Leechers of chess.com - Chess Forums - Page 9

samtoyousir

Mar 30, 2014

0

#161

Ubik42 wrote:

Are there lechers on chess.com??

You may have missed that thread.

EricFleet

Mar 30, 2014

0

#162

mosai wrote:

I have noticed a great number of players on this site who can be best described as leechers.

These people have live chess settings with minimum rating close to their own (say -50 or sometimes even higher than their own rating), and extremely high maximums (like +500), thereby garaunteeing that they only get paired with stronger players.

This practice is not only selfish, but detrimental to chess.com. I feel it is not properly recognized as such by the community, hence the rant.

As everyone knows, the way to get better is to play stronger opponents. But for every weaker player getting a learning experience, there is an opponent who is graciously volunteering their time to provide it.

A healthy live chess pool is one where everybody plays both higher and lower rated opponents, allowing everyone to get better.

Leechers, on the other hand, are a disgusting waste product of the "what's in it for me" society. They try to step on as many good samaritans as possible, without giving anything back to the community. 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.

</rant>

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.

When I say the thread title, I thought by "leecher", you were refering to people who play but never pay for membership.

samtoyousir

Mar 30, 2014

0

#163

tkbunny wrote:

Addicted-to-Chess97 wrote:

Ubik42 wrote:

Are there lechers on chess.com??

You may have missed that thread.

same thread, post #104?

And, uh, this. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/lechers-of-chesscom

samueldechampla

Mar 30, 2014

0

#164

i believe leechers are those who have a rating +200 points above their average opponent rating

Ubik42

Mar 30, 2014

0

#165

EricFleet wrote:

mosai wrote:

I have noticed a great number of players on this site who can be best described as leechers.

These people have live chess settings with minimum rating close to their own (say -50 or sometimes even higher than their own rating), and extremely high maximums (like +500), thereby garaunteeing that they only get paired with stronger players.

This practice is not only selfish, but detrimental to chess.com. I feel it is not properly recognized as such by the community, hence the rant.

As everyone knows, the way to get better is to play stronger opponents. But for every weaker player getting a learning experience, there is an opponent who is graciously volunteering their time to provide it.

A healthy live chess pool is one where everybody plays both higher and lower rated opponents, allowing everyone to get better.

Leechers, on the other hand, are a disgusting waste product of the "what's in it for me" society. They try to step on as many good samaritans as possible, without giving anything back to the community. 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.

</rant>

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.

When I say the thread title, I thought by "leecher", you were refering to people who play but never pay for membership.

Is that a misdemeanor?

ilikecapablanca

Apr 2, 2014

0

#166

Yeah, guys, why are you feeding the troll?

mosai

Apr 2, 2014

0

#167

EricFleet wrote:

mosai wrote:

I have noticed a great number of players on this site who can be best described as leechers.

These people have live chess settings with minimum rating close to their own (say -50 or sometimes even higher than their own rating), and extremely high maximums (like +500), thereby garaunteeing that they only get paired with stronger players.

This practice is not only selfish, but detrimental to chess.com. I feel it is not properly recognized as such by the community, hence the rant.

As everyone knows, the way to get better is to play stronger opponents. But for every weaker player getting a learning experience, there is an opponent who is graciously volunteering their time to provide it.

A healthy live chess pool is one where everybody plays both higher and lower rated opponents, allowing everyone to get better.

Leechers, on the other hand, are a disgusting waste product of the "what's in it for me" society. They try to step on as many good samaritans as possible, without giving anything back to the community. 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.

</rant>

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.

When I say the thread title, I thought by "leecher", you were refering to people who play but never pay for membership.

Surely the traffic generated by this thread alone covers chess.com's tiny cost for me to use the site?

Paul_A_88

Apr 20, 2014

0

#168

so you are complaining about getting easy wins???

Paul_A_88

Apr 20, 2014

0

#169

Mosai - youre standard rating is ~1250...I wouldn't be complaining too much

blueemu

Apr 20, 2014

0

#170

mosai wrote:

I have noticed a great number of players on this site who can be best described as leechers.

I've been noticing the lechers.

Nedersaks

Apr 20, 2014

0

#171

Min rating +1
Max rating +300

How mad does that make you OP?

mosai

Apr 20, 2014

0

#172

Pippychess wrote:

Mosai - youre standard rating is ~1250...I wouldn't be complaining too much

That sample size.

mosai

Apr 20, 2014

0

#173

I guess you're the type of person that has pathetic ratings in all but one category, and then decides that one category is the important one.

Irontiger

Apr 21, 2014

0

#174

Somebody_ wrote:

bump moar arguments please

Congratulations !

Phosis

Apr 21, 2014

0

#175

I disagree with the sentiment. I set my min and max ratings according to the challenge I want to have. I would imagine the majority of players keep them at the default level, but my goal is to improve quickly in the game, and as a result of my settings being set to play players who are above me in ranking, I lose a lot more than I win. But if the developers at Chess.com agreed with OP, they would not have implemented a system that allows us to change out min/max settings.

Nevermind how ridiculous it is to judge the ethical character of someone who does this, speaking for myself, it is not out of a desire to "ruin" the system selfishly. It's simply how I choose to play.

Twinchicky

Apr 21, 2014

0

#176

mosai wrote:

I guess you're the type of person that has pathetic ratings in all but one category, and then decides that one category is the important one.

Mosai, I'm definitely that type of person. However, I know for a fact that I am at the opening, strategy and endgame level of a 1350 and not a 750, I'm just incapable of quick thinking of any sort. My standard rating would probably be closer to my Online rating if I bothered to take the time to play 45-min games, but I really don't have the time to sit down at the computer and take up to two hours to play one single game. I will tell you that I can beat most of the 1300s and 1400s in my club at G/90, I just don't take my online games quite as seriously as my OTB games.

mosai

Apr 21, 2014

0

#177

Interesting. Does anyone have any ideas for an offensive name for these types of people? I might make another thread.

ColonelKnight

Apr 21, 2014

0

#178

Laissez Faire-ers

alex_beneath

Apr 22, 2014

0

#179

i havent read all 10 pages but here is why i dont support the OP:

- you can adjust your range to -100 +100 or something similar to avoid these players (that until today that i read your post i didnt know they existed cause i play -100 +100).

- or if you, for whatever reason (eg you are around 3000s and takes too long to get matched), prefer to have a wider range then you cant be seriously afraid of people 400 elo lower rated than you or less.

wish you the best on your way to 3000s.

Karthi_MVK

Apr 22, 2014

0

#180

i prefer a weaker player