Unless he's trying to work his way up with his rating lol.. I always like to play a stronger player. I'm sick of this bull crap with trying to make your rating better. Frankly, this online rating means crap. Hand it to the man at your next tournament.
Yep, / I don't like it and i suck at it so it must be crap that whole thing with ratings / typical thinking. New accounts, stupid avatars, low or no ratings and sh**ty comments. What else you expect from those "players".
What I expect is pretty weird however since I've done it before here is what I think. Dudes are playing good games and it's fun. Once, I had a program that won every time. Bro's are crazy on the games I play and I loose most times.
amilton542, few people here understand what you are talking about I think - at least your former topic. If you are describing thoughts regarding their play without trying to be rude (I do not think this was your intent) then I agree with you, as I believe I know what you are attempting to describe. Additionally, I believe that I have experienced what you are refering to. The second part of your forum (you winning vs stronger opponents) is because you are likely improving/the opponent underestimating you.
However, the former is more difficult for those who have not experienced it to understand. The reason (why opponents weaker than you can compete well) could be caused by several reasons including, but not limited to: 1) you are moving too fast/not taking a second check to see opponent tactics, or if you have a piece hanging
2) you're too focused on following lines, rather than following ideas
3) mental breaks needed as any "brain activities" (like chess) have best performances in bursts/breaks
The good news is that whichever of these reasons apply, perhaps none, all have the same solution. If you can compete with higher rated opponents, then when playing players at or below your level - simply play sound structurally/positionally and wait for them to make a mistake. If your rating is higher then statistically you will outplay them more often than you are outplayed, just watch that you do not hang pieces, and with this advice you will be surprised how well this works.
Lastly to you try to have fun, but while also realizing that no matter how many tempi behind they are in the opening, or how poor an opening they play - it is only an opening as chess is a cruel game that can be lost in one move.
To summarize, play less tactically/aggressive and wait a bit more versus weaker players, but do not underestimate them as it only means a better chance that you will win (GMs and IMs sometimes lose to players several hundred points worse too - happens to everyone)
I hope that you will find this helpful, hopefully not to long of a response - although I wanted to answer your long questions adequately.
(fulldroid17, if you understand my username: "screw the rules, I have money.")
Stock stopper, I'm missing the "brain activities." Like you said, a.. you try to have fun.
If you can compete with higher rated opponents, then when playing players at or below". The way to say it is "Than" when playing.
He may simply be saying that the ratings are not a strong tool for predicting the outcome of games, since often he is beaten by an apparently 'weaker' (lower rated player) and at the same time he has often beaten apparently 'stronger' (higher rated) players. Well, I dont have much trouble agreeing with that observation, although its hardly 'novel'.
I think, as someone already pointed out, if you have a small set of players and they all play each other repeatedly - then the final ratings will generally tend to identify the strongest and the weakest players quite well over time, so that they could become a strong indication of who is likely to win any particular match of the players over time (everyone will blunder from time to time, or have an off-day, so it can never be a guarantee) but it should generally work BUT this doesnt take account of some phenomena which I notcie - and which may possibly be behind the author's apparent surprise or frustration with the predictability capabality of the ratings systeme. These are the following - and they will always lead to the upsets identified by the author:
1. Everytime a new member joins chess.com, I think I'm right in saying (correct me if not!) they start out with a default rating, I believe around 1200 (not quite sure if that is the value) and then this goes up or down based upon the subsequent games and their performance. Clearly if someone with a rating (outside of chess.com) of 2300, for example, joins chess.com, then they will consistently produce examples of the Weaker Player (i.e. lower rated) beating the Stronger Player (higher rated) - which is the phenomenon which seems to upset the author. This stops of course when the rating of the new player comes more into line with his actual real capabilities and he starts losing against higher rated players because they really are better players than him. However, that will take some time for his ratings to get so high. The length of time this takes will depend on the ratings of the people he chooses to play against as well - and during this period s/he will often be producing the lower rated player beats the higher rated player. So that's one perfectly natural cause undermining the predictability capability of the rating system.
2. The second phenomenon is that I often see players taking on more and more games (often with a rediculous amount of concurrent games or, at least, a number which clearly suddenly becomes too much for them to manage in terms of the time available they have available to maintain their standard chess-playing ability. So I have seen players with a very high rating, suddenly plummet by 300-400 points or even more in some circumstances - either losing numerous games by Time-Outs, or by rediculous errors, because of time pressure. This factor means of course that the are often losing to lower rated players. So this is another natural cause of the same phenonmenon, and ironically of course, as soon as their number of simultaneous games reduces to something manageable, their newly (and 'false') lower rating will start to increase again through a whole series of games where they quite naturally beat higher rated players, because their true ability is once more able to be expressed.
So this is a second and natural cause of the phenomenon, which disrupts the predictability capability of the rating system.
Everytime I play a new game, and especially a lower rated player, I take a quick look at their history, because: if I see constant and unbroken increase in their ratings up until their current rating - I know I may be facing someone who has a far greater ability than myself - and I should not fall into the trap of underestimating them, simply because they have a lower rating. Of course for this one, it is often linked to new players so the other thing is to check when they joined Chess.com. If the player joined a long time ago, I check (if I can be bothered) the pattern over a longer period - usually people who are examples of the second phenomenon have dramatic rises, then dramatic falls, then dramatic rises, then falls again etc. - and if you see this pattern (also occasionally indicated by their 'highest ever' rating) then you should also take care not to underestimate based upon current rating.
I dont think this is anything to be annoyed about. That's simply how it is. It is also a very good proof and reason for the age-old advice - play the board, not the player. Never make a move that you think you could get away with, simply because the opposition'r rating suggests they would not notice your tactic/ruse, if you, yourself, know that it is ultimately flawed and would be punished by a better player.
I think the Author simply needs to take that point on board, stop reflecting too much on ratings, and certainly never get upset about the lower rated player beating the higher rated player: It happens more often than you might think. Just play each game as best you can - you will certainly lose more games if you are influenced by the rating of your opponent.
Agree with Stratajee (post 29.)completely ,this is how it happens on chess.com.Another information I once played a lady player(TM- score1-1).When I went to check her 'games' history, she had more than 950 current games .In another case a player had about 5000 current daily games a sort of record for chess.com.These were physically verified by me.
I must have been wrong. A rare occurrence, thanks for hitting every angle before I had time to reply Stratajee.
Unless he's trying to work his way up with his rating lol.. I always like to play a stronger player. I'm sick of this bull crap with trying to make your rating better. Frankly, this online rating means crap. Hand it to the man at your next tournament.