Chess is to automatic? The higher rated wins in 99,99 % of the times.

If chess is so automatic, explain how the following happened yesterday!  Black was already lost before I took the hanging Queen on move 31, and the tool actually proceeds to offer a draw after my 30th move, and sit and stall waiting for me to reply (Yeah, RIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!).

https://www.chess.com/live/game/4712392522

Higher rated is not automatic!

 
I’ve never done tournaments so I don’t know my FIDE elo. Nevertheless, I believe it to be around 15-1600. I once beat an 1850 player because he blundered on a tactic he thought he saw and I just waited the game out.

Did I “really” beat him? No. He lost the game more so than my calculations won it. But, I think similar things can happen at lower levels where players are likelier to make flawed calculations on trades and tactics. So there is *a chance* and the respective elo changes will keep the overall ratings in line. Remember, you likely beat some 200 points higher than yourself at some point.

Well. Let me say it this way: the chances for me to win the Powerball AND MegaMillions jackpot the same week is higher than a lower rated to win vs. a higher rated.

@Rawfruit, How do you explain that:

https://www.chess.com/live/game/4721228997 today

https://www.chess.com/live/game/4720779333 today

https://www.chess.com/live/game/4683750874 a week ago

https://www.chess.com/live/game/4677756838 a week ago

You are wrong.

Now, if you were to say that most of the time, the lower player beats the higher rated player, I must agree. However, saying that they will always lose is ludicrous. What is the point of playing chess if you never lose? In that case, chess is no fun, because there would be no competition. Yesterday, I beat a 1100 player, with me being 1050. Not a big rating difference, but still quite intimating, at least for me. I won. We both had around 85% accuracy, not that that matters, and not a whole lot of blunders, but I won. You can’t assume you are always going to lose, because then there’s no point in playing.

Wait-

Worth mentioning too that your rating indicates your level of strength in the past, and doesn't necessarily say how strong you are now. 

On one individual game, you could play at a level much higher or lower than your rating. Just play your best and don't worry about it.

@Rawfruit,

By the way the chances to win the Powerball AND MegaMillions jackpot the same week is 1 in 40693479851640000 or 0.00000000000000246% which is as likely to happen as to get struck by 33300720010 lightings in one year (one struck every millisecond approximately) (assuming you won't die )

You are deep man

you get better by playing people better than you

Disagree, I win 90% of my higher rates games

I don't know glicko formula, but with USCF, the rating difference goes like this.

1400 vs 1400 = 50% of winning for each player

1300 vs 1400 = 100 point difference = 25% chance the lower rated wins

1200 vs 1400 = 200 point difference = 12.5% chance the lower rated player wins

1100 vs 1400 = 300 point difference = 6.25% chance the lower rated player wins

1000 vs 1400 = 400 point difference = 3.125% chance of winning

900 vs 1400 = 500 point difference = 1.56% chance of winning

And these are based on many many games,but the bottom line is that even a 200 point difference is significant. Outside of the higher rated player getting distracted, there is little chance for someone rated 250 points lower than the opponent to win. Even a 200 point difference is pretty significant if the higher rated player is taking the game seriously.

Scramble the pieces function to reduce pattern recognition. It would approach to only tactic chess.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/functional-exchanged-chess

Magnus lost to Alireza today, nothing is given

A 1500 can never beat a 1700 rated, and a 1700 can never beat a 2000 rated.

But the lucky thing is that a 1500 will always win vs. 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400.

It's a better odds for winning the lottery than beating a higher rated player.

It's not for no reason there is no Chess Sports Bets. The odds must be like 1,01 for the higher rated to win vs. 100,00 in odds for the lower rated.

YES to more tournament with +/- 3 or 5 rating points!

They are higher rated because they have better understanding of the game than the lower rated player. Of course the higher rated one can mess up if the lower rated player is alert.

I don’t get why you don’t like playing higher rated people... you have nothing to lose, so go all out and play a nice game! The “I resign because they’re higher rated” attitude won’t help you get better. If you get better, then your rating will naturally follow. 

Ratings are a way to compare your relative strength against other players, not a form of resigning.

The higher rated player will generally win, yes. And the greater the differential, the more likely this will be the out come. However, I have an expression, "That is why you play the game." There is always a chance the "underdog" will win. It happens all the time and "that is why you play the game."

You will lose 100% of the games you resign, or don't play. Your odds, therefore, are better playing, even if only marginally so.

Explain then