My intuition is that with chess I think people would accept losses because one has never invested effort into putting pieces on the board. But something where one has spent resource and time that can be pinged off is far more infuriating.
Edit:
basically a worse version of what brattyjedi said above 
I suspect that winning such a game could come down to a turn order-style effect: A builds a thing, B smashes it, C builds a thing, D smashes it, E builds a thing and it lasts long enough for scoring.
The context I heard the term care bear was a strict two player context. I think some people don’t like ruining their partner’s work. It’s a sentiment I totally get so it’s the name I wince at.
In two player games you really want both to have the same emotions about the game if there’s an option of ruining.
I don’t necessarily think it is a negative term. It really depends on whoever says it in what context, doesn’t it?
“Der Ton macht die Musik” --it all depends on the tone they use.
F.e. Radho, who mostly plays with his wife, often “complains” that games are too aggressive in two player and neither of them enjoys that. It’s a valid sentiment. Doesn’t make it truth for everyone. But for them that is how it is. (I don’t watch him that often, but it is something that stands out)
I actually am on board with the sentiment, and I would probably fall into this type of player (but only in a certain context) but I would never call myself a care bear. But possibly it’s a standard term in the art at this point.
Btw way, both @lalunaverde and I were inspired to make lists of games that feature less aggressive gameplay… though we both have our own takes what that constitues:
And here is mine:
We decided those games were fine for a Sunday afternoon chilling with friends and a cup of tea.
And so “Tea Time Games” 
The you turn algorithm tossed this video at me today that seems relevant to this conversation. Some dude I’ve never heard of before laying out a “map” of different concepts that could be in board games.
Finished map rather than video explaining the thought process is here:
That looks pretty neat. I might have a look at the video, too.
(I am bad though consuming video content. So I might forget. I wish I were better at consuming multiple streams of information like my partner)
Here’s a thought for part of a classification scheme. One axis per major mechanic, rate the game 0-1 on each based on how significant that mechanic is to the game. Then use N-dimensional Pythagoras to determine distances between games.