All I see are emotional responses, but I understand why.
Many people try to mask their fear with other excuses. So when they come across posts like this, it triggers them to dispute it by any means necessary, in an effort to keep their issue hidden.
Trust me, I get it.
Why do you keep pursuing this? What is it you hope to achieve other than to express your ill-considered little scorn?
friend me
Whats funny is that he's saying that we have emotional responses about his opinion, but he fails to see how his responses and mindset is causing this anger.
20/10 Ragebait even I'm kinda mad.
So, to OP, what are you really asking for? Do you want like a programmed feature? like a seek where the person agreeing commits to 2 or 3 games? or what?
So, to OP, what are you really asking for? ...
He wants you to admit you live in fear, unemotionally.
Well, if having a 'life' means not engaging in passionate discussions about chess on a forum... then sign me up for the NO LIFE Grandmaster title. 🏆♟️ ...
You have been so knighted
... Before you say anything I always accept rematches
This is not acceptable. You should live in fear like the rest of us here.
Honestly, It might not be a bad idea to have a "minimatch" seek option. I can't relate, I think it's kinda schoolyard, but a lot of people seem to think they're owed a rematch when they lose.
Online chess loses its competitive edge when players decline rematches after winning. It’s even worse when their win comes from a time scramble or a mouse slip. Introducing a "Best of 3" format could fix this by encouraging more balanced and meaningful matches. One game rarely tells the full story. Let’s keep the competition alive!
The truth is, many players who refuse rematches after a lucky win are just cowards who won’t admit it. They hide behind excuses, but real competitors seek challenges, not easy exits. Chess should be about proving skill, not escaping after one game.
And before you comment the same tired excuses like “I don’t have time” or “I play for fun,” let’s be real, the main reason people decline rematches is fear. They’d rather keep an unearned win than risk losing a fair fight.
The win was fair? How is it luck? So your telling me if I decline a rematch against another 200 who did 5 blunders
We don't fear it's just we can find a better opponent because of better rating to play. If the last opponent was bad you can find a better one in 2 clicks
We don't fear it's just we can find a better opponent because of better rating to play. If the last opponent was bad you can find a better one in 2 clicks
So technically the rematchers are fearing a better opponent
Online chess loses its competitive edge when players decline rematches after winning. It’s even worse when their win comes from a time scramble or a mouse slip. Introducing a "Best of 3" format could fix this by encouraging more balanced and meaningful matches. One game rarely tells the full story. Let’s keep the competition alive!
The truth is, many players who refuse rematches after a lucky win are just cowards who won’t admit it. They hide behind excuses, but real competitors seek challenges, not easy exits. Chess should be about proving skill, not escaping after one game.
And before you comment the same tired excuses like “I don’t have time” or “I play for fun,” let’s be real, the main reason people decline rematches is fear. They’d rather keep an unearned win than risk losing a fair fight.
Oh brother… it’s bossy’s successor.
I’m gonna play a non-bias role here. I get it, many people might not accept a rematch because they’re scared of losing. But then again, I would not want to play an opponent again because of how the game is just, not that fun. They know what opening you are going to do, and you know what they are going to do too. Sure just change your opening but then that would just be the same as playing a different person. So either side has good points.
Again, emotional responses.