Ratings for Refused Games

Let me offer an example: you regularly play at a chess club.  That club has a ratings system based on FIDE rankings.  Every night you go, there are people waiting behind boards to play rated matches.  You sit down at a game.  You ask the player what their rating is, and it's 200 points below yours.  You thank them, stand up, and go find another game to play.  You don't lose any rating - the game just doesn't happen.

Now, why can't the games here work like that?  Why do I lose rating for refusing to play matches against people who are rated below me, or out of a rating zone I wish?

And before you say that the system wouldn't work if people only played those ranked far higher than them, 1. the higher-ranked should be free to refuse those, and 2. there are tens of thousands of players on at any given time, and I suspect the vast majority of them play without ratings qualifications.  The system won't collapse if we're given the freedom to refuse matches.

(and if someone wants to suggest, is there a good site/community with good players, and without the bs of chess.com?)

Like kaynight said, you can set your search settings to not play those people. You can set the rating difference above and below within 25 points to open. So you could set the lower range to not accept anyone rated more than 25 points below you and set the above range to open or whatever you want.

But what if I only want to play people 200 points higher than I?

That's just too specific. I know there are quite a few people playing chess, but probably not enough for searches to allow users to be that specific. They have to narrow down the choices to balance out the wait time. If there were twice as many active users, I'm sure they could open up the options like that.

It's still worth mentioning to a staff member, though, if it's something you really want. They can answer better than I can about why they have it set the way they do. Or they might even consider changing it. In the first drop-down of the link below, there is a "Suggestions" option. I think you should submit something there if you really want it to change or to at least receive an explanation.

https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/emails/new?b_id=12321

this is a little confusing.

if you can't play a game you are automatched with, you "abort" the game.

this doesn't change your rating...

so far as I know, it works the same as in OTB chess.

Have you ever been to a chess club? I doubt it. Where I live if you just walk into a club you can only play casual unrated games. To play rated you have to register for a competition and then you don't choose your opponents. If you refuse to play it's a forfeight, may be you don't loose rating points, but it's still a loss and in some cases you'll have to pay a fine. If you do it repeatedly organizers will probably refuse you an entry next time.

that IS true.

it would be incredibly rude to just leave a game cause you thought your opponent was too low-rated (or high-rated)

I wasn't commenting on that.

but this is the internet.  and so long as you don't do if often you CAN abort games.

I played at a chess club for almost ten years.  I can't think of a time when I would play someone below, or even at, my level unless it was for teaching purposes.  I always sought games against higher-rated/more skilled opponents in order to learn.  Why would I want to play people who are lesser?  You chess culture people really need to get out more - chess isn't always about supreme respect, hushed tones, and super nerds playing staid games.  Go play chess in a park sometime.

And with regard to the "abort" function, if you abort too many games in a row, it starts to deduct from rating - it appears to be around 4-5, but it seems to vary as well (it might also help to list the exact specifications for when the abort penalties start, as well as why they exist).

Actually masterarcha is right.

(I don't know about the rated club game stuff, about the chess.com stuff)

chess.com used to allow fine searching for ratings where you could simply specify the rating range you wanted, and it worked perfectly fine. Chess.com switch to this clumsy +25/+50/+100/+200 search system for absolutely no reason. It actually caused IM John Bartholomew to stop playing on chess.com because his "Climbing the Rating Ladder" videos required games against specific rating ranges like 1000 - 1200 or 1400 - 1600. I have no idea why chess.com got rid of the advanced rating settings.

It may be true that even with 10,000 players online there is no one exactly 200 points higher rated than you, but I don't understand why a player shouldn't be allowed to at least try for that match up instead of just be denied it entirely.

Can anyone explain if there's a way to get the specific rating search system back, or explain why chess.com got rid of it?

"I can't think of a time when I would play someone below, or even at, my level unless it was for teaching purposes.  I always sought games against higher-rated/more skilled opponents in order to learn.  Why would I want to play people who are lesser?"

Then why do you assume that people who are higher rated want to play you?  If everyone had your mentality, you'd never get a game because those better players wouldn't want to play you, a lesser player?  In fact, chess would cease to be played as everyone would insist on a better player.  

Personally, I think you'r approach is arrogant and conceited.  You can learn plenty by playing players who are equal or lower rated.  Getting crushed by higher rateds can often be counterproductive as you may not understand what you're doing wrong.

Yeah, I really don't mind playing people who are rated below me (which aren't many, obviously). But I remember being at that level and want to encourage people.

I need to improve my game with higher rated members. I don't mind occasional low rated players but they are making my game bad.

@erik has posted before about his rationale for not allowing members to have their settings to only play up. While making a suggestion to change things can't hurt, I imagine it is very unlikely. I'll have to see if I can find a more recent reference about it.

Sometimes when I want a little more control over my opponent's ratings, I'll go to the "Open Challenges" section instead of creating my own challenge. I can watch the table until I see a rating I like, then I just click on it and I have a match.

Finding a rating you like in a time control you like takes a little time sometimes, but if you're not too choosy about time controls you can usually find a nice match.

Also, if you want to play mostly higher rated people you can always set the rating field to something like -50/+infinity. Sure, you might get somebody rated below you, but the odds are you won't. I've played some painfully good people that way... 

I said earlier that I'm guessing the vast majority of players don't even bother setting ratings restrictions, much less care who they play particularly.  Being able to only play people rated higher than I will enable me to improve my game much more efficiently, as opposed to the ratings ladder grind mentioned above.  I would love to see statistics published that proved that allowing people to set a completely custom range was damaging the community in any way.

And to my other point - is there an alternative to chess.com, one that has an open market and fewer/no rules?

When you think you cant learn anything from someone lower rated, you have lost the meaning of the game.  

Nyawch!

Since the site doesn't allow the discussion of competitors, you would be best served with looking at your favorite search engine for that question, if you find that feature to be lacking and feel it won't be allowed in the future (which I don't think it will). I haven't been able to easily find any of the discussions erik has had about why all seeks must include your own rating but if I run across one, I'll try to post it here.

Have you tried the internet and searching?

Ratings don't mean much to the average strength chess player.

They might be useful for stronger players in finding interesting games and better opponents, but for the average ~1200 patzer like me gaining rating points is actually detriminal.

All it does is give me harder opponents and lower my chances of winning a game .