Pairings are based on your rating range defaults or what you set in a custom seekand the system pairs you with someone in the random pool that has compatible seek settings.
If you start adding exceptions/rules it increases the amount of time it takes to find a suitable opponent. It's not designed to give opponents on streaks, higher/lowered rated when you won/lost your last game, etc.
"It's not designed to give opponents on streaks, higher/lowered rated when you won/lost your last game, etc."
And why not? Wouldn't it make more sense to pair a 1350 player after losing to a 1450 with a 1350-1415 player instead of 1500, which is higher rated than the last opponent who won?
The more stipulations you add to the pairing algorithm, the harder it will be to find compatible opponents and the longer it takes to pair.
The site already gives the ability to restrict the range around your current rating, which can regulate that in a way to keep ratings tightly coupled. If you play well and your rating goes up, the ratings of opponents will still be in your range and the same when it drops.
I've certainly noticed this. Some of the lower rated players that I play against and even players around 600 have some really insane memorized lines sometimes. Between that and me getting matched against players 50 to 200 points above me anytime I get a win makes it challenging to adjust. I keep track of my skill based on my puzzle solve. I'm a 1500 puzzle solve but only rated 400. And when I get a real player that doesn't know what they're doing I crush them. But for some reason every other match I swear it gets unreasonably difficult out of nowhere. I've even beaten higher rated players and find them to be easier matchups. For example 1,200 rated are just average to me now. I have about a little better than 1 in 3 chance of winning against them. I've just given up on trying to increase my rating all together and just play unrated matches for the fun of it. On the plus side I've gotten some really fun wins against really high rated players my highest being a 1600 which was really cool.
It’s called tilt, and it happens to everyone. I’ve lost up to 200 points in a few days, and it would take me around a month or so to get back to anywhere similar. It feels like your opponents are harder because of psychological factors. As for playing many higher rated people- think of it like this. If you lose, no harm, right? They were higher rated anyways. If you win, though…
And for those who don’t want to keep playing higher rated people- YOU can choose the rating ranges when you play. My settings are -100 to +infinity, meaning anybody matched with me is either lower than my rating by 100 points, upwards to any number.
Sadly enough, the world does not revolve around you… you are not important enough for any system to purposefully put you down. Matchmaking is completely random, and while losing ive played with people lower and higher rated than me- and I have lost to both.
As for people suddenly playing good- maybe you’re just playing bad. Does anyone here check their games with the computer? If you don’t have premium here you can Analyse them on lichess if you really want to see how “good” your opponent played.
"It’s called tilt, and it happens to everyone."
This has nothing to do with tilt.
Tilt would be, 1500 plays 1550 and loses, then plays 1500 and loses, then plays 1450 and loses, etc...
Tilting is not, "Oh, let's pair the next person who has 100 points higher than their last opponent."
This is a completely unrealistic theory. The easiest form of matchmaking to program would be a random one that looks for people and immediately pairs them. Your matchmaking method assumes that chess.com LOOKS THROUGH your game history, then finds a higher rated player ON PURPOSE, and then pairs the both of you.
Chess.com has zero motive to do this, and therefore why would you assume this is on purpose?
If, by chance, that you think this is not on purpose- just change your live chess settings. Set them to be about -infinity to +50. Something like that. It’s not really hard, either.
It’s called tilt, and it happens to everyone. I’ve lost up to 200 points in a few days, and it would take me around a month or so to get back to anywhere similar. It feels like your opponents are harder because of psychological factors. As for playing many higher rated people- think of it like this. If you lose, no harm, right? They were higher rated anyways. If you win, though…
And for those who don’t want to keep playing higher rated people- YOU can choose the rating ranges when you play. My settings are -100 to +infinity, meaning anybody matched with me is either lower than my rating by 100 points, upwards to any number.
I mean I do set custom matches though just so it doesn't happen but I still get these wacky pairings. And like I said it's not like the lower ratings are all that bad. Most of them are just inaccurate but some of them are smart enough to memorize things which makes it a challenge. Most irritating being the bizarre moves and memorized traps. So like I said anytime I get a win even with custom settings I still manage to get matched against people outside of what I've set. Although it does help a little but not enough. I mean I'm in the 400s not a bad player myself which really says something. I'm a 400 player playing at least at 800 to 1,000 level average gameplay and have memorized nine openings in many traps myself and it's still not enough so....
"Matchmaking is completely random"
Ok, then let's do that with the super GMs. They have to play anyone.
Well sure it’s not COMPLETELY random. Maybe they start in a -100 +100 search, and expand if they can’t find anyone. But you’re just picking at the smallest holes here.
It’s called tilt, and it happens to everyone. I’ve lost up to 200 points in a few days, and it would take me around a month or so to get back to anywhere similar. It feels like your opponents are harder because of psychological factors. As for playing many higher rated people- think of it like this. If you lose, no harm, right? They were higher rated anyways. If you win, though…
And for those who don’t want to keep playing higher rated people- YOU can choose the rating ranges when you play. My settings are -100 to +infinity, meaning anybody matched with me is either lower than my rating by 100 points, upwards to any number.
I mean I do set custom matches though just so it doesn't happen but I still get these wacky pairings. And like I said it's not like the lower ratings are all that bad. Most of them are just inaccurate but some of them are smart enough to memorize things which makes it a challenge. Most irritating being the bizarre moves and memorized traps. So like I said anytime I get a win even with custom settings I still manage to get matched against people outside of what I've set. Although it does help a little but not enough. I mean I'm in the 400s not a bad player myself which really says something. I'm a 400 player playing at least at 800 to 1,000 level average gameplay and have memorized nine openings in many traps myself and it's still not enough so....
