I think someone said above that there's no rating floor for live games. I looked at the op's profile, he only seems to play online games. Hence my comment.
High-ranking low life players!
Sort:
I wish that more high ranked players would play me. My minimum rating is +100 and maximum rating is 2000. I only try to play higher rated people in order to get better. I've found that if all you do is play people at your level then you will remain at that level. But if you open yourself to new challenges then you'll get used to the higher difficulty. I welcome much higher ranked players with open arms. Feel free to send a challenge if anyone wants to improve their rating 1 point at a time :p
Irontiger wrote:
The fact that there are floors makes that you could exploit the rating system by playing only much higher rated players, your numerous defeats costing you no points.
Strangely, people don't do that. Maybe they just want to win, not to smuggle rating points.
Actually I tend to play mostly higher rated opponents for that very reason: its great learning fodder and I risk little or no loss of points. Evidence: my average opponent rating is well above mine own.
I typically play 1000-1200 rated folks on here, so I'm one of the OP's "low lifes"... from my point of view I generally get solid games, I have to play properly but have opportunities to try out exciting combinations. I can play a large number of long games, which I enjoy, without feeling too exhausted.
As far as rating "inflation" goes - it's hogwash! I would need a 95% win rate to make any increase which is exactly the way the system is supposed to work.
Then again, I could mention the individuals who switch on engines when playing better opponents or rematches, but that would start an argument!
^ No, you are not one of the OPs low lifes.
I was referring specifically to players of a 1400+ ranking who take on 800+ players just to increase their ratings.
Hate to be a spoil sport but it makes no sense at all to me to claim that players rated 1400 would take on players rate 800 just to increase their rating! I mean what would the percentage win rate have to be to increase your rating playing someone rated 600 points below you.
Someone making such a claim please give me an answer to my question?
If someone plays a high rated player he should learn from the games.
If he cannot learn then he needs specialized help to see what his problem is.
Question: So is the higher ranking player playing profitable by winning against a lower ranked player? Yes, if they actually learn something. No, if they win, their ranking improves and they didnt learn anything.
Accepting open, rated challenges from players well below your rating is wrong. End of.
Sometimes I think they do it to try out some particular pet opening of thier's or maybe they are drunk or something. I personally set my seek to -35 / +200 to 400 depending. I've found that folks with a higher rating will come out sloppy and I can often get an edge and keep it, nice bump to my rating ;) Playing someone equal to your rating and thier game will be more correct. As stated on here it will help their rating little so there may be other reasons like maybe they are looking for some conversation. Try talking to them. If you really want to improve your score in a cheating fashion, play the COMPUTER in live at your level. It is totally wack and easy to beat. you'll increase your rating fast. Have a great nite!
This one was calling me from 500 cities away.
Thought i was going to find tons of dumping on 2100+ rated players.
Dec 31, 2012
0
#54
I play plenty of turn-based (five days per move) games against my brother-in-law. We nearly always have a game going. He's rated about six hundred points below me; but he likes to play me, rather than an opponent of his own rating level. Winning gives me one rating point. A draw would cost me sixteen. A loss would cost me thirty-two.
I always accept his challenges. Does this make me a low-life?
I thought when i came here i would here how 2100 players talked to 1300 players like they were trash. Which is what i seen much of when i first came to this site. No it is just down to in Vote Chess games.
In which case i have proven that a couple of average players can beat some high rated players in Vote Chess. When they do not have good communication they can fall and fall hard. Their overconfidence helps also when playing against them.
TacticalSymphony wrote:
Don't worry about it. Nobody on earth is ever going to care about anything other than your USCF/FIDE OTB rating. Use your ratings as a guide to your own progress.
I wish that were true.
I spent weeks working on traps when opponent make them in the opening. Now they avoid them by using analyze. Feel like i wasted my time and could have been better spent elsewhere.
Yeah i improved but the Dillinger Gang may have robbed me of my time put in, just the same. They come to forums and find instant solutions to methods of play. Progress? Have to play everyday to find out the new tricks as one may get far behind on this site. Move progress to the side and staying aware in its place.
I presume you are friends. Continue playing.
FirebrandX wrote:
Sred wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
Sred wrote:
If you think this technique will increase their ratings reliably, then you don't understand the rating system.
On chess.com it does. I've seen members on here that have around my same blitz rating from playing only below 1600 players. Mine is from fighting 1700-2000 range players. If I did the same as these types, I'd easily have a 2000+ rating.
Statistically, you would suffer very rare defeats that would hurt your rating very much. You win 40 games, getting 1 point from each, then you lose one that costs you 40.
And yet again, players are exploiting the rating system just as I said. You have to understand that the chess.com elo system doesn't have floors like in the USCF. A player can mop on lower-rateds on here and gain more than they lose. It happens all the time, and I see players all the time with ratings in the 1800-2000 range, yet their average opponent rating is only 1550. You can't get around that fact.
I like the latter part of your quote, the 1550 part. Ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!
Regardless of how it may or may not affect your ratings--why would you want to consistently play much lower rated players? This will hurt your efforts to improve your game.
Suspose that somehow it is true that you can increase your rating by playing much lower rated players and you do just that and get a higher rating? So what? You have not improved your actual chess ability. And eventually players who play against better competition will surpass you.
Why are you so mad? So what if their ratings don't match their skill level, though I feel you're dead wrong, because as others mentioned, the risk of losing a low rated match can be up to 20 points versus the 1-2 points you would get from beating a much lower level guy.
I think the rating system is perfect the way it is.
Lastly the people they choose to play decides the type of person they are?
I don't pick any players I play against in chess, but when I get a lower level player I like to play a little more risky and a little more agressive, in turn I'm sure it works out great for both players.
Plenty of times I get a nice rush mate, and plenty of times I have attacked to fast and get countered.
Worry about yourself man..
well put