This has happened to me several times:

I put out a seek for a game, rating 1425 to 1525 or so ( I'm rated 1441) and someone accepts the seek, their rating in that range. As the game progresses, his/her rating keeps going up and all of a sudden I'm playing someone who is 100 points or more above his/her rating at the start. Have one now where the initial difference was less than 100 points and near the end of the game the difference is almost 300 points ( after 56 moves looks like I'm toast). Not the opponents fault, mind you, as he apparently had only played a few games when he challenged my seek.

So, looks like I will have to refrain from putting out seeks and only accept those that someone else puts out since I can review his record before accepting.

I hate when that happens.....

what you need to do is set a minimun number of games played rule when you set the seek up.

Your opponents havent been on chess.com long so thier rating moves around very rapidly.

Try playing some group matches and tourneys and you might find more competitive games

I hate that too.

Yeah, it happens to all of us. Reality is, you should play the bet you can and focus on improvement. Learn from the losers.

At least the rating adjustment after the game is based on the ratings at that time :-)

I've just started here, and it's pretty strange. I'm a 1900/2000 ish player OTB, which is reasonably strong for chess.com. But at first I could only get games against 1200ish players... My policy was to play ten games, and when one was finished, to send out the highest possible seek I could (that is, equal or above my own rating). My goal is to be 2000+ and play 2000+ players from then on.

To date my only loss was against a player who was +1 =0 -0 at the time and had 15xx... now he's +6 =0 -0 and 19xx, I think he'll pass me soon :-). But I've got some bad positions going on now, I don't think I'll go up that much anymore without taking it all a lot more seriously.

So, 16 games finished and the effect seems to be mostly over. Probably if you only take matches against people who have that many, their rating will be reasonable. But that does make it harder to find matches for the new people :-(

I managed a draw against a player who is currently rated +2500! Unfortunately, he'd just joined chess.com and was rated 1600 at the start of our game! By the time it ended he'd climbed up to 1800 but I still lost rating points for a game that should have been scored as a big accomplishment for me. It was a while ago, but it still bugs me! 

Here, i managed a draw off of this guy, and lost rating:

http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/naar

There should be a provisional period in the ratings -- but folks around here mutter some nonsense about glicko, how the glicko value solves all...  there is no glicko value that compensates for playing a 2500 skill player starting a game at 1600. I'd go on, but I know from past experience this gripe goes nowhere.

No doubt the wisest policy is to not bother a whole lot about one's rating.

That said...now I don't play games (except when I'm forced to, by tournaments) until a player has had at least a few losses to help establish their rating.

 Why would you hate this? Don't you lose fewer rating points that way? Would you prefer you lose but during the game their rating goes down 200-300 points and you lose more? 

Another thing to keep in mind is that many people (my self included) have created an account just to have some fun, and not few times they log on to this site to kill some time.

So, they might play 3 games not being concentrated and later play a killer game.

Ratings should be treated with a grain of salt.

what is this obsession with points?

The obsession is with having a true and accurate evaluation of one's ability. I want my number to be right. I want it to be useful. And I take pride in seeing it increase because it then reflects my growing skill. If the number is garbage I have a much harder time evaluating my performance.

It is VERY satisfying (to me at least) to have a solid objective measure of performance. I've played my whole life, I'm nearly 50 y.o. and I haven't played enough sanctioned rated chess to get a non-provisional rating. I'm interested as hell in seeing how I really stack up.

That's the obsession.

HeyJG27Pyth. I've been on both sides of this arguementand it's an unfortunate problem within the system. I've also had problems with tournaments where my opponent is anywhere from 100 points to 350 points higher than I am. I have just learned to play within the system.

Once there was a person who I was playing who was 878, and by time the middle game cam he was 1550. And don't think I am aloud to say his name here. But seriously there is only one logical explanation he must of been cheating. But I won on time anyhow.

Sorry, perhaps I did not elucidate. The rating issue is irrelevant to me. It's only a matter of wanting to play against opponents that are within 100 points of my rating so that I have a good game and perhaps can learn a little. Playing against someone who is 200-300 points better than me means is (to me, at least) futile.

Joetheplumber: thanks for reminding me that one can set the # of games played when setting up the seek. I had completely forgotten that. Anyone have an idea as to how many games would produce a somewhat representative level of ability?