKE REMATCHES. Get over it.
What does that have to do with having a best of 3 option?
3 days ago
0
#151
Markus-Schneider wrote:
IsraeliGal wrote:
You can cry all you want but no one is obligated to rematch you, end of story.
You complaining about it just shows you're salty whenever you lose.
You’re just talking nonsense.
Nothing you said addresses or even relates to any of my actual points.
You're not addressing his points. If someone beats you in a race by 30 seconds, and you demand a rematch, there's no obligation for them to do it.
MileTime wrote:
Markus-Schneider wrote:
IsraeliGal wrote:
You can cry all you want but no one is obligated to rematch you, end of story.
You complaining about it just shows you're salty whenever you lose.
You’re just talking nonsense.
Nothing you said addresses or even relates to any of my actual points.
You're not addressing his points. If someone beats you in a race by 30 seconds, and you demand a rematch, there's no obligation for them to do it.
How does that analogy even relate to chess?
You don’t become world champion by winning just one game... so why should one win be enough to prove anything here?
Yet another weak comparison that completely misses the point.
3 days ago
0
#153
Markus-Schneider wrote:
MileTime wrote:
Markus-Schneider wrote:
IsraeliGal wrote:
You can cry all you want but no one is obligated to rematch you, end of story.
You complaining about it just shows you're salty whenever you lose.
You’re just talking nonsense.
Nothing you said addresses or even relates to any of my actual points.
You're not addressing his points. If someone beats you in a race by 30 seconds, and you demand a rematch, there's no obligation for them to do it.
How does that analogy even relate to chess?
You don’t become world champion by winning just one game... so why should one win be enough to prove anything here?
Yet another weak comparison that completely misses the point.
It's really obvious man. Seek help.
If someone beats you in a chess game, why is it cowardly not to accept? If someone beats you in a fight, why should they have to fight you again? they already won.
MileTime wrote:
It's really obvious man. Seek help.
If someone beats you in a chess game, why is it cowardly not to accept? If someone beats you in a fight, why should they have to fight you again? they already won.
In boxing, you can become champion by winning a single fight... but in chess, you can’t become world champion by winning just one game.
So once again, that’s a weak and completely irrelevant comparison.
Most players are not trying to be world champions. Many want to play a game ore two and that's all.
Markus-Schneider wrote:
creepingdeath1974 wrote:
Let's talk about that word "coward" then for a bit. What is a coward? Oh yeah, it is someone who in the face of real danger (and a chess game does not count as real danger) who runs away instead of facing it head on. You know like in a situation where someone might actually lose their life if someone else doesn't intervene, for example. Here's a question I would like to pose then.... why do members on this site play bullet chess like its rapid chess, but also play rapid chess like it is bullet chess? Tell me somebody please how that makes any sense at all?
Stop making a fool of yourself
You are the only one making a fool of yourself Markus-Schneider. Every time someone proves people aren’t obligated to rematch you just say “IRRELEVANT!!!!!” And move on like you are above everyone else in this argument lol.
3 days ago
0
#157
SixInchSamurai wrote:
> Children under 13 are allowed in the forums
I dont really know where you read this. According to the User's Agreement users must be 13 at least. Between 13 and the legal age (depends on the country) users must use chess.com under supervision.
But in fact chess.com does not care if there is no legal responsibility
The User's Agreement says:
"If you know someone under the age of either 13 or the legal age in their jurisdiction (whichever is older) who is using the Service -- or has created an account with us -- and they are doing so without parental/guardian consent, then please notify us at https://chess.com/support."
It doesn't directly say it, but to me it seems implied that children under thirteen are allowed on the site with parental consent. That said, there are other chess.com pages that say otherwise (like this one).
The reason I said what I said is because I've seen moderators say on numerous occasions that children under thirteen allowed with parental consent. It's always possible the rules have been changed. My thought is that chess.com doesn't really want the site flooded with children under 13, but they still allow it with parental consent.
> It doesn't directly say it, but to me it seems...
It does directly say it two sentences above:
"To enter into this Agreement, use the Services, and/or create an account with us, you must be at least 13 years of age. If you are not of legal age in your jurisdiction -- but are at least 13 years of age - then your parent or legal guardian must consent to this Agreement on your behalf prior to your use of the Services and you may only use the Services with the consent and involvement of your parent or legal guardian."
But again, chess.com does not care about children playing here if there is no legal responsibility.
Anyway, this thread is not about age of users, its about the thread's author who often gets feeling a bit uncomfortable when he understands that his opponent dares to decline da holy rematch offered
Markus-Schneider wrote:
IsraeliGal wrote:
You can cry all you want but no one is obligated to rematch you, end of story.
You complaining about it just shows you're salty whenever you lose.
You’re just talking nonsense.
Nothing you said addresses or even relates to any of my actual points.
It does, you're just too low IQ to comprehend it, because the best troll post you could come up with is the most dry, overused garbage on this site. "ermergad i hate when people dont rematch".
No one cares. I hope you get an aneurism from it. You know why people don't rematch you? because we have lives to live outside of playing chess nonstop everyday. Why don't you get a job.
Calling anyone anything derogatory only serves to reflect poorly on the person doing the name calling anyways. It is neither kind or even relevant to the game of chess on the whole or even in part. All that happens is a person gets unnecessarily insulted for no good reason at all.