High-ranking low life players!

Since I'm currently playing several first rounds in (more or less) open tournaments, I have some lower rated opponents and can easily top your example:

Rated - Win: +0  Loss: -39  Draw: -19

I have a similar experience. Since changing the seek from -200/+200 to -50/+300 my bullet rating easily increased 100 points in one day, but I have to wait longer to get a game. And so far 9 out of 10 players rated over 200 points above me abort the game on the first move...

Yep, everyone likes to play higher rated opponents, which makes the complaints about players who play voluntarily against lower rated even stranger.

Since I'm currently playing several first rounds in (more or less) open tournaments, I have some lower rated opponents and can easily top your example:  Rated - Win: +0  Loss: -39  Draw: -19 Sred

That really sucks - you should at least get a pt or 2 for a win, no matter how much you outrate someone. I never heard of zero pts for a win in USCF or ASPCC

While I agree it's not great to play a much lower rated player with nothing to gain, you can't reward every win with a minimum of 1 or 2 points without having the problem the OP complains about (and it would become an easy cheating mechanism).

And possibly ratings are calculated more accurately than shown on chess.com, which means you will be see a point reward after sufficient +0 wins.

That's an interesting idea Firebrandx.  When I was playing live chess here, I got games by opening a seek and would play whoever accepted (I never messed with that dot graph).   My average opponent is something like 1600.  My impression at the time was that if I started playing only 1800 players my rating would have actually gone up, because it seemed those "rare" losses hit me for so many points that I'd need to win 5 games straight to catch back up.

Right -- you might get 10 "free points" from 10 straight wins, but if you get that sudden "unexpected" loss you'll have to win 20 more consecutively just to break even.

However, I think you always get at least one rating point for a victory, so if you play way down, like someone 1000 points lower, you'll probably end up with a net gain because your losses will be too rare.

You thought wrong (see #27 by Sred, and think I've also seen a +0 reward once).

It's ok for me, the rating diff is >700.

There will always be some sort of ratings manipulation by dolts whose ego is tied up in their rating.  The fact is the deficiencies in their play will be evident to strong players. When the rating & actual strength of play doesn’t match then the jerk is a phony subject to all sorts of ridicule…….

Fire you won't be able to mop up people 400 lower in rating than you, if the true ability of your chess is around there too. Say this person is rated 2000, and is mopping up 1600s. So what? What do you think his true chess ability is assuming that you are correct and is "mopping" up these 1600s? It should be below 2000 right, because hes overrated? So infact his true ability is around 1700-1800. How will a 1700-1800 true rated player be mopping up 1600s?

Your idea would more likely apply to mopping up people 600+ rating points below you. Even then its pretty unlikely, I don't think your theory works at all. They may not be 2000, but they are probably about 1900. The point you are trying to make is not AS extreme as stated, but it might be true to some extent. 

That being said, ofc, its no fun doing that. 

I learned nothing from these games apart from the fact that a had a far more experienced player hitting me with complicated gambits that are nigh on impossible for someone of my level to understand.

Most people feel that playing higher rated opponents is a great way to improve. Anyway it was a problem with your search settings, not with your opponent, so there is no reason to complain about him.

Geoff999: To an extent that may happen when you play someone way up -- it can be a confusing matter sometimes when you are so outclassed. However, playing someone 100-200 points above, will probably help you learn without being overwhelmed or overly confused.

Yes, I agree playing people 200 to 300 points ahead is a good way to learn, but it's still bad sportsmanship when high ranking players accept RATED open invited from players who are, say, 500 points below them, purely to raise their own ratings!

As has already been explained, a win against a player rated that far below has almost no impact on the rating. If a player accepts such an invitation he probably does so because he actually believes that he is welcome to do so - it was an open seek after all. The player in question probably even thought he did you a favor.

If it was an online game, as opposed to a live one, they may not have gained any points at all for a win.  I have a friend rated much lower than me who occasionally challenges me to rated online games, which I refuse.  Last time it was +0 for a win.  His rating's about 600 beneath mine.

Why would it make a difference if it was an online game or a life game? AFAIK both use the same glicko rating method.