I don't think this would be possible, as it'd be hard to match up with equals that often. Also, I didn't think it was a huge problem; you gain less when you play lower rated players, but you should also beat them more often (and vice versa). It all evens out in the end.
Social discrimination on chess.com
Sort:
Equals is a relative term that would have to be defined like +/- 100.
If you are really strong you should not fear playing a weaker player, as long as it is not all the time...
Was just wondering whether you agree with the described phenomenon, even when solving is another issue.
Aug 19, 2012
0
#6
AnthonyCG wrote:
Fear of losing to lower rated players is an often used point but it's not the reason why higher players will really object.
Losing is always a possibility but the bigger reason is simply that higher rated players have nothing to gain from the encounter. The low-rated player is at least getting experience and possible rating points while the higher-rated player is basically putting his neck out there for nothing.
Of course you can always ask higher rated players for a game and they may be ok with it but having lower-rated games automatically occuring on a constant basis may put them off.
I agree with you anthonyCG.
Aug 19, 2012
0
#7
Start a game of your own instead of clicking on open seeks, and have it set up to be within whatever range you're willing to play and if someone clicks on it, they should already know your strength before accepting, since they saw your rating as they hovered over the dot. Or, it's listed beside the player's name if you're talking about online chess.
Aug 19, 2012
0
#8
people should not worry who they play. chess is a game for everyone weak or strong.fear of losing to lower players is always there but that is the game.just have fun win or lose.
Great feedback! Retguvie98, you mention "accepting anyone" but I would love to see the number of game abortions on this site. I get the impression that especially at lower levels the score is heavily guarded.
I understand the argument of the most honorable BowerickWowbagger, but would the lower scores "cheat" more? If so their scores would be higher. It is not the clean cyclists that win the Tour De France when the race is not properly protected against doping.
The distribution looked quite Normal to me, but it is very likely that there are subgroups in there who visit the site for different purposes.
I agree that it is not a drama and you can play a good game here, but from a sociological point of view I found the question interesting. I started recently playing after a break of many years, and I have quite some catching up to do, but getting aborted 5 times in a row because your score is 100 points lower, makes that you want to make the world a better organized place. Very European I'm afraid... Should solve the euro also..
Yes hereandnow good suggestion! Have done a first 3 day one but will look whether I can survive a live one. Merci beaucoup et salutations de Bruxelles.
BowerickWowbagger , anybody that beats you on this site, gets automatically reported. You know that your huge fan club represents quite some muscle at the chess.com corporate head office and Langley.
Aug 19, 2012
0
#15
BowerickWowbagger wrote:
bronsteinitz wrote:
I understand the argument of the most honorable BowerickWowbagger, but would the lower scores "cheat" more? If so their scores would be higher. It is not the clean cyclists that win the Tour De France when the race is not properly protected against doping
Anybody that has a lower rating than me and beats me is cheating and subsequently i report them, this is my controbution to fair play.
Personally I have only twice beaten guys rated higher than me ,once because the guy died during the game and the other time the guy seriously blundered. Proving I myself was not a cheat.
Do you ever check your opponent's time out before reporting them!
Your opponent could probably be stronger than you but may have lost loads of rating point due to time out issues... ever consider that? Never be too eager to click the report button Amigo!
In an ideal world, all players would be willing to play each other. But man was blessed with ego. A blunder against a lower rated player can cost a lot of hard earned rating points. Entering tournaments is a good suggestion if you want higher rated opposition.
@retguvie, dear curious colleague,
I have no proof at all, only gut feeling supported by a self construed paradigme...
Dear Platolag, I have to advise you that the risks of addressing the right honorable BowerickWowbagger far outweigh the possible advantages of putting your opinion on the web here. One of the risks, well known here at chess.com is that this thread will be flooded by what we call WADs which is short for Weapons of Artistic Destruction.
Hope the title caught your attention, because I would like to solve an important issue on this site. The problem seems to be that we all want to play players that are stronger than ourselves so that if we loose we loose little and if we win, we win big. But this is not logically possible.
With the exception of two players with an identical score, there is always a lower graded player and a higher graded player needed for a game to happen.
So what happens, we all limit ourselves to players of relatively comparable strength. But is this optimal? No because you need to learn crushing as well as defending, so it is good to play as well lower as higher to do so.
There is of course the problem that the distribution of our strengths is bell-shaped. Most players are average, few are weak and few are strong. A strong one will probably not want to play all day only weaker ones, although this is unavoidable due to the statistics of it all.
My suggestion is that chess.com should look at a way to create a fair game distribution where if you play 10 games, 6 are with equals, 2 with weaker and 2 with stronger. This will allow more contact between all members of our chess society and will perhaps end the big number of game abortions that weaker players have to face.
What do you think of this?