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.
That's what I thought at first, but based on Mosai's later comments I don't think that's what he's complaining about.
Although I know chess.com will never implement this, I would like to be able to see my opponent's rating settings when I am paired. This way I can continue to help out the honest players lower than me, but squish the leechers before they take my blood.
Well, you could look at their average opponent rating.
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.
I couldn't care less about the effects of your behavior on your meaningless internet rating.
Thats funny, I thought your entire idea was that you hated these so called leechers.
You likely got beat multiple times by a lower rated opponent who was stronger than you. I was trying to help you see that it evens out.
I think you should look for games against people that are 1 point higher or 1 point lower. Hows that? Would that be more fair??
In that case, you didn't understand the idea. Try reading it again.
Thanks for the Ad Hominem by the way. You are a perfect example of a leecher and their typical personalities.
mosai said "If everyone on this site acted with such a lack of basic human decency, then you wouldn't be able to get a single game in live chess."
Laughably dumb. What would happen is people would begrudgily settle for similar levels until they beat enough of that level to move up. Hold on just a minute that is basically the system in place now, try to challenge Carlson or even an Expert for that matter.
mosai said "Although I know chess.com will never implement this, I would like to be able to see my opponent's rating settings when I am paired. This way I can continue to help out the honest players lower than me, but squish the leechers before they take my blood."
Here is my translation, I mosai would like to be able to more effeicently hunt weaker players without the nagging possibility of facing someone who is better than me but has a lower rating
I do understand. But with all the problems in the world I just think it's kinda silly to complain about such a petty little issue as this.
Take it easy .
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.
Challenging higher rated players to play a game of chess is cheating? I was not aware of that "rule".
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.
You say "selfish", I say "paying it backward".
Although I know chess.com will never implement this, I would like to be able to see my opponent's rating settings when I am paired. This way I can continue to help out the honest players lower than me, but squish the leechers before they take my blood.
Well, you could look at their average opponent rating.
Good idea, thanks macer.
Maybe I'll make a chrome extension or something to show that.
mosai said "If everyone on this site acted with such a lack of basic human decency, then you wouldn't be able to get a single game in live chess."
Laughably dumb. What would happen is people would begrudgily settle for similar levels until they beat enough of that level to move up. Hold on just a minute that is basically the system in place now, try to challenge Carlson or even an Expert for that matter.
Lol?
So you equate a system where no one can get a match more than 50 points higher to one where you can't get a match more than 800 points higher and say that they are "basically" the same? WTF?
Can't a player set his lower limit to one close to his own level so he don't get paired with players much lower if he doesn't want to?
mosai said "Although I know chess.com will never implement this, I would like to be able to see my opponent's rating settings when I am paired. This way I can continue to help out the honest players lower than me, but squish the leechers before they take my blood."
Here is my translation, I mosai would like to be able to more effeicently hunt weaker players without the nagging possibility of facing someone who is better than me but has a lower rating
Wow! You got me. I am extremely jealous of 1200s like yourself, and I am afraid of facing them because they might decrease my meaningless internet rating.
Grow up you lecherous leecher.
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).
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)
Which is exactly what you see. Moasi, your argument makes no sense. It doesn't affect you, or anyone.
Not following..? What do I see?
That there are way more bottom feeders and less and less up the rating ladder. It works that way.
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.
Challenging higher rated players to play a game of chess is cheating? I was not aware of that "rule".
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.
You say "selfish", I say "paying it backward".
Hehe! Well, at your rating, the pool of players stronger than you is pretty small.
My understanding of how to improve at something is to play people you're just slightly better than, not much worse than. You'd think it would be by playing stronger players, but actually, knowing how to win and to close it is as important as seeing strong play. So, perhaps these folks are hurting themselves more than they realize.
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.
I couldn't care less about the effects of your behavior on your meaningless internet rating.