One of the issues that I see over and over again in the chess streaming community is high rated players not being able to find an opponent.
This usually happens to GM's rated above 3000, such as Hikaru and Naroditsky. Naroditsky for example will often spend a ridiculous amount of time looking for someone to play. If he fails to find anyone near his rating range, he'll eventually start challenging players rated far below him.
If Naroditsky plays an opponent at 2600 and beats this person 9 times but loses once, Naroditsky loses rating. Because of this he tries to avoid these games. It doesn't seem fair to win 9 games and end up losing rating because of a single loss (or even a single draw in some cases)
As a solution I'm proposing the idea of players being able to negotiate the points won or lost. I'm also proposing a couple of requirements.
- The match must be at least 3 games (best of 3)
- Players are able to negotiate the points won or lost before the match
- The points negotiated must be within a reasonable range to prevent ridiculous offers, such as +100 points for winning the match and -5 points for a loss.
- The points won or lost are not granted until the end of the match
For example, a GM above 3100 could seek a challenge for a 10 game bullet match against anyone rated between 2500 and 2800. The GM could propose the challenge with +10 win / -10 loss. Points won or lost will be granted only at the end of the match. There is no points gained or lost after each game. A player can accept the challenge, or propose a counter offer to the points (such as +15 / -15). The GM could accept or decline the counter offer, or re-counter.
The whole idea is prevent high rated players from feeling forced to challenge lower rated players just so they can get a game. With a negotiable match system they could create a challenge that would quickly get accepted by a lower rated player, but would not risk an unreasonable amount of ELO for a single loss.
On the surface it seems like a good idea. I don't see how it could have a negative or unfair impact on the current rating system.
or they could play unrated
One of the issues that I see over and over again in the chess streaming community is high rated players not being able to find an opponent.
This usually happens to GM's rated above 3000, such as Hikaru and Naroditsky. Naroditsky for example will often spend a ridiculous amount of time looking for someone to play. If he fails to find anyone near his rating range, he'll eventually start challenging players rated far below him.
If Naroditsky plays an opponent at 2600 and beats this person 9 times but loses once, Naroditsky loses rating. Because of this he tries to avoid these games. It doesn't seem fair to win 9 games and end up losing rating because of a single loss (or even a single draw in some cases)
As a solution I'm proposing the idea of players being able to negotiate the points won or lost. I'm also proposing a couple of requirements.
- The match must be at least 3 games (best of 3)
- Players are able to negotiate the points won or lost before the match
- The points negotiated must be within a reasonable range to prevent ridiculous offers, such as +100 points for winning the match and -5 points for a loss.
- The points won or lost are not granted until the end of the match
For example, a GM above 3100 could seek a challenge for a 10 game bullet match against anyone rated between 2500 and 2800. The GM could propose the challenge with +10 win / -10 loss. Points won or lost will be granted only at the end of the match. There is no points gained or lost after each game. A player can accept the challenge, or propose a counter offer to the points (such as +15 / -15). The GM could accept or decline the counter offer, or re-counter.
The whole idea is prevent high rated players from feeling forced to challenge lower rated players just so they can get a game. With a negotiable match system they could create a challenge that would quickly get accepted by a lower rated player, but would not risk an unreasonable amount of ELO for a single loss.
On the surface it seems like a good idea. I don't see how it could have a negative or unfair impact on the current rating system.