The policy and rules playing at live chess

Caedrel, 

Then you should re-read, if that is all you can tell. No, the definition of fairness is not that of chess.com. It is also not that of me. There is no universal "fairness" in chess competition, however in the biggest venues in the world, champions don't play one another with four hundred points difference. Go do your research if you think otherwise. And, accordingly, players should not be expected to so compete here. That's okay, however, if you'd like to pretend that the definition is my personal definition and contrasts that of some universal definition. Whatever makes you happy.

As well, while it is true that one can change the setting, unfortunately even within that two hundred rating, one can sometimes wait a great deal longer. Still, at least one can choose one's own variables, so there we agree that such is nice and shouldn't be changed.  

Your last paragraph holds they key: reducing the ratings range means you wait longer for a game. It's a matter of how long one waits vs the rating differential, and it seems most people prefer less waiting as opposed to less differential.

Your analogy about chess competitions is more applicable to tournaments, where there often is a rating requirement - the standard Chess.com knockout tournaments all operate within a 200 point range, such as https://www.chess.com/tournament/35th-chesscom-tournament-1401-1600. The Live Chess tournaments have similar rating ceilings, although there's also the "Open" category which - by the nature of internet chess - attracts entrants that normally wouldn't bother to enter a real life Open tournament because of the greater costs (of travel, of time, and of potential embarassment).

Casual play is less "competition" and more people doing something they enjoy - if you treat it as such, you'll worry less about your rating and the sort of importance and/or judgements you or others may attach to that number. 

Ah, no, not at all. Yes, you can officially change the range within which your opponent plays you, however such does not work all the time. It only works sometimes. The rest of the time, you still get opponents with ratings outside that specified range. 

And, also, yes, you do wait longer. So, unfortunately, what you don't seem to get is that while there is the possibility to change the range, such doesn't always work and therefore stating "there is a spectrum of play you can choose" is in fact false. What you mean to say is "you can choose the range of your opponent's rating but sometimes it doesn't work and also you sometiems have to wait longer."

Hence, providing such as though it were a rebuttal to "one should be able to play one opponent's who are closer than merely 200 points" is the problem. I'm arguing that such is not a realistic range if one is to still advance in chess or to have a fair challenge. You still haven't responded to such except by trying to equivocate on the meaning of fair, which I already explained as being an equivocation on your part. Your other attempted rebuttal also falls short although is more pertinent.

Finally, as a rebuttal to your claim that it is more about mere enjoyment here at chess.com, such is in fact a non sequitar. It's not because people enjoy it more than they are competitive that my argument is invalid. My argument is that the rating range of one's opponent needs to closer to their opponent than merely 200 points otherwise we do not advance as well or have as good a challenge. Chess is naturally competitive and subsequently a game, whether via official tournaments or not, and whether here on the or elsewhere on the net or still elsewhere in the grander scheme of things or not. Talking and arguing about rating requirements happens specifically for reasons such as those discussed here. People need to be able to use one another in such a way that we all advance simultaneously and are all simultaneously free from harming one another. Although in such terms and might in this context seem melodramatic, it is nonetheless anything but specious.  

I stopped listening when you said that you need to play people within 200 points of your rating in order to "advance or have as good a challenge" - not everyone here at Chess.com wants either of those two things, but they can go after them if they so desire with the options provided, so your continuing to argue otherwise is clearly an indication tht you're not interested in genuine debate but are just trumpeting your own opinion and trying to put down all others with fancy sounding hot air. Turning off tracking.

Sorry, I stopped reading after you said that you stopped listening. Learn debate and learn how to engage people critically such that you don't have to say things like "I'm now plugging my ears." I don't care if you have your finger up your butt, either address what I say or find some wall to argue with. 

I accept your resignation and understand that you can't support your position. Off you go.