Chess rating system

IM SO ANNOYED AT THIS STUPID RATING BULLCRAP. LIKE WHAT DO I EVEN PICK. -25 -100 +4000 +300 REALLY. SMH. ITS STUPID. WHY CANT WE JUST PLAY.

Ratings are confusing

Michylee, the option to choose the rating range of your opponent is to allow for games that will be competitive. It's just an option. You can send a challenge without any rating range and let the engine pick your opponents at random. 

Is this like the fake ELO thread...

My online rating here (as I write) is 1700+ (and possibly still climbing as I'm fairly new in terms of playing regularly, though not in terms of a previously largely dormant membership). I'm not too bothered about my rating as such, but I do appreciate that this system allows players to find random opponents of a similar standard, at least, dear reader, in theory. I am, however, curious about one thing. Other than fairly regular games here with an opponent rated much lower than me who is a friend in the real off-line world, I always seek random opponents using the default rating range (300 points both higher and lower than me). For reasons I can't fathom, however, it always gives me players rated lower than me (and more significantly so now that my rating is a higher than it was), which is fine sometimes but rather irritating insofar as this is every time, and I would like the challenge of playing some stronger players. Since I passed 1500 I have yet to encounter a random opponent with a higher rating than myself using the default range and most are around 100 points lower than me.

There are two possible reasons that occur to me why the system keeps consistently giving me players with lower ratings:

(a) Those with higher ratings are deliberating setting the range of potential opponents higher than themselves. I know how to do this and could correspondingly set my range of opponents at higher ratings, but I feel this is unfair on those who are below me in rating terms as it perpetuates onto others the evil that is visited upon me!

(b) There is simply a smaller pool of players with higher ratings available for new games. In other words the further away from the chess.com average your rating is (and where the bulk of active players presumably is), the harder it is for the system to find opponents of a comparable or higher rating that is also seeking opponents at the same moment as you are. In short a Bell Curve scenario where a veritable army of players ranked 1200 or so easily find opponents with higher ratings but where a significantly smaller number of those a fair bit higher up do not.

Any other guesses why this might be so? A response from the chess.com tekkies would be particularly welcome.

I think your A suggestion is most likely.

I usually set my rating range a bit more narrowly than 300. In bullet, I generally get competitive games that are almost an even split between those higher and lower rated than myself within a few seconds.

I'll try that. Thanks!

Hey, I'm new to blitz chess just wan to know if I have capturedd more pieces of opponent but my time gets over first.. Do I win or lose?

You've lost, I'm afraid. You lose if you're checkmated, you resign or you go over your alloted time. All regardless of how much material (number and value of pieces) you have captured. The value of the pieces is purely a heuristic guide to how well you are probably doing but the amount and value of material you have or had compared to your opponent don't mean doodly squot if you're mated or your time is up (assuming you are playing blitz or another time-controlled version of chess). 

Karpark. To answer your longer questions. Both (a) and (b) are generally the case. Add to that, the fact that if a lower player has a number of games going. They lose less points to the higher player. So they have more to gain than you as the higher player does. We all like to challenge ourselves and try to beat the higher players, so you can imagine why they would take that chance against you.

If you want a game closer to your rating, you will have to set preferences up to adjust to that like any other player. Other wise the majority of times you will get much lower rated players.

Some people care about their average opponent stats too. So that could be a part (c) to that consideration as well. The higher your average opponent, the more impressive it may look to others who view the stats like that.

Thanks Ian. I'm sure that your point (c) is a good one. To be honest I'm not really bothered about my own rating and only about my opponents' stats insofar as they may be indicators that I get a few more challenging games with stronger players. Obviously I've been a little naive in my understanding of what is in effect another game within a game.

Some people take the chess.com ratings as seriously as the OTB ratings i am sure. Yes, the psychology is something to consider with these things.

Just now, i had an open invite range from -100 below me to +200 above me. Guess what one came up?  

A 1743? As I write, 100 below you exactly and my rating exactly! 

Yeah, just about. He is actually 1786. But my rating is due to rise again. After a couple of games i am due to win. One is an interesting king and pawn end game against a lower rated player, whom admittedly has played rather well.  It emphasises my point nicely though. 

That is generally true but you can also get a draw if your opponent doesn't have sufficient material to mate.

Talking about sufficient material, I have a request. Could you please fix the sufficient material things so that if it is something like bishop vs pawn, knight vs rook, etc and your opponent loses on time, you win the game? Thanks.

I think the site uses USCF rules rather than FIDE rules to determine "insufficient losing chances".