@EndgameStudy
Honestly, they might be scared, and they don't have enough experience and they'll lose points.
Common sence.
Players shouldn't be allowed to ABORT because of their opponent's rating
Sort:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Khallyx wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
U shouldn't be aborting cause your opponent is much higher than you. THAT'S the point. It's good practice playing someone who might be stronger than you. Notice, I said "might". Rating is a rough estimation and is completely relative.
Who are you to say who people should and shouldn't play against? Live your own life.
It's not fair to make players wait cause it doesn't meet your OCD rating standards. common sense.
No one is this deluded. You are simply trolling and I shall remove myself from the thread.
@EndgameStudy, what you are saying is true, but people also may abort for other reasons also, such as having to go somewhere for some reason. I have sometimes aborted games because I got a call from someone just as I was about to play the first move!
Sep 7, 2017
0
#25
nobody should be forced to play an opponent they don't want to unless it's a tournament matchup.
whiskeyinthejamjar wrote:
nobody should be forced to play an opponent they don't want to unless it's a tournament matchup.
Why would you not want to play against a specific person? You won't even know who you are playing against most of the time in online chess...
Sep 8, 2017
0
#27
I just aborted a game yesterday, because I had to leave my computer, suddenly and it's nice not to have to resign. The benefits being able to abort outweigh any possible complaints. If you go to any other site to play, you will wait 10 times as long for a game and the likelihood of having 10 higher rated players abort is slim. That said, you want to play them? Then earn your way there by playing players of your own rating and win enough to raise it up. Simple solution, but unfortunately, just as in real life, there are no shortcuts.
Sep 8, 2017
0
#28
EndgameStudy wrote:
Players shouldn't have difficulty playing because of their rating. If we are the only players available, they shouldn't relentlessly abort. We are obviously the only match available at the time. Common sense. No one should have to wait unnecessarily because their opponent doesn't approve of his rating. A 1200 who is looking to play chess for fun shouldn't be rejected and put down like this and be refused play because of rating. Also, what if they are underrated. No one should have trouble playing because people are taking tantrums refusing to play cause of rating. That is wrong, impractical, and ludicrous. Lets just play chess.
To be fair, you do not know that it is because of rating. Perhaps they have played you before and do not like you? Or something else.
But whatever the reason, this place does have the power to sanction people who do that, and quite rightly.
Sep 8, 2017
0
#29
EndgameStudy wrote:
Excalibr4 wrote:
I just aborted a game yesterday, because I had to leave my computer, suddenly and it's nice not to have to resign. The benefits being able to abort outweigh any possible complaints. If you go to any other site to play, you will wait 10 times as long for a game and the likelihood of having 10 higher rated players abort is slim. That said, you want to play them? Then earn your way there by playing players of your own rating and win enough to raise it up. Simple solution, but unfortunately, just as in real life, there are no shortcuts.
What? No one has to "EARN" the right to JUST PLAY. They have to earn their rating, but they don't have to earn the right to play. Why should I have to have a high rating to play high rated players? That is nonsense. They aren't special and untouchable people because they have a high rating. No one has to "EARN" the right to play. What the hell is the problem with playing someone whose 500 points higher? How does it "hurt" the higher player. What the hell is his ego problem that he can't associate with someone lower then him. People like that are bad. And if your gonna say" he wants an interesting game", that's just being paranoid. If a 1500 plays a 2100, it'll probably be a good game, but WHO CARES!!!
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" You are yelling at me out of context. You pay good money to play here and so do I, but I don't expect players rated 400 points above me to accept my games. The risk vs reward isn't there to the higher rated player. The opposite holds true for the lower rated player. So when a higher rated player doesn't want to risk giving you 32 points for the possibility of gaining 1, don't throw a temper tantrum, just continue to play those who will accept and if you have the right stuff your rating will rise and allow you to sit on the porch with the big dogs.
Sep 8, 2017
0
#30
EndgameStudy wrote:
You just proved my point. The higher rated player doesn't want to risk losing 32 points. If the lower player is so bad, what risk would there be? If he's afraid he might blunder or something, then maybe his rating's inaccurate. He's a coward then. He's afraid of losing his title. If you are not willing to defend your title, u have no right to have one. That's like saying Magnus is the world champion because he won a tournament, and no one can ever challenge him after that, because he's the world champion. How can a player prove he's better than his rating. if no one will give him a chance to show it. For example, if I'm 1400, and I think I'm more like 1800, if everyone 1800+ never plays me, how can I see what my real rating is? They are the ones throwing the tempor tantrum- they only play who they want to play and that's it. A big dog shouldn't be scared to take on a small dog; if he is maybe he isn't that big after all.
As always, people will have different views on this. Personally, I prefer to play players better than me as I learn from them: I learn more when you lose than when you win. If a higher graded player prefers not to play a much lower graded player then so be it: they can.
No offence intended here, but perhaps you could do with chilling out a bit. People have all sorts of reasons for what they do that you are not privy to.
