Players shouldn't be allowed to ABORT because of their opponent's rating

Well they obviously want those rating points so they can go up the ladder. I do agree though that it's really annoying when higher rated players don't fix their rating filter. It's even WORSE when they sit there and just don't move. That happens A LOT on lichess.

Why should they risk anything especially when you risk nothing? What do they gain by playing 200 points down?

This is why I suggested that you just ask a 2000 to play an unrated game with you and see what happens. Otherwise you won't have much luck. Getting higher ratings means playing better players and getting better. Playing lower rated players doesn't lead to much of anything but a (+1) for winning and a (-30) for losing. That's not really a good deal for them. And if the ratings are ignored what else is there? Will they learn something from beating a player 200 points lower rated that they won't learn from folks around their rating? Very unlikely... There's just little point in doing such a thing. It's great for you but pretty pointless for them. Besides, being at the rating they're at is proof enough that they should be able to beat players lower rated then them most of the time anyway.

I blocked this kid and I'm still getting notifications on his temper tantrum. Well the way he is going I am sure he will turn out crazy like Bobby Fischer, only he went off the deep end, long before he could reach any prominence in chess. Sad tale of a spoiled kid, who needs a solid verbal ass kicking.  Let me explain why you are so annoying. You talk down to people in a way that, were I standing in front of you, I would knock you down, stomp on your face, then slander your name all over the place.

2700s lose to 2400s sometimes. What makes you think a 1700 can't get a scalp off of a 2000 player? It's rare for sure but completely possible. And again you give no reason for the higher rated player to play you at all. You say you could be a challenge. But the 2000 WILL be a challenge. So again, the point of playing a lower-rated player is just not there...

You don't get what you deserve. You get what you work for. When you get your rating to 2000 you'll get those rating points off of 2000s because you worked to get there. Until then, you've got some work to do. That's how it always is. This is as ridiculous as saying that you deserve a shot at Magnus Carlsen because you could give him a hard time and he's a coward for not playing you. The reality is that it's not fear but rather the fact that there is nothing to gain from playing you whatsoever.

Points are meaningless to you and yet you say you want them? Which is it? Do you want experience? Ok. Maybe you can get that experience by playing unrated games against 2000s. You want points? Why should anyone risk them against you? What do they get if they win? Nothing... You haven't given any good reasons at all. You just keep throwing around the word "coward" even though we're talking about a board game here.

TLDR; If you want experience see if you can get some unrated games. If you want points, you'll have to earn them like everyone else.

what a ridiculous thread.

OP stop being so proud. If someone chooses to abort that's their business. You seem to take it personally when a higher rated opponent does this. 

I've aborted vs. lower ranked opponents; not from fear of losing, but fear of boredom.

chess is COMPETITIVE. ratings are performance-based afterall, so its not ludicrous to assume a lower rank player won't be a challenge - its reasonable.

--- some games with lower ranks can be fun but most seem to just erect a stonewall of pawns and aim for timeouts.

BORING. 

you should probably try taking the advice of the other comments and drop this notion that players are OBLIGATED to play if matched. if they abort its THEIR choice. you can focus on backing up your claims of being an 1800er trapped in the 1400s by grinding your way up. 

i have my preference set for -50 +200. once in a blue moon i'll be matched with someone outside those parameters.

usually a wild 1500 appears... at best a strange opening is observed then fast non moves occur. im risking 10-12 points for a reward of 3.... 

if theres really nobody playing i'll play. sometimes they'll be chatty and resign if major blunders happen, BUT in my experience of almost 20k blitz games im just playing the clock.

so whats the point? know what i mean

i play gambits and aim to win outright so im vulnerable, more so than most i feel, to a lower rank playing "novelties" that are flummoxing/ time consuming...

i get that its frustrating when a player aborts - 1800s avoid me like the plague -BUT its not a matter that kills the joy of the game is my thoughts...

"meh, screw that guy.." and move on. not create a thread demanding freedom of choice removed lol

Yeah I think -50/+200 is normal but honestly no one 200 points over you will ever play you anyway. I have it set to this but I should probably change it lol.

If you want to play higher rated players try unrated games. Problem solved.

If you don't like higher rated players aborting, be ok with losing 3 seconds to make another seek. Problem solved.

There are no other solutions other than something drastic like not playing since you can't force people to fix their rating filters. it's annoying but there isn't much to be done about it.

I will go and collect the toys and put them back in your pram.

I used to play just about everyone ( never knew for awhile that there was a parameter settings). And I can say that I was beaten bad from anyone rated 250 above me and I can consistently beat someone rated 250 below me. So, I experimented for awhile at which level or range would "I" would be more competitive or not overwhelming to my opponent. I just don't find it fun to be totally crushed or the opposite. 

