Just as you want to improve, so does a higher rated player. Why would a player say 300 points higher want to play you? There's little to learn for them. If you want to play higher ranked players, try some tournaments with a higher point spread. Better yet, beat people your own rating and prove you deserve to play the better players. Be patient and worry about your next move, not who you are going to play next.
Rating does matter
Sort:
Sep 5, 2008
0
#3
I think he's talking about players with 1400 rating who will only play players 1600+. I've run into this a couple times. It's probably because they set that limit when they were 1600 and have fallen due to a series of losses. I've dropped 100 points in one day before. I play anybody and everybody so I don't care and I believe that high rated players are simply afraid to play low rated players because in the off chance that they lose it's a big deal. Problem is that if they lose then maybe they shouldn't be so highly rated and probably shouldn't underestimate their opponents. I've beaten 1780 and lost 1116 so what does that tell you. I'm inconsistent and not that good. As a rule I generally lose to everyone 1600+ and am very competitive in the 1400-1600 range.
I'm one of the people who has said in the forums before that rating doesn't matter. It doesn't. If your rating on chess.com is one of the top ten or twenty concerns in your life then you really need to reevaluate your goals in life. We all want to get better and we enjoy playing. I get frustrated when I lose to someone under 1300 only because I want to believe that I'm better than they are. Problem is maybe they just played the game of their life and I didn't pay attention to every move the way I should. Same goes for when I win against a higher rated player. Maybe I was playing the game of my life and he was playing live chess and making moves in between. It can't be held to such a high level because we don't all have the same level of dedication. If you beat a 2000 who didn't care in that game doesn't mean you're going to beat me today.
Anthony
Sep 5, 2008
0
#4
xMenace wrote:
Just as you want to improve, so does a higher rated player. Why would a player say 300 points higher want to play you? There's little to learn for them. If you want to play higher ranked players, try some tournaments with a higher point spread. Better yet, beat people your own rating and prove you deserve to play the better players. Be patient and worry about your next move, not who you are going to play next.
Respectfully, I disagree. The ability to beat players you are "supposed to beat" is an important skill in chess. All the way from the top GMs (every weekend swiss tournament they play in, they must find a way to win basically all their games, they must vary their opening repertoire so as to not allow the multitudes too much preparation) to the lower ranked players (a 2000 player "should" almost always beat a 1700 player. Sometimes they get just an equal position... the skill of "how can I create winning chances in an equal position" is valuable.
You seem to have missed my point. The point is, thta if you wish to improve, you must play as many opponents as you can with as high rating as possible. The more opponents and the higher their ratings, the better. If you play one or two of the same opponents over and over, how much will you learn from that?
Realistically, the number of available opponents is reduced by the limits. For instance, a 1200 can have 2-3 available opponents >1600, while a 1400 can play with dozens of them. And both (the 1200 and the 1400) can improve of these games.
Ergo, boosting ones rating is important.
Kingfisher wrote:
Yes, everyone claiming it doesn't is wrong. It's true thta if you're good, you're good with or without a rating; It (rating) only shows approximately how good you are. But here in Chess.com people are interested in improving and learning. One of the best ways to do that is playing better opponents. Problem arises when a better opponent is not available because his challenge limit is too high for you. So you need a higher rating to play him! Not all players have this limit set, but those that do are usually unavailable without a good personal rating, which reduces the opponent pool for beginners.
To state that everyone cares about their rating would be a generalized statement. Not everyone regards their rating - most do, but some don't.
Some people just want to play chess. Period.
The one thing I appreciate about rating is that I get the opportunity to play people who are around my progress level. I don't care if my rating is higher than yours in the sense that I can look down at you. I will play anyone - I offer to play people lower than me if they like. However, if my rating was 1300, then I couldn't play people at 1700 level, or wherever. However, the other side to the coin - if I am a 1300, then I should try to be other 1300's. Then when I can beat that level, I can progress to 1400, etc.
When I first started learning with Chessmaster 8000, I quickly improved to about a 1000+ player, and then from there, it was a roadblock for a while. I still remember my opponent, she played the Crab with the black pieces (...a6, ...h6). But I wasn't aggressive enough then to toast her yet. Finally, I learned better developing habits, and I improved to the 1200's. After reading chess books consistently and picking up little things here and there, I began to understand the importance of good early development and how that affects the rest of the game.
