Rating ranges are really needed

I just wanted to give this it's own space. I think these ranges are very important for the game, and in my opinion even more so in teams.

I would like to point out that it's not just about rating, it's just chess is a fun game vs people with a similar skill. I've had a couple of experiences now in team play with random partners after which I just don't want to play that way anymore, it was frustrating.

It definitely makes sense to prioritise having games running while the game is still acquiring a critical mass, but how about implementing right now a very wide cap that avoids extreme imbalances, and then making it smaller progressively?

In teams, a strong and a weak against two mediums can be a roughly even match, so long as the weak guy doesn't do anything particularly dumb.  In FFA, rating differences are somewhat balanced out by the tendency to gang up on the big guy - which is a separate problem.  FFA probably would benefit from rating ranges more than teams, but in the long run we probably want it for both.

@MGleason, a weak player in team mode is extremely easy to mate

also some don't communicate, and that's annoying

I suppose it depends on how weak they are.  A couple 1200s would hope to beat an 800 and a 2200.  But a 2200 and an 1800 might be a good match for a couple 2000s.

We already have ranges for matchmaking, but it increases over time if a match is not found in the game. I don't think you guys realize just how long you'd have to wait for a game with a static range. The issue is not the range but the number of users in the matchmaker. The only way to improve this is with more users. 

@battlemind24 I would wait as long as it take,  45 min for a game if necessary.  I do not want to play with 1300s. It's unbearable.  In team I dont care playing against weak players since I chose my partner,  and the weak players will simply get crushed.  But in fee-4-all,   something has to be done. The user himself should be able to chose his  range. Because for now, free for all is unplayable for strong players,  and no one on the leaderboard is playing anymore.,, most likely for that reason

We will consider making some changes here. I do not want to see Free for All become unbearable for our top players. @Ne2willdo, what is the maximum range from your own rating that you consider to be bearable?

the solution that I have found is finding a partner that you play often with, find a few that you enjoy playing with and never deal with random selections again

@ignoble, please read this: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/this-game-is-dead?page=3

We discussed this topic already and @Ne2willdo was the topic starter. Moreover, @battleMind24 agreed.

If it does not require a lot of programming, you could show us (near the Top Games list):

1. How long is the queue right now.

2. The rating distribution.

3. Average waiting time.

Now we just look at 4 blinking arrows and have no idea about our place in the queue, how long it is going to take and if there are any top players waiting to play.

As I remember, there was something like this 10 years ago. Here was a chart with all the waiting players (looking like bold dots) distributed by rating and game time (waiting for blitz, rapid etc.), we could select a partner from that chart.

You can get that chart in the live server if you look at open seeks.  It doesn't support bughouse or 4-player.

@MGleason, thank you, found it. (I play classic chess from my smartphone.)

I agree with this statement. Have 2050, and when matchmaking with three 1200 guys, got +2 points when winning, and -100 when finishing as 4th. In this scenario I should win every single game to gain ranking points.

Probably best as a range setting, @ignoble and I will discuss

I for one, don't agree with rating ranges in Free for all, mathematically if you have an edge in the game, your will have a expectation value in the game, because in the long term other strong players have to deal with the same weak players you will (it's just variance) - in fact this will prevent inflation for sure (which given a small player pool, the top players can just snowball on the same mid tier players they beat and further widen the gap).

@Squishy    It's not like normal chess.   Playing 3 weak players does NOT equal an easy win.   In fact,  it's  more difficult to win against 3 1300s than it is to win against 3 1700s.    The way the rating gets adjusted has no relation whatsoever with the skill level displayed in a particular game.  It's really hard to deal with a bunch a weak players who play completely random moves with only one thing in mind:   the guy with the high rating is scary,  get him!  Whereas the normal 1700-1800 player doesnt play perfectly,  ( no one does) but he's at least predictable to some extent,  his decisionsare logically calculated to lead to him winning, so for the really strong player,   it makes for an easier game.  So there is no logical reason why you should lose more points for losing against low rated players,  and no reason why you should make more rating for winning against higher rated players.

@Squishey, my answer is very simple: Currently you are not in the FFA Top10 list. You are a CM so you definitely have skills. So, try to get to the Top10 list yourself. And then come back here and describe your experience. After losing 70 .. 80 points in a single game and then earning 2 .. 10 for a win you'll change your opinion. That simple.

389 players online, and this is the matching I got, almost instantly. Hard to believe that the other 3 players were waiting for too long, and an immediate matching was desperately needed.

Had you just lost a few games? I have noticed that when you lose you are more likely to be matched with low ranked players. Also makes it really easy to slide 300 points fast

No, it was after a win. To be honest I don't care much about my rating, I play for fun. And a good matching makes for a more enjoyable game. :-)