How much value does everyone place on their average opponent rating? At first I didn't think of it too much. But then I got a little embarressed when my rating was so much higher then my average opponent. So now as my rating goes up...I try to keep finding players to help me bump my avg player rating up. It's almost as important as your rating. I'd be REALLY embaressed to have a rating of lets say 1700, but an average opponent of 1200.

I think that the only thing you should consider when looking at a rating is: "What do I want from this game?" If your answer is that you wish to increase your rating, then select opponents (if given the opportunity) that prove to be a decent challenge. If you're looking to have fun and play chess, what would their rating matter? If they don't mind playing with you, use it as an opportunity to grow and thrive (or help your opponent thrive grow and thrive, if you have the higher rating). Stronger players will show other why you can't sacrifice your knight on move 9 in that position, or why the Damiano Defense will only lead to miserable play for Black.

 

Besides, I'm sure we all have had games where our opponent with a much lower rating finds a hole in our defense and earns a win from it. (At least, I have.) 

my therapist has finally helped me see that it is OK to have a low average opponent rating.

rating means nothing. ill play guys from 900-1800. makes no difference. its pure fun. and fun doesn't havea number!

don't be too fuzz about numbers.

Don't let ratings be the master of you. Just take it easy and enjoy 

erik wrote: my therapist has finally helped me see that it is OK to have a low average opponent rating.

---

 That made me laugh for quite a while.  The mental image of you struggling with chess-related psychiatric problems.  Quite a hoot!

I will play anyone, I just have a certain amount of games I can handle at once. While some might be able to play 10+ games and play to their potential, my limit is about 5-8.

It is more fun playing higher rated players seeing as anyone in the 14-1500 range isn't really a challege (generally, unless they been sandbagging).  Fun=challenging game in my mind.  So high rated opponents it is.  I play with people that I know that are only beginners.  But, that is because I am their friend and/or are trying to teach them and it is something to do with them. 

I don't play any games here, but I never play anyone rated more than 50 lower me on fics.

Lower rated players stink, and you will develop bad habits by playing against them.

 

 

Wow, so you're saying that there are many people here that are willing to help other people get better at chess.  This is amazing.  I'm enjoying this comunity more and more.

So, to play a game with someone who is willing to teach me, should I start an unrated game, with 14 days (to have plenty of time for dialoge).  And a high minumum rating.  With the text, "Teach me please".  Am I hitting home? 

TBOL3 wrote:

Wow, so you're saying that there are many people here that are willing to help other people get better at chess.  This is amazing.  I'm enjoying this comunity more and more.

So, to play a game with someone who is willing to teach me, should I start an unrated game, with 14 days (to have plenty of time for dialoge).  And a high minumum rating.  With the text, "Teach me please".  Am I hitting home? 

---

That is a good plan. Though it would be nice to create something a little more formal such as a teaching ladder.

Please explain.

well a teaching ladder would have a bunch of players ordered by ranking on a ladder and those above you will teach you and you will teach the people below you

 

That's actually a good idea.  Do you know where I can join one of these?

well I do not know of any but if you search the forums you will see that some people have already talked about this idea. I suggest you find the people who started the threads and message them. get them all together and form a new one

I've been occasionally playing on Yahoo's chess rooms and I like it for the speed of the game but hate it for the negative lame assed people in the rooms.  Super rude a lot of them. For example: I'm learning to play on the clock and my game is getting sharper from it but I'm still new to that yet I remember some butt munch coming to my table to bitch me out becuase my lower rank was ruining the rooms dynamic. I could understand that but his approach was so rude that I wanted to throttle him.  Other times when you're winning a person won't just resign they'll simply leave the room as thier way of slapping you in the face for winning. Poor losers...

I've tried to play higher rated people but, they dont accept games from players from my range. So I'll study on my own until I get there.

Chessstudent wrote: I've tried to play higher rated people but, they dont accept games from players from my range. So I'll study on my own until I get there.

---

You are right most won't.  people that are highly rated most of the time want a challenging game.  If your rating indicates it won't be a challenge they won't accept.  But, there are some that are willing and like playing lower rated players.  Just offer up challenges in the mass.  Someone is bound to say yes at some point. 

I'll accept ANY challenge as a matter of principle, but when I create an open game I specify 1201 and up (my ranking is around 1400).  Any lower than 1200 and you end up playing people who leave unprotected pieces all over the place and your win percentage artificially goes up, while your avg opponette rating drops.  I also won't play players at 1200 because they're all new... the problem I've seen with new players is many are novices and/or many lose on time because they lose interest. I don't want those kind of wins.

Graw81 wrote: People should be more concerned about improving their chess skills than worrying about ratings.

---

and that would involve playing better players and not just demolishing much weaker players