A lot of people recommend learning endgames, or this or that. I think studying an opening is very important, for you learn to create certain positions, and you learn why they work. Then you can say, I like this, or don't like that, and seek to further modify your "style". Then I studied other opening manuals, and learned yet more, and applied what I learned to my "style". I have a friend who strongly disagrees with this approach, yet I have seen it do more benefit for my growth as a chess player than his ideas, which are a bit more stale, in my opinion (not said disrespectfully, but that is my opinion).
Here is my suggestion - get Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess and study the whole book, then play chess for about half a year, and then go back and look at it again. That is his suggestion, and it is a great idea - you keep incorporating classic themes into your play, and it helps you to grow as a player.
Then, you will be able to play the higher rated players, because you will be just as good as them :-).
I do not care what my rating is, I just enjoy playing thisgame.
Sep 5, 2008
0
#9
Yes, I agree, it is important. If mines drops below 1500 I beat myself with a birch stick, below 1400 cold shower and a steel wool scrub down! I've never been below 1300, but if this ever happens I'll open a forum asking the best way to punish myself :)
Ratings are important to a lot of people. One of the reasons why newcomers to chess.com can`t normally play anybody with a decent rating in their first rated game, is because they are an unknown quantity and people with a higher than say 1600 don`t want to take a chance with them. I personally would play a newcomer because if they are a lot better than me, then I could learn from them, and if they are not it is a few points on my rating. Ratings on here are a little vague though. I have a rating above 1700 and yet my average opponent rating is only 1375. I have beaten a couple of 1700 + players but I have lost a few times to players rated in the 1300`s. Surely the rating I achieve must have more attachment to the average rating of my opponents.
As do many of you, I believe that the rating system is important. It is designed to serve as a measure of your chess prowess. I'm constantly trying to improve the quality of my play - not necessarily improve my rating. Note: the emphasis is on better play - not a higher rating. The first will take care of the second.
i believe this is true... i know that your rating can increase due to other people's mistakes on the board, mistakes meaning the easy blunders that you weren't paying attention to... but i have actually improved my play in battles that i have lost more to the ones i have won... so yes, improving quality of play does eventually raise your rating... the rating system is very important, it is a goal and also the very steps to get there...
That is another problem with ratings. Some people continue to fight on in a totally lost game, because they do not want to lose rating points. Once I know I am going to lose, I do not waste time and energy on a losing position. I simply resign and accept it. Why waste mental power when you can apply the lesson learnt to another game?
If you fear to lose to a low rated player due to the thought that your rating will decrease, then you deserve to lose. If my rating decreased because my opponent was 1200 (just starting) but turned out to be a 2000+ player, I wouldn't blink an eye. If I won, awesome. If I lost, then I would battle my way back to 1700 whatever I am at now. It is kind of a vanity to let your rating keep you in check...come on, its a rating, not a business! I have played a few newbies who turned out to be 1600+, and it is no big deal.
You lose a bit of the fun if you are more concerned with your rating that the game itself.
Sep 5, 2008
0
#15
I do agree that without a rating system the game would not be as fun. It would be harder to find a "fair" fight. It would be tougher to gauge if you're really getting any better. It would be hard to set realistic goals and know that you've achieved them. I was not saying that the rating is meaningless I think it's helpful. I just don't think people should get too emotional about it.
Anthony
I agree...then again, I'm so far down the rating food chain that I'm getting plankton bites on my rear end! :)
When I returned to chess after a 20 year absence the first Internet site I played on started me at 1200 and after over 20 straight wins I was only rated 1550. It was no fun and the thought of slogging through a couple hundred games to get opponents closer to my level was abhorrent. I tried another site and the 5 games there lasted under 20 moves. That was worse. It’s often not fear of losing rating points so much as most stronger players simply do not enjoy bunny bashing because there’s little or no challenge.
Yes, everyone claiming it doesn't is wrong. It's true thta if you're good, you're good with or without a rating; It (rating) only shows approximately how good you are.
But here in Chess.com people are interested in improving and learning. One of the best ways to do that is playing better opponents. Problem arises when a better opponent is not available because his challenge limit is too high for you. So you need a higher rating to play him!
Not all players have this limit set, but those that do are usually unavailable without a good personal rating, which reduces the opponent pool for beginners.