Sep 10, 2017
0
#31
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW RIDICULOUS AND IMMATURE YOU SOUND? I already gave you the perfect reason why higher rated players elect not to play those rated far lower, but you rant on like a little child who can't get his way. Rating points are our reward (currency, if you will) for winning. At the Marshall Club, if a GM chooses to play you, he isn't risking his rating, which not the case here. I'm afraid, little doggy, you will have to play all the other little doggies and slowly work your way up to the big dog porch like everyone else here. Any questions?
Sep 10, 2017
0
#32
Sorry you didn't understand what I was talking about.
Kdlmpj wrote:
whiskeyinthejamjar wrote:
nobody should be forced to play an opponent they don't want to unless it's a tournament matchup.
Why would you not want to play against a specific person? You won't even know who you are playing against most of the time in online chess...
What risk is the high rated player facing by taking on someone who is rated far lower than him? Besides the obvious massive rating hit of just having a bad game and losing, there is the time factor, they want to spend whatever time they have facing the kind of people they want to face, which in this case may be based on ratings. Facing weaker players, (assumption due to rating, disregard the accuracy for now, I'll come back to it,) does not give them the practice they seek. Facing many weaker players hones unnecessary tactics that may only work at lower levels. They want to practice around their level to hone the tactics they need to keep up or improve.
For the matter of the underrated player, one does not need to face higher rated opponents to move up the ladder, merely dominate those around their rank to move up. If they truly wish to face these higher rated players, all they need to do is beat a few lowers, (there is a hyper accelerated rating scale for those joining recently to do this faster, but even in the regular swings consistent play will make it up there,) in order to face these players. This tends to make ratings someone accurate, and if not accurate yet, (due to lower game rates,) is easily corrected by them playing more. If you play enough, you will get to your rating and face people near your level. If you do not play enough to stabilize the rating, you have no right to complain, play more games first.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I do believe there is a rating selection scale for players to get randomly selected opponents of a certain point, which can be modified for those who fear too wide a range. Simply setting the range to be smaller seems more effective than aborting any challenge outside that range, so why the assumption so many abort due to ratings? There are various other reasons to abort, whether it be DC, sudden scheduling, or personal reasons.
I do agree aborting a random rating selection based on rating is silly, especially as the time controls are lower, anyone with such aims should have kept their rating search narrow,to avoid this problem. That said, I do not know if this has been as constant as you seem to believe, or if there are other factors at work from the things you are seeing.
I do not agree with the idea that a 2000 players should have to face a 1000 in a random pool without some form of consensus from both sides, there should be some reasonably objective measure (such as the current rating system) of who should be facing who in your average otherwise randomly selected game.
I am one of those who aborts if I am matched against a player much below me. So, if I win a game I get 7 points and if I lose a game I lose 9 points. Why would I want to play against such a player where I have little to gain. And yea, it is frustrating to be matched against the same player when I just aborted the match against that player. I hope chess.com stops matching a player x against player y in that session once one of them aborted the match against the other.
you are scared of losing games to players less rated? its not a matter of life n death. play anybody. if you win, it helps the other player learn from his mistakes. dont you want to teach others lessons?
Sep 11, 2017
0
#37
EndgameStudy wrote:
Excalibr4 wrote:
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW RIDICULOUS AND IMMATURE YOU SOUND? I already gave you the perfect reason why higher rated players elect not to play those rated far lower, but you rant on like a little child who can't get his way. Rating points are our reward (currency, if you will) for winning. At the Marshall Club, if a GM chooses to play you, he isn't risking his rating, which not the case here. I'm afraid, little doggy, you will have to play all the other little doggies and slowly work your way up to the big dog porch like everyone else here. Any questions?
ur funny. That's not how chess works, if you are not aware. In chess, u get what u get. The 2000s are being the "children" refusing to play until they get who they want. As far as "having" a bad game, well, that's life. U will have bad games. Also, that's an excuse sometimes for blunders and miscalculations. They are afraid of the "massive rating" hit, well sorry man, but if u can't beat a lower player, u deserve that hit. People have good games and bad games. Accept it. As I said, if u are not willing to defend your title against the lowers, then u don't deserve that title. You are not proving that it's real. This is all common sense.
BTW, u DIDN'T give a reason. All u said was he doesn't want to risk losing 30 points. That's not a reason. That's an excuse. Pathetic. That's being cowardly. Do u understand that, cowardly. I'm not ranting. I'm responding to everyone else's rediculous arguments.
Three final words, then I'm done with you... Grow Up Kid!
Sep 11, 2017
0
#39
EndgameStudy wrote:
Everyone think for a second: I'm not complaining about losing, or the time control isn't fair, or I want my 10 points back, or stalemate should be a win..etc. I'm complaining about not being able to play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't care if I lose to a 2000s. I just want to play them.
Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar... OK not really... But it's their choice and not yours. Maybe you should just ask some 2000s if they'd be willing to play some unrated games with you.
Sep 11, 2017
0
#40
I see a lot of nonsensical requests on this site, but I actually agree in this case. Don't want to play someone too low rated? Then set the minimum rating so it is high enough. If you genuinely need to leave, then just suck up the loss, and you should hopefully get it back sometime. I think (though I have no evidence) is that people abort just because they don't like which color they are.
@EndgameStudy : if these are the same 1,2,3 peps who are aborting ,just block them , problem solved