Are you sure that you have both “incoming” and “outgoing” set with a rating cap? Because I do and I’ve never had an issue with it.
As for the memorized traps- I don’t think that anybody rated 400 is memorizing anything. It’s probably a case of “I know what better people play, and I play like them, but weaker people play weird and I don’t know how to deal with it”. I feel the same way when playing 1700-2000 rated people online- they play weird and bad, but not bad enough to get completely destroyed. But that’s just a guess, so don’t take it the wrong way
"The easiest form of matchmaking to program would be a random one that looks for people and immediately pairs them."
Easiest and fastest is not the best. In fact, random and fast is not how the World Cup pairings are chosen.
Unfortunately, you’re not playing in the World Cup! And please tell me how programming all the extra effort to make a losing person lose more benefits Chess.com?
I mean that's also true but as soon as I focus on my own accuracy stop trying to take advantage of their inaccuracy I take a whole step up and get many great moves sometimes I even get a brilliant one in. But the truth of the matter is I've seen Russo gambits Queens gambits scholars mates and fried liver being the most common. Obviously I know what they are because I like to use them myself since they're lower rated I can force the issue on them sometimes and I put enough pressure from it and they don't know how to do it. I even had a case once where someone pulled a Bob Evans out of nowhere which is my own best line so I should know. It's usually just a case of the only know that one line in that particular set. It happens one in five maybe seven matches
There are about 60 million accounts on chess.com. Discounting inactive accounts, maybe half, let’s assume 30 million people. First of all, that’s a lot of people, and a lot of people means more cheaters. But even so, that should make it into a “everyone I play is a cheater” site. You do know how to tell when someone cheats, right? Accuracy is only one factor.
And your postscript can be easily thwarted by a person using any sort of database. Or maybe they can just look to the side, see the name of the opening…
I mean that's also true but as soon as I focus on my own accuracy stop trying to take advantage of their inaccuracy I take a whole step up and get many great moves sometimes I even get a brilliant one in. But the truth of the matter is I've seen Russo gambits Queens gambits scholars mates and fried liver being the most common. Obviously I know what they are because I like to use them myself since they're lower rated I can force the issue on them sometimes and I put enough pressure from it and they don't know how to do it. I even had a case once where someone pulled a Bob Evans out of nowhere which is my own best line so I should know. It's usually just a case of the only know that one line in that particular set. It happens one in five maybe seven matches
For the majority of the trap lines, including scholars mate, once you defend the trap, you still have to play chess for the rest of the game- they are not losing or anything. And yeah I suppose that does qualify for memorized lines
And please tell me how programming all the extra effort to make a losing person lose more benefits Chess.com?
If you lose and then play a higher rated player, that loses benefits both ways. Why play an IM, lose, and then play a GM? It makes no sense.
That tells me how it benefits the higher rated player, not how it benefits chess.com. Chess.com is obviously a company, and companies like money, and I can’t see the profits that come from making people rage.
>OP, there is no suckiness present! You’re probably just on tilt. Take a day or two away from chess, rest up, then come back. I was on tilt a couple days ago, and it’s not fun, trust me.
>@1sgpro, more openings is not what you need. The more openings the worse you’ll end up, I’d argue because you’re spending your time needlessly when you could be doing better things. Get a set opening repertoire, which, at your level, is one opening for white and black, and focus on fundamentals.
>@LookUnderTheBoard, imagine blaming chess.com for your losses. If you lose, man up and take it. No chess player has won every match. Stop with the excuses and don’t lie to yourself 
i was lower rated and now i am i think better, then again that depends on how you view me
"Matchmaking is completely random"
Ok, then let's do that with the super GMs. They have to play anyone.
It's random with those seeking games the same time you do and that have matching seek settings. Most GMs likely have their limit on the low end at a minimal range.
>@LookUnderTheBoard, imagine blaming chess.com for your losses. If you lose, man up and take it. No chess player has won every match. Stop with the excuses and don’t lie to yourself
My comment has nothing to do with losing exclusively. If you understood my message, it was that we are not getting paired correctly, win or lose. I don't mind losing 3 games, but I don't want to lose 3 games against people 100+ higher than me and then win the 4th against someone who is 50+ below me. I learn nothing from an easy win. I learn nothing from a too difficult opponent.
If you understood my message, you would see I want to be paired closer to my rating.
Then set your seek settings???
>@LookUnderTheBoard, imagine blaming chess.com for your losses. If you lose, man up and take it. No chess player has won every match. Stop with the excuses and don’t lie to yourself
My comment has nothing to do with losing exclusively. If you understood my message, it was that we are not getting paired correctly, win or lose. I don't mind losing 3 games, but I don't want to lose 3 games against people 100+ higher than me and then win the 4th against someone who is 50+ below me. I learn nothing from an easy win. I learn nothing from a too difficult opponent.
If you understood my message, you would see I want to be paired closer to my rating.
https://support.chess.com/article/1962-how-do-i-choose-what-rating-my-opponents-are
Set it -25 and +25 then....
...or am I just getting worse? (I think I know the answer).
I've lost 8 of my last 11 games against higher and lower rated players in my range, and two of the "wins" were abandonments (neither of which was because I was in a winning position). So I'm really about 1 for 11.
In the past month, I've dropped 100 points, which is significant, when I started at my high of 625. I wonder if I'm just overthinking, and making dumb moves, putting me in losing situations. It's super frustrating.
Yes, I review my games. Yes I check for blunders. I know , "wah, wah". Go ahead. Tell me I'm a big baby.
I just feel like everyone at my level has suddenly gotten much better. I'm probably just in denial of my suckiness.