Chess.com speaks about fair play !?!?!

Chess.com speaks about fair play !?!?!

And they add help us ...bla bla bla.

FAIR PLAY DOES NOT EXISTS IN REAL WORLD.

1% of  gamers accept rematch. Why ?

Just because Rated points are become a kind of money.

More u have, more smart u are. so why rematch if u can loose.

I suggest to create a new category REAL RATED POINTS GAME with the same rules like a tournament.

One game , rematch ,( in case equality final match). at this step the winer will get rated point.

If one gamer refuse to rematch -100. and a special symbol to show that this gamer had no fair play.

I repeat create a new category without remove actually categories (rated and unrated): LET REAL FAIR PLAY GAMERS PLAY TOGETHER.

Milgram made the demonstration that more than 97% of people are cowards. On chess.com it's more. So if u want fair play don't let this choice to gamer.

I'm sure all cowards on earth will badly comments this post. GOOD WAY TO GET THEIR NAMES.

Do they have the word "Troll" in French?

And yes, this post receieves my vote for dumbest post of the day.

I agree

gee sounds like someone's a sore loser. You are not owed a rematch.

Just be aware that by the time page 5 or so rolls around, I will be agreeing with and supporting the OP's point with unassailable mathematical proofs. Fair warning.

I notice the apology about the poor English has been edited out, but it has not been replaced with an apology for being narrow-minded.

he has 2 other threads too, they are all about the same thing.

Yes, read my name loud and clear, and block me now or I will block you later! Pfffffffffftttttttt!!!!!

I don't usually rematch because I like to rest between games. There is no contract that says if I play someone I owe them another game, and if I didn't violate any contract or rules, I didn't do anything unfair. If someone want to win so badly, beat me the first time.

Sometimes I rematch depending on my state of mind but usually if I played a tough game to win, it took a lot of energy so I like to recover.  I usually wait a few minutes and that's longer than most people who ask for a rematch are willing to wait.  I ask people who are cool about it to friend me and challenge later.  But some re-matchers  expect the winner to just dance for them and do it quick, because they're sore about losing.  Losers should not be so demanding.

Why should I play until I'm so worn down and unfocused that I can't play well? What's the point in that?

And also, why does it matter in blitz who you play for your points?  If I play, wait a few minutes, play again, and so on, my ELO will eventually track with my playing strength.  Doesn't matter who I play.

He sounds like a very sore loser.

If I beat you, once, I will savor the victory and forevermore avoid playing you again, ever, I will block you, or abort games, whatever it takes, as long as I can take my one victory against you and carry it with me to the grave.

Nonsense. I want to play when I am ready to play not when someone demands that I play.  Even if I'm going to play someone else in a few minutes.  There's nothing unsportsmanship about wanting to keep playing other players anyway.  Plus I'm very fair about it, I don't ask for rematches when I lose, either, so there's the Golden Rule in play.

I figure, eventually it will circle back around until I play someone I beat before.  I don't mind playing them again, but I want to play when I'm ready for a game and not with some desperado breathing down my neck. And when is this arbitrary claim of what is sportsman line getting carried away?  Best 2 out of 3?  3 out of 5? 5 out of 7?  51 out of 100?

agreed.

l00000000l I am retarded because I prefer to analyse my games than play a rematch~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hustle Hustle!

I have no sportmanship because i wanna improve~

seriously, the world ain't revolvin around ya

why play if you could lose?

I have just finished a game, where I had a strong attack, but just not enough to check mate or got materials advantage. It ended with an endgame which I won. I was so p****ed.

If my opponent had asked for a rematch, I would instantly denied. Although the result was nice, the play was not satisfactory to me. I wanted to see stronger moves to improve my game. I did some analysis without computer help and found it.

I hope the OP understands why a player denies for a rematch. It's not about being a coward and walk away.

Usually it is the players who want the re-match who leave the chat first, not me.

I usually go to get a glass of water, stretch my legs, play with the cats or something or Google around.   When I get back the re-match requester is gone.  

Someone who is sports[wo]man like who wants a rematch, alternatively could politely mention they'd like to play me again, make a friend request and challenge or ask if there's some time that would be good.  But the idea that if you lose and are unhappy about it and the only way you can be happy again is if I choose to play you, suggests you (they) might have a psychological hang up; but then to insult me as unsportsman-like, when it is merely an unspoken convention that one has to buy into in the first place to make it real, then it's just completely arbitary.  What you call sportsmanship I may think his hogwash and random or pointless.   The act of calling it unsportsman-like is a subtle jab in and of itself, a bit resentful, which is where I think what this whole re-match imperative thing is coming from in the first place.  

far out, i thought kardinals were meant to be holy people =P

I just asked a new categorie similar that we can find in any chess club.

Where rated points are calculate on 2 matches , 3 if it's necessary.

It will not change any thing for u, (NEW CATEGORY) and it wil be very interresting for all gamers who want an official world chess classement.

 My english is bad. have u some problems to understand me ?

have u try to help me to correct it . lol . So when someone made a proposition u beat it . ok . affraid about evolution... lol

Happy Troll