"Rating to low to accept this match!" Are you kidding me!!!???

ReLentLess5150

Member Points: 64

I don't get it, Chess 960 is, in my opinion, not real chess.  Therefore, what difference does it make if your rating is 1200 and the person whose challenge you're trying to accept is 2200????  You get an error message saying "Your rating is to low to accept this game or challenge."  Are these default settings that Chess.com as created, or did the seeker specifically set rating limits for their challenge???  If it's the former, it shouldn't be that way...chess 960 should be open regardless of rating.  If it's the latter, then fine...that's the seekers right, no matter if it makes no sense!

PrawnEatsPrawn

I'll play you as I can't get a game either, for exactly the same reason. Challenge sent.

ReLentLess5150
PrawnEatsPrawn wrote:

I'll play you as I can't get a game either, for exactly the same reason. Challenge sent.


 Not really interested in playing chess 960..just annoyed at the restriction.  Also don't like the fact that your rating MUST BE SET AS YOUR MINIMUM RATING in standard games.  Why?  If I want to play people well above my rating, and the accept, what's the big deal??? 

ReLentLess5150
AnthonyCG wrote:

It's set that way so that higher rated players can only play each other.

It is unlikely that a lower rated player will provide a good enough challenge so that is why people set limits.

It would be a waste of time to blow someone off of the board when they could increase their chances of a good game by setting limits.

The same as all other chess organizations really;


 With all do respect, that's nonsense.  I sincerely doubt that the so-called "higher rated players" in chess 960 have as huge an advantage as the might in standard chess.  As I said, if a player sets that limitation, fine...that's their right.  But if it's a default restriction on hte part of Chess.com, that's crap!  It's just as bad has HAVING TO BE FORCED to use your rating as the minumum rating is a standard game seek.  That should be no one's concern but the players!  If I'm rated at 1700 and put out a seek with a minimum 2200 and someone accepts, that's between us!  If I get blown off the board, then that's on me!  It shouldn't be restricted.

ReLentLess5150
Schachgeek wrote:
ReLentLess5150 wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:

It's set that way so that higher rated players can only play each other.

It is unlikely that a lower rated player will provide a good enough challenge so that is why people set limits.

It would be a waste of time to blow someone off of the board when they could increase their chances of a good game by setting limits.

The same as all other chess organizations really;


 With all do respect, that's nonsense.  I sincerely doubt that the so-called "higher rated players" in chess 960 have as huge an advantage as the might in standard chess.  As I said, if a player sets that limitation, fine...that's their right.  But if it's a default restriction on hte part of Chess.com, that's crap!  It's just as bad has HAVING TO BE FORCED to use your rating as the minumum rating is a standard game seek.  That should be no one's concern but the players!  If I'm rated at 1700 and put out a seek with a minimum 2200 and someone accepts, that's between us!  If I get blown off the board, then that's on me!  It shouldn't be restricted.


Are you talking about a chess.com restriction or one set by an individual? Because in your profile you can set it for no matches below or above a certain rating.


 As stated, if an individual places thoses restrictions on their games, fine.  My question is does chess.com have it's own imposed restrictions regardless of what the player wants.  I've sent messages to two people whose chess 960 games I couldn't accept because of my rating be too low.  I've asked them if they indeed have a rating limitation set for the game.  Also, if you have limitations set in your overall profile, I makes sense that it carries over from standard chess to chess 960. 

nuclearturkey
ReLentLess5150 wrote:

Member Points: 64

I don't get it, Chess 960 is, in my opinion, not real chess.  Therefore, what difference does it make if your rating is 1200 and the person whose challenge you're trying to accept is 2200????  You get an error message saying "Your rating is to low to accept this game or challenge."  Are these default settings that Chess.com as created, or did the seeker specifically set rating limits for their challenge???  If it's the former, it shouldn't be that way...chess 960 should be open regardless of rating.  If it's the latter, then fine...that's the seekers right, no matter if it makes no sense!


You're right chess 960 is not good old "original" chess. It is however a game where skill counts just as much as any other..

ReLentLess5150

Nuclearturkey Said: You're right chess 960 is not good old "original" chess. It is however a game where skill counts just as much as any other..

--No argument from me on this point.

ReLentLess5150
AnthonyCG wrote:

It would be no fun to whoop a weak player around the board so restrictions are set by the players. 

Ratings aren't the best indicators but they are the only ones you have access to so...


Do you HONESTLY believe that ratings play that much of a role in 960!?!?!?

Baseballfan
ReLentLess5150 wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:

It would be no fun to whoop a weak player around the board so restrictions are set by the players. 

Ratings aren't the best indicators but they are the only ones you have access to so...


Do you HONESTLY believe that ratings play that much of a role in 960!?!?!?


Ratings might play more of a role. Chess960 relies on tactics and strategy, the same tactics and the same strategy as standard chess, and these are typically the things that improve one's standard chess rating.

RandomPrecision

Aren't the ratings for Chess960 computed only from your Chess960 games?

If you have a high Chess960 rating, it's because you've beaten people with high Chess960 ratings.

