... It seems that this is a disincentive to play much lower rated players - as far as ratings literally nothing to gain and a lot to lose...
ChessNetwork, currently rated 4200, now only plays unrated games since the policy of minimum one point changed.
... It seems that this is a disincentive to play much lower rated players - as far as ratings literally nothing to gain and a lot to lose...
ChessNetwork, currently rated 4200, now only plays unrated games since the policy of minimum one point changed.
OMG this guy is 1607/56/4 in bullet chess! 98%. Very humbling.
I like playing blitz (G/10) and just randomly pick opponents. But I have noticed that if I win against a player who is about 500-600 points lower than me I don't get a point for the win. This seems somewhat absurd - I could theoretically beat one of these players 99 times out of a hundred, but if I would lose the 100th I would get nothing for the 99 wins and lose about 14 points for the lose. It seems that this is a disincentive to play much lower rated players - as far as ratings literally nothing to gain and a lot to lose. I know I could abort these games, but again I'd rather play everyone and give these guys a chance to play me. I know, I know, I shouldn't care about ratings, but I do. It's fun to win or draw against a higher rated player and its fun to try to keep my rating at a certain level and even try to reach a new high.
Thats exactly what it is and I agree with it myself, however there is a small problem imo. When I choose to play in a tournament ( especially thematic open events ) I often get paired against players so much lower rated that I dont get a point for winning but can lose a bunch if I lose. I think in tournies this should not be the case as we cannot select our opponents and thus cannot "pad" our ratings by intentionally selecting much weaker players to beat up on.......
I like playing blitz (G/10) and just randomly pick opponents. But I have noticed that if I win against a player who is about 500-600 points lower than me I don't get a point for the win. This seems somewhat absurd - I could theoretically beat one of these players 99 times out of a hundred, but if I would lose the 100th I would get nothing for the 99 wins and lose about 14 points for the lose. It seems that this is a disincentive to play much lower rated players - as far as ratings literally nothing to gain and a lot to lose. I know I could abort these games, but again I'd rather play everyone and give these guys a chance to play me. I know, I know, I shouldn't care about ratings, but I do. It's fun to win or draw against a higher rated player and its fun to try to keep my rating at a certain level and even try to reach a new high.
Thats exactly what it is and I agree with it myself, however there is a small problem imo. When I choose to play in a tournament ( especially thematic open events ) I often get paired against players so much lower rated that I dont get a point for winning but can lose a bunch if I lose. I think in tournies this should not be the case as we cannot select our opponents and thus cannot "pad" our ratings by intentionally selecting much weaker players to beat up on.......
You raise an important point. In my case I don't do that, I just play whoever I'm randomly assigned to, regardless of their rating. But I'm sure some players would try to pad their rating by only playing much lower rated players. Having said that I would have to beat one of these players approximately 14 out of 15 times just to break even (if I got a point for a win). I don't think I've lost to anyone yet 500-600 points lower than me, but I have to admit I've had some dubious positions (due to my carelessness) and some of them seem to be playing significantly better than their rating. I may just have to start aborting all of these games.
Does anyone know where is the line drawn where the higher rated gets nothing for winning ? Is it 600 points difference ? More ? Less ?
I like playing blitz (G/10) and just randomly pick opponents. But I have noticed that if I win against a player who is about 500-600 points lower than me I don't get a point for the win. This seems somewhat absurd - I could theoretically beat one of these players 99 times out of a hundred, but if I would lose the 100th I would get nothing for the 99 wins and lose about 14 points for the lose. It seems that this is a disincentive to play much lower rated players - as far as ratings literally nothing to gain and a lot to lose. I know I could abort these games, but again I'd rather play everyone and give these guys a chance to play me. I know, I know, I shouldn't care about ratings, but I do. It's fun to win or draw against a higher rated player and its fun to try to keep my rating at a certain level and even try to reach a new high.