A well establish rating is reflection of past performance is a good indicator of general ability. It is not the end-all-be-all and people can perform better or worse than their rating would indicate in any given game. However, unless a player is improving (or the rating isn't well established), over a series of games, the rating should give some indication of likely play strengths/levels.

I'm not going to claim people shouldn't just play, rather than abort, and the site already handles people that abort too much. If I got a game outside my ranges, I would play it. The only time I abort is when I have accidentally started a challenge and couldn't close it out quickly enough (no time for a game).

@EndgameStudy, my ratings are well established. Why would I play someone who is way above and beyond nor someone I can beat easily? I find no pleasure in both nor does it make me any better. My point is, the games/players I seek are the one the one I'll be "competitive" with. With my rating going up/down so does the level of my opponents thus I remain true to my level of competition. I never aborted a game against anyone when I played extreme ranges. 

"Opposite" means I can easily beat my opponent (beginners or way below my rating).

You are avoiding the question of why someone 200+ points should play you. They'll get nothing from you that they wouldn't get from someone similarly rated plus the perks of playing a similarly rated opponent.

I won't waste any time at all. My filters won't pair me up with anyone 200 points below. If it did I'd only lose 3 seconds with an abort which is not a problem. In a tournament beating someone -200 points would further me in the tournament. Thus there would be a reason to actually play them in a game. However this does mess up the tie break system and can be annoying for higher-rated players. When comparing two players with a perfect record, the player that played against you would be bumped to second place simply because they played you if the other player played against only similarly rated opponents. It's yet another reason why playing lower-rated players is just not useful.

If you don't want to put in the work of playing higher rated players in unrated games then don't expect anyone to spend their time playing someone 200 points less than them because they have nothing to gain from it and are truly taking the time out to play you when they could be playing far stronger opponents with actual benefits. Whether it's possible for someone 200 points below to win is not relevant. What is relevant is that there's no reason to actually allow such a thing other than to just because someone asks or something.

If you want to pretend that someone 200 points below has a 50-50 chance of winning then fine. But that's not the reality of the situation and those 200+ points do mean something. And you're forgetting that playing similarly rated players is what allows you to be able to play against stronger ones in the future. Playing lower-rated players doesn't help with that at all.

"It's complete ignorance and Paranoia" that i don't enjoy playing those too far above or below my rating?

I think you need a dictionary. 

• I play alot of bltz games (20k)
• players too far outside my rating can make the game less competitive (IN MY EXPERIENCE)
• i have -50 because i personally find that i'm currently on the precipice of a higher rating and have been back and forth between 1600-1720ish for the last few months.
• and so it is a personal challenge for me to challenge those in the next level so i can find my weaknesses and address them
• sandbagging lower rated opponents to achieve a higher rating seems cheap and not useful in my journey of learning the game

Whether you agree with me or not - let alone understand - why i would sidestep lower rated opponents this is as simple as i can explain it.

YOU want everybody to play everybody. Ratings don't matter to YOU. 

The other commentators and myself just shared our opinions.  I learned the game by playing online. The rating system gives me a reference point for my own development, hence they have importance to me. 

There is no need to remove/revoke the abort option. as you can see. Perhaps a solution is to make the range of ratings one is happy to play the first thing chess.com asks them to set. Myself and others surely only discovered this feature later and some may have no idea and just abort alot of games?

Well you just gave a MasterClass on how to do this.

EndgameStudy teaches

"How To Shame Others Into Doing What You Want And Avoid Dealing With Your Own Frustrations"

Coming This Winter

$90 lifetime Access. Elevate your game.

And I'm being insensitive there, so I'll accept the consequences, but remember that some of the people that you play don't wake up in the morning and see your face in the mirror.

taking ownership of your issues is the first step to recovery.

I just block any repeat-aborters.

It's not like you'd be losing them as an opponent—if they're repeatedly aborting against you, it means they have no intention of playing you, anyway.

Block and move on.

There are 19,000,000+ users here. You just got unlucky. And no there is nothing to gain from playing you. You make think so. No one else does hence the aborting. This is the real problem. You're supposed to earn your way into playing players that highly rated. You don't want to do that... So I guess there's nothing else to be done.

"I think playing people of all levels, a lot lower, a lot higher, and around the same gives you the best experience."

No it really doesn't.... what kind of bubble did you grow up in? The ratings in chess exist as a measure of your strength/competencies. hence i find it hard to believe you were matched against an 1800er (im sure the 1800er thought it was a joke too!) as that point gap means his reward for a win is 0... not playing you isn't a personal slight; that is just your own demons.