Rating points for playing against higher rating.

So recently I noticed that when my opponent has 200 more rating points, and I lose the game, I lose 5 rating points.
With 500 rating difference that was 1 rating point.
So I did a very simple extrapolation math: when my opponent has 800 more rating points, and I lose, I expect to GAIN 3 rating points!!
But that didn't happen!!??

In my opinion, playing against a really really very very much higher rated opponent and losing should always gain rating points.

Thoughts?

Rating is meant to represent skill, and if that happened, it’d completely break the rating system, since you could just play against your higher-rated grandmaster friend and gain free points. Plus, even if THEY beat you, then they’d actually LOSE rating points by the same logic. So instead, they just make it so that rating doesn’t change if the rating gap is sufficiently large.

Indeed! Exactly! They should!

I wanted to add this but forgot to.

Eventually this would be only temporary. My grandmaster friend, if I had any, would soon enough lose so many rating points that they'd end up having almost my rating. Then my logic would no longer work.

That is true, but it wouldn’t necessarily be fair for them to lose so many rating points just because they’re playing against you, even if they are winning. People shouldn’t be punished for winning a game.

Same with your side, just the other way around… Your grandmaster friend would essentially just be free points. This would give a quick and easy way for people to get free points, making it so that your rating would not accurately depict their actual skill level. Even though their rating would eventually even out, such a method would still result in free points.

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, I’m just saying that it feels counterintuitive to punish someone for winning or reward someone for losing.

I agree because I have low rating. But it's not a fair play. So…

My proposal will also reduce cheating. People will anyways get a rating point or two so they will be less tempted to get engine help. I honestly only see advantages here.

Yeah, you're right that this could end up reducing cheating. If someone gets a rating point or two for losing, then they'd be less tempted to get engine help.

I'm just curious, can you please explain to me your reasoning for why you believe that higher-rated players should be punished for winning, and lower-rated players should be rewarded for losing?

I believe your idea could have potential, but it'd have to be implemented very carefully and strategically to avoid triggering domino effects and crashing the rating economy.

i dont agree honestly

maybe if you played well against them

... yea no again i dont agree

But if you win. You shouldn't lose if you win. Its called winning because you win elo. In the same vein its called losing because you lose. You shouldn't win if you lose.

Starting a seek and finding no match for several minutes should also be awarded a rating point or two, for each minute that this happens. With chess 960 it happens too often that I can't get rating points, because players with high ratings simply refuse to show up.

What if you made a Custom time control that nobody plays (e.g., 9 | 14)? Then you could just passively farm rating points.