13 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by nihilismorI certainly do. I had nightmares after noticing a 1600ish rated player I was playing had actually lost not a single game in 20 games. He could well be a master, but luckily he wasn't.
On our beloved RHP, when looking for an opponent do you look at his/her history prior to committing?
(Aside: Because I go on drinking binges my graph looks like the heart rate of a jack rabbit.)
It happens often, I mean encountering players at 1700s just on their way up to 2200s, so I always check out their graph and stats.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by nihilismorI do.
On our beloved RHP, when looking for an opponent do you look at his/her history prior to committing?
(Aside: Because I go on drinking binges my graph looks like the heart rate of a jack rabbit.)
I politely decline a challenge from people presently having a rating of 1000 and not long before having 2000 and having a long serie of timeouts. Why would I give him my well earned rating points?
As a 2000 rating player I just lose a few when losing, but lose 32 points if he is at 1000, and if I win I only get a few points (if any), but winning 20+ if I win to him as a 2000-player?
A always do a bit of research of every player challanging me.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by diskamylsame here...I prefer playing against opponents with a long history of the current rating(many games played recently around the same rating)
I certainly do. I had nightmares after noticing a 1600ish rated player I was playing had actually lost not a single game in 20 games. He could well be a master, but luckily he wasn't.
It happens often, I mean encountering players at 1700s just on their way up to 2200s, so I always check out their graph and stats.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasThis is a strange decision as this is the type of player I would like to play against, that is, a good one. Losing a few rating points is immaterial when set against a lesson from a master strength player.
I do.
I politely decline a challenge from people presently having a rating of 1000 and not long before having 2000 and having a long serie of timeouts. Why would I give him my well earned rating points?
As a 2000 rating player I just lose a few when losing, but lose 32 points if he is at 1000, and if I win I only get a few points (if any), but winni ...[text shortened]... I win to him as a 2000-player?
A always do a bit of research of every player challanging me.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by demonseedI rather play a 2000 skilled player with a rating of 2000, than a 2000 skilled player with a rating of 1000.
This is a strange decision as this is the type of player I would like to play against, that is, a good one. Losing a few rating points is immaterial when set against a lesson from a master strength player.
And yes, I care about rating, I want my rating to reflect my true skill.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by demonseednot so strange...if I want to get crushed I just play a few games against my engine...
This is a strange decision as this is the type of player I would like to play against, that is, a good one. Losing a few rating points is immaterial when set against a lesson from a master strength player.