Leechers of chess.com

+1

No offense, but your advice was not helpful. "Leechers" can appear at any rating so Mosai adjusting his/her own level to play against doesn't work.

@Mosai - I don't agree with the -50 to 500 setting as someone being a leecher. Some players do so as protection against losing too many rating points. Your later post of a 1200 with a lowest setting of 1500 does sound like a possible leecher though. However, this person might have other reasons than to leech, which could be worse.

Some players only want to play lower rated players. Others only want to play higher rated players. It all balances out ultimately. If not, then lots of folks won't be matched up (e.g., if everyone wants to play someone higher rated).

So you are bit worried about some unexpert players acquiring higher rating and playing with best rated player? To me all is just for fun with having virtual rating by playing live chess, so is not to be speculated.

That's my concern. I don't think it balances out, as you need significantly more bottom feeders than leechers for that to happen (i.e. less and less people as you go up the rating ladder)

            What mosai has pointed out is a pattern or system of cheating. Low class people allways figure out a way around proper elements of life.

mosai, as you probably know, players sometimes set their rating limits a bit higher than their own because they feel that by playing stronger players (on average) it will elevate their own playing level. 

I suppose this '-50 to +500' came from me. I just recently posted this same exact range in another thread.

This is the formula I use in Live Chess and Online Chess games.

It has nothing to do with leeching or avoiding losing points. I am currenlty in the process of learning chess and would rather raise my chances of losing and learing from someone better.

When I first started I used -200 to +200. But the system kept giving me ranges of about -200 to +50. I decided this really was not going to help me achieve my goals.

I think your reasoning that I am depriving someone with a lower rating is really silly. I really don't think someone rated 200 points below me is missing out on games they can learn from.

Again let me repeat i have been here a long time and i have seen it all. Mosai is not getting across her point(why is not the point). Just pointing out that some members here think they are slick and are willing to abuse the system for their own gain at the result of having the innocent suffer.

 Nobody in their right state of mind want to have consecutive loses to players lower than them and by a large margin. Watch the rank just fall and fall and fall. Your mind will start playing tricks with you and think every opponent is out to get you in a game. Or worse you lose belief in your skills.

        One constantly repeated piece of advice given on this site to players who ask how they should improve their game is that they should challenge better players. This appears to be what is being complained about here. I can see no good reason for this. Should we not seek to play higher rated players? Don't be ridiculous.

We will see you back here with a tread titled "Off with their heads". Yeah i think you make them smile right now. They will invite you to dinner ...... but you will be the meal.

Thanks to this post, I have realised setting my search to -50 +500 will be beneficial to me. Cheers. :F

Challenging higher rated players to play a game of chess is cheating?  I was not aware of that "rule".

             I think she's refering to players who intentionally keep the ratings on the low side, like betting on a horse to win and lose.

By "keeping the ratings on the low side", do you mean sandbagging? (losing intentionally to lower one's rating).  If not, please elaborate.  If so, how is this relevant to the OP's complaint?  I've read the entire thread and I don't understand what the OP complained about.  I don't see anything illegal or unethical in the described behavoir of the OP's opponent.

              Yes, that's what I thought she was refering to, Sandbagging. I also don't think she was complaining about her last opponent. She was just observing a larger pattern.

Not cheating under any current rule, but it is unethical. And the rules should imitate moral values, not the other way around.

It is selfish to expect higher rated players to give you games, and refuse to do the same for players below you.

Asking a higher-rated opponent for a game is not unethical, it is merely a request.  The higher-rated player is free to accept or not accept. It is natural, not selfish, to want to learn by playing stronger opponents.  Isn't this true in any sport or contest?  The whole premise of this thread is absurd.

I am said player, I have very little interest in playing people below my rating and so my seeks frequently contain minimums that ensure I play equal or better oposition. There are times when I face people approximately 50 points better and I win easily.

A look at my current blitz rating right now can show the issues with this strategy and shed some light on the topic. 1285 with a top rating of 1436 and a best win of 1606. There are in my path some poor 1300's who will wonder why they lost to a 1285. On my way back up I may even find a 1500 who is hunting 1300's without realizing on good days I am capable of beating said 1500. 

All is fair game.

My point is that in employing this strategy you will drop points eventually and have to face the very players you worked so hard to avoid. When I was over 1400 I never wanted to play a 1300 again, But guess what! My rating quickly was pushed back down into the 1300's (and lower!) when I keept employing this idea of only playing better compitition.

The irony of the math here is that if as a 1285 I tried to give a seek of only over 1400, the players I would likely face would be hunters That are in essence 1300 to 1350 strength unaware of my skill of about that level.

TLDR; it evens out in the end. 

Again you change the premise, and then call it absurd.

The point is not playing higher rated players.

It is ONLY playing higher rated players and refusing to offer the same courtesy to lower rated players, who are in the same position you were.

The most objective way to determine if something is selfish is to consider what would happen if everyone acted the same way. In this case it would mean no one getting paired up.