x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

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

  • #161
    iforgotmyusername2 wrote:

    if someone doesn't want to play you, then they shouldn't have to. it is rude to try to force someone to play a game if they did not accept the seek themselves. hardly fair.

    They didn't except the seek? They want to play, and get an opponent. That's it! There's no reason they didn't accept the seek. They shouldn't be allowed to abort over and over cause they don't want to play someone. A chess game's a chess game. It doesn't matter who u play. Why wouldn't you want to play someone specifically anyway? Everyone's anonymous.

  • #162

    It's a sport.

  • #163
    kaynight wrote:

    It's a sport.

    Chess ain't a sport. It's too good a game to be reduced to a "sport". It's a study.

  • #164

    >>but I think 150-200 points isn't going to have any real effect on the game.

     

    I'd say this is not true exactly. A 200 point difference means statistically, that the stronger player will score 76%, so they  are basically playing in another league. Now I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong in wanting to play higher-rated players, but from the perspective of those players, they just waste their time without getting anything out of it (and I'm not talking about ratings, but about the learning experience and the fun you get from the challenge involved). I'm only a patzer myself, but apart from the fun factor, I'm playing chess for the challenge involved and if I play someone that is substantially weaker than myself, there's no challenge (most of the time), so I'd rather use that time to play against someone else. Which is why I limit the range in which I search for opponents. And if I don't find a fitting opponent, I'm probably better off using the tactics trainer or reading a chess book (or doing something else, which is completely unrelated to chess).

     

    So would I like to play Carlsen or Nakamura? Well, who wouldn't? But do I think they shoud be forced to play against me just because no one else is there to play them? Of course not,

     

    This all said, I kinda agree that putting out an open challenge and then not accepting the luck of the draw seems a bit immature. If they don't want to play weaker opponents , they have the tools not to do so without repeatedly to abort a game.

     

  • #165

    I set my opponent's lowest rating at -50 and save, but often I get matched up against lower rated players. that's why I abort some games. I don't know why it happens, it should be fixed.

    by the way, I really dislike the new site. it was way easier to create a challenge before. 

  • #166
    Eluarelon wrote:

    >>but I think 150-200 points isn't going to have any real effect on the game.

     

    I'd say this is not true exactly. A 200 point difference means statistically, that the stronger player will score 76%, so they  are basically playing in another league. Now I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong in wanting to play higher-rated players, but from the perspective of those players, they just waste their time without getting anything out of it (and I'm not talking about ratings, but about the learning experience and the fun you get from the challenge involved). I'm only a patzer myself, but apart from the fun factor, I'm playing chess for the challenge involved and if I play someone that is substantially weaker than myself, there's no challenge (most of the time), so I'd rather use that time to play against someone else. Which is why I limit the range in which I search for opponents. And if I don't find a fitting opponent, I'm probably better off using the tactics trainer or reading a chess book (or doing something else, which is completely unrelated to chess).

     

    So would I like to play Carlsen or Nakamura? Well, who wouldn't? But do I think they shoud be forced to play against me just because no one else is there to play them? Of course not,

     

    This all said, I kinda agree that putting out an open challenge and then not accepting the luck of the draw seems a bit immature. If they don't want to play weaker opponents , they have the tools not to do so without repeatedly to abort a game.

     

    Stop with the useless statistics. A 2050 playing a 2200  is almost equal. They are both very good players. That's what matters. It will most likely be a very good game. Think about what your saying: You can't play someone 150 points below you. Tournaments are in 300-400 point sections. What if someone blundered and lost 50 points or lost on time several times. You don't know how good someone actually is. And you are gonna limit yourself to such a narrow range every time you play? I think you are being a little unrealistic. You should give them a chance. And yes, if you and Magnus were the only ones in a club somewhere, there is no reason he couldn't play you. U have to think realistically here. Only computers think they will win if they are 7/10ths of a point ahead..etc. The point is it depends on the game. They shouldn't even show the rating until 30 seconds into the game. How does it make sense to think it is better to not play at all then to play someone 150 points lower. Even 500 points lower. This completely lacks common sense. 

  • #167
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #168
    Drawgood wrote:
    Yes they should be able to abort. I don't think your argument is valid.

    How so? Explain

  • #169

    >>A 2050 playing a 2200 is almost equal.

    No it isn't. That's like saying the german basketball team is as good as the U.S. basketball team; they are playing in the same world championchip tournament after all. We all know that first statement to be false.

     

    Same in chess. As long as the rating is an accurate reflection of the player's strength (which, given enough games, it is), you can be damn sure that 200 points makes a world of a difference. In tournament play, I don't care (you have to take them as they come) but apart from the rare upset, you can be damn sure that I won't lose many points to substantially weaker opponents and I won't win many points from people substantially higher than myself. And the fun games are those in the middle.

     

    So, knowing that, I won't go out of my way and try and dare opponents that are totally above my head, but I also won't go out of my way and try to get easy wins against players,  I want to play against those opponents where I have the most fun and typically, those are the players that are challenging but not unbeatable.

     

    >>Only computers think they will win if they are 7/10ths of a point ahead..etc. The point is it depends on the game.<<

    Well, the history of chess proves otherwise.

     

    >>How does it make sense to think it is better to not play at all then to play someone 150 points lower. Even 500 points lower. This completely lacks common sense. <<

     

    Doesn't. Chess isn't my only hobby, and if I don't have enough fun with it, I'm better off doing something else. In a tournament, I  just beat a player with a rating 400 points lower than mine. In this game, I easily won even missing a simple basic mate at move 11 (!). Where's the fun in that?

     

    Just to be clear: This is not about the rating because about that, I couldn't care less. And in that potential scenario at the chess club, if I'm Carlsen and have nothing better to do, I certainly wouldn't mind to play a game with a patzer like myself, maybe even trying to teach him a thing or two.

