-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
Why would they be banning 2nd accounts in rated matches
For lots of reasons.
For example if the user didn't ok it with chess.com first, or if the accounts played against each other.
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
when you are playing someone 200 points above you and the other player has no option to reject the game without being penalized. that is unfair to them, period.
Incorrect.
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
Why would they be banning 2nd accounts in rated matches
For lots of reasons.
For example if the user didn't ok it with chess.com first, or if the accounts played against each other.
And what about all those 2nd accounts they turn a blind eye too and make exceptions for? How many thousands are those? lol
That's not germane because your statement is incorrect either way.
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
when you are playing someone 200 points above you and the other player has no option to reject the game without being penalized. that is unfair to them, period.
Incorrect.
Absolutely not incorrect, because again they are risking much more rating points then the lower rated player. Hardly fair. Yiou might just be playing to "have fun" others might be more competitive then you. You should learn not to be so selfish.
There is exactly as much risk as playing an equally rated player as there is playing someone rated 200 points above you... and that can be shown mathematically.
Erik thinks in 10 years chess is going to be shown on TV like other sports? Not when general society realizes this is the type of community he built
Ah yes, all those skeletons.
But intrepid investigative reporter coolie is going to blow the case WIDE OPEN.
Even more so when a community of players like you defend such acts.
Aww yeah, players "like me."
The filthy underbelly of the chess world... good thing you've uncovered the truth, and will share it with the world.
There is exactly as much risk as playing an equally rated player as there is playing someone rated 200 points above you... and that can be shown mathematically.
I think we are arguing semantics here. I don't know the exact math but there is a point where it is extremely unfair.
You need to look up the word "semantics", and it's clear that you don't understand the math at all, let alone the 'exact' math..
Just remember that filthy underbelly of the internet, the anonymous smurfing like your favorite streamers do, is the main reason why online gaming will never be as respected or as popular as athletic sports. Erik doesn't realize that in 10 years nothing will change if that doesn't.
please explain one thing to me:
if higher rated players don't want to play lower ones, why not adjust match settings so they don't get paired with them?
Why the face palm reaction?
200 points higher is roughly 75% chance of winning and 25% chance of losing. You also win (roughly) 5 points for a win and lose 15 for a loss.
So on average you win 75% * 5 = 3.75
And on average you lose 25% * 15 = 3.75
So on average you win nothing and lose nothing... which is obviously how the rating system has to work. When you perform exactly as well as your rating then your rating stays the same.
And since this is true for any rating, it means you risk the same no matter who you play.
Now, in practice it doesn't work as intended for very large rating gaps (around 400 points) and chess.com rounds down to zero instead of awarding small fractions of a point meaning you do risk a non-zero amount when the gap is very large... but playing someone 200 points above (or below) you is not a problem.
200 points higher is . . .
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference.
Classic coolout response.
200 points higher is . . .
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference.
Classic coolout response.
So you think a 400 point difference is competitive!??! And Don't forget the rest of my post which you are conveniently ignoring. And Which you already admitted yourself in your previous post, is that such a difference would be an unequal risk and reward of points. lol.
"A 200 point difference is a noticeable difference of skill level, That is the rubicon we feel a difference when crossed and imo the spread should be limited to that. The goal of a rating system is to aid in matching competitively. Why undermine that, why even have a rating system at all if competitive matches are not the goal?"
How many games have you played where your opponent was more than 400 points higher/lower than you? Are you complaining about something from personal experience?
There was one master who was doing some coaching for beginner kids, analyzing games. His rule was he'd stop looking at the game after 3 big mistakes, because that was already a lot for them to work on.
Anyway, you make such an effort for your first sentence to be wrong, why should I continue with the rest of the post? That's already enough for you to work on. After you fix that we can move on to the next thing if you want.
So let's try a 2nd time.
I said 200, not 400.
you think a 400 point difference is competitive!??!
I said 200, not 400.
200 points higher is . . .
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference.
Classic coolout response.
So you think a 400 point difference is competitive!??! And Don't forget the rest of my post which you are conveniently ignoring. And Which you already admitted yourself in your previous post, is that such a difference would be an unequal risk and reward of points. lol.
"A 200 point difference is a noticeable difference of skill level, That is the rubicon we feel a difference when crossed and imo the spread should be limited to that. The goal of a rating system is to aid in matching competitively. Why undermine that, why even have a rating system at all if competitive matches are not the goal?"
How many games have you played where your opponent was more than 400 points higher/lower than you? Are you complaining about something from personal experience?
Not exactly. I gave my personal experience of playing in club tournaments when I am the lowest retied player and how it is an automatic rating boost as an example of how the rating system works. This is why it needs to be regulated for the community as a whole. And whether by accident or not it seems it could happen to unsuspecting players. But I'm also simply against players purposely changing their settings to accomplish that in random rated matches. It should not be an option.
There is no setting on chess.com that allows a player to exclusively play against opponents who are so high rated that they wont lose rating points... that would be ridiculous.
200 points higher is . . .
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference.
Classic coolout response.
So you think a 400 point difference is competitive!??! And Don't forget the rest of my post which you are conveniently ignoring. And Which you already admitted yourself in your previous post, is that such a difference would be an unequal risk and reward of points. lol.
"A 200 point difference is a noticeable difference of skill level, That is the rubicon we feel a difference when crossed and imo the spread should be limited to that. The goal of a rating system is to aid in matching competitively. Why undermine that, why even have a rating system at all if competitive matches are not the goal?"
How many games have you played where your opponent was more than 400 points higher/lower than you? Are you complaining about something from personal experience?
Not exactly. I gave my personal experience of playing in club tournaments when I am the lowest retied player and how it is an automatic rating boost as an example of how the rating system works. This is why it needs to be regulated for the community as a whole. And whether by accident or not it seems it could happen to unsuspecting players. But I'm also simply against players purposely changing their settings to accomplish that in random rated matches. It should not be an option.
There is no setting on chess.com that allows a player to exclusively play against opponents who are so high rated that they wont lose rating points... that would be ridiculous.
So you are denying it ever happens? It should never happen. If it does the system is flawed and needs correcting. Especially when it is due to a user changing their settings bud.
Ok, show me. Change your settings and gain 100 points on that account by playing 1200 rated players.
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site