It's a tenuous argument to claim that ratings are "less important" in Chess960 than in regular chess.  It is, by definition, how well players are expected to fare against one another.  Chess960 doesn't change that.

ReLentLess5150
RandomPrecision wrote:

Aren't the ratings for Chess960 computed only from your Chess960 games?

If you have a high Chess960 rating, it's because you've beaten people with high Chess960 ratings.

It's a tenuous argument to claim that ratings are "less important" in Chess960 than in regular chess.  It is, by definition, how well players are expected to fare against one another.  Chess960 doesn't change that.


I would agree with the first half of your statement.  The second part doesn't make sense to me.  Chess 960 is basically a free for all, and I would hazard a guess and say that the odds of a low rated versus highly rated player are problably pretty low, 1400 versus a 2200...who would you put your money on?  On the other hand, i would give the 1400 at least even money in 960.

slack

960 is basically the same as standard chess at higher levels. Strategy, tactical vision, and endgame knowledge are all important.

ichabod801
ReLentLess5150 wrote:

I would agree with the first half of your statement.  The second part doesn't make sense to me.  Chess 960 is basically a free for all, and I would hazard a guess and say that the odds of a low rated versus highly rated player are problably pretty low, 1400 versus a 2200...who would you put your money on?  On the other hand, i would give the 1400 at least even money in 960.


Then you'd lose a lot of money betting on 960. It doesn't matter what the underlying game is. A 1400 vs. a 2200 is going to have the same chance in either case, as long as those ratings are based on a decent number of games. That's what the ratings do. They estimate the chance of beating other players in the same ratings pool.

aansel

In 960 rating does matter--it uses lots of tactics and also endgame skill. If anything it is more pure as the advantage of opening books and databases are neutralized.

The more I play 960 the more I like it-I know that in my first game I had (by chess.com default ) my challenge floor at my own rating.

ReLentLess5150
ichabod801 wrote:
ReLentLess5150 wrote:

I would agree with the first half of your statement.  The second part doesn't make sense to me.  Chess 960 is basically a free for all, and I would hazard a guess and say that the odds of a low rated versus highly rated player are problably pretty low, 1400 versus a 2200...who would you put your money on?  On the other hand, i would give the 1400 at least even money in 960.


Then you'd lose a lot of money betting on 960. It doesn't matter what the underlying game is. A 1400 vs. a 2200 is going to have the same chance in either case, as long as those ratings are based on a decent number of games. That's what the ratings do. They estimate the chance of beating other players in the same ratings pool.


So what your saying is a standard 1400 vs. a standard 2200 wouldn't have a chance in 960 over the same number of games???  And to say that the "underlying game doesn't matter is like saying stock car racing vs formula one racing doesn't matter because driving is still driving!

TheOldReb

I agree that a 2200 level player will beat a 1400 level player just as badly in Fischer Random as in standard chess. The 800 points difference is 4 whole classes !  Thats huge and means the higher rated players understanding of the game is far greater than the 1400. The only difference 960 makes is that the higher rated player wont be able to utilize his work/memorization/understanding of standard openings but his knowledge of tactics, strategy, positional play, etc will still give him a huge advantage over the lower rated player.

KillaBeez

I just thought of a very interesting idea!  Gambling on chess!  People could bid on the players they believe are most likely to win the tournament.  It could be conducted just like horse racing.  Oh man, this would make a fortune! Cool

ReLentLess5150
KillaBeez wrote:

I just thought of a very interesting idea!  Gambling on chess!  People could bid on the players they believe are most likely to win the tournament.  It could be conducted just like horse racing.  Oh man, this would make a fortune!


Not sure if you're joking or not, but there are sites that do that!!! lol

ReLentLess5150
Reb wrote:

I agree that a 2200 level player will beat a 1400 level player just as badly in Fischer Random as in standard chess. The 800 points difference is 4 whole classes !  Thats huge and means the higher rated players understanding of the game is far greater than the 1400. The only difference 960 makes is that the higher rated player wont be able to utilize his work/memorization/understanding of standard openings but his knowledge of tactics, strategy, positional play, etc will still give him a huge advantage over the lower rated player.


Does this argument hold true, in your opinion, with blitz?

ichabod801
ReLentLess5150 wrote:
ichabod801 wrote:
ReLentLess5150 wrote:

I would agree with the first half of your statement.  The second part doesn't make sense to me.  Chess 960 is basically a free for all, and I would hazard a guess and say that the odds of a low rated versus highly rated player are problably pretty low, 1400 versus a 2200...who would you put your money on?  On the other hand, i would give the 1400 at least even money in 960.


Then you'd lose a lot of money betting on 960. It doesn't matter what the underlying game is. A 1400 vs. a 2200 is going to have the same chance in either case, as long as those ratings are based on a decent number of games. That's what the ratings do. They estimate the chance of beating other players in the same ratings pool.


So what your saying is a standard 1400 vs. a standard 2200 wouldn't have a chance in 960 over the same number of games???  And to say that the "underlying game doesn't matter is like saying stock car racing vs formula one racing doesn't matter because driving is still driving!


That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying a standard 1400 has the same chance against a standard 2200 that a Fischer Random 1400 has against a Fischer Random 2200.