     

    but in this environment, where (at least in my experience) the only communication between two players is via the game's moves, I will continue to try and maximise my fun by playing against opponents, where I have fun playing. And to limit the range of ratings for an open challenge is a means to that.

     

  • #170

    200 points doesn't make a world of difference. Let me ask you this: A 3000 would beat a 2000 easily, but would a 4000 beat a 3000 easily? Interesting question. When u get to a certain level, the games are all really good. A 2000 is an expert and a 2200's a master. So one's good and the others even more good. Also, ratings are NOT an accurate reflection of ability. What about all the games I've had mouse slips, blunders, stupid losses on time when I have 3 queens and my opponent has 2 rooks. I have to have all that reflected in my "accurate" rating. That's not fair when I'm judged by that when there are other reasons my rating is different. I don't know where you are getting the idea that 200 points in rating makes such an extreme difference. I've beaten 2000s and lost to 1000s, and drawn 1800s. What does that show? Not much, right? Online ratings are even less accurate in this respect on top of that, so, no, 200, and even 400 points doesn't make all the difference in the world. It all comes down to the game. When u ask someone how they get to be 2000, they'll say: they beat the 1800s. how did the 1800s get that high? they beat 1600s. how how did the player become 1600? he lost to 1700s. How did the 1700 lget to about 1700? He beat 3 1400s and lost to a 1900. how did the 1400 become 1400? he beat a 1200 and lost to a 1500, drew a 1000, beat a 1600, and drew a 1700. What does any of this tell you? Nothing. What IS a 1500...etc. Whatever. I think everyone is over thinking this. U claim u don't have enough fun with it. How about relaxing and stop worrying about this trivial stuff. Just play and stop worrying and analyzing how fun each game was. Just play! My advice: widen your rating parameters for 2 reasons: 1) less time waiting for matches that fit criteria 2) playing people of all different levels give u good experience I think.

  • #171

     >> but would a 4000 beat a 3000 easily?

    Without a doubt, yes.

     

    >> What about all the games I've had mouse slips, blunders, stupid losses on time when I have 3 queens and my opponent has 2 rooks. I have to have all that reflected in my "accurate" rating.

    Yes? If you didn't make all these mistakes, your rating would obviously be better, because you'd win more games.

     

    >> I don't know where you are getting the idea that 200 points in rating makes such an extreme difference. 

    Well it's basically because I used to study computer sciences and mathematics and know a bit about how the rating system actually works. Hint: it's not quite like you suggest with your examples. happy.png

  • #172
    Eluarelon wrote:

     >> but would a 4000 beat a 3000 easily?

    Without a doubt, yes.

     

    >> What about all the games I've had mouse slips, blunders, stupid losses on time when I have 3 queens and my opponent has 2 rooks. I have to have all that reflected in my "accurate" rating.

    Yes? If you didn't make all these mistakes, your rating would obviously be better, because you'd win more games.

     

    >> I don't know where you are getting the idea that 200 points in rating makes such an extreme difference. 

    Well it's basically because I used to study computer sciences and mathematics and know a bit about how the rating system actually works. Hint: it's not quite like you suggest with your examples.

    The point is if ur basing the assumption that a game will be boring or too easy against me, you'd be basing that on numerous mouse-slips and time-outs, which ISN'T an accurate reflection on my chess ability. So even though my rating is low, a game still wouldn't be "a waste of time". And the rating system on this site is very simple. U lose or gain a certain number of points depending on the difference between you and your opponent. All the statistics and equations in the world won't matter until you actually sit down and play a chess game with the person. You'll see then. In fact I challenge you to a 3 min or 5 min game. I don't think a 4000 could easily beat a 3000. One can only play so well. There are a limited number of moves, but ratings have no limits. Once u get to 3000ish, it's all the same. And flagging when I have 3 queens isn't a "mistake". I didn't even have physical time to hit the mouse and make premoves. Premoves take .1 seconds, so if I have .3 seconds, it doesn't help

  • #173
    steve7667 wrote:

    If  I am not allowed to abort based on ratings then how do I get to play against players I want to other than deliberately losing to reduce my rating.

    U don't. U play who you get and that's it! They shouldn't even show the ratings until 30 seconds into the game.

  • #174

    Okey, so I read the first 4 pages, and nobody, really nobody mentioned that there is an option when you set a challenge where you can specify the minimum and maximum rating should your opponent have.

    All this people aborting because of being paired with low rated players, are just plain lazy and/or stupid and/or ignorant.

    All they have to do is to create the challenge with the minimum of -50 and the maximum to +400 or ∞, and that's it, they will never have to abort a game again.

  • #175
    seppuku_ro wrote:

    I set my opponent's lowest rating at -50 and save, but often I get matched up against lower rated players. that's why I abort some games. I don't know why it happens, it should be fixed.

    by the way, I really dislike the new site. it was way easier to create a challenge before. 

     

    Yes, sometimes it happens, it is a bug somewhere. I think the minimum and maximum oponnent rating just works (when playing from a browser (not iOS or Android client)) when you create your first challenge, in the subsequent seeks is when it fails.

  • #176

    But if there's no one in that range available, then it should just match you up with the players closest to that range, but not NO ONE AT ALL.

  • #177
    I abort games cause I hit play by accident when I just wanna do my tactics or I gotta do something but other then that I don't
  • #178
    Diego_Chinchilla wrote:
    I abort games cause I hit play by accident when I just wanna do my tactics or I gotta do something but other then that I don't

    That's fine. That's what it's there for. I was talking about aborting just cause of the stupid reason of not liking your opponents rating.

Top

Online Now