Rating limits

Where do 1200 players (like myself) get off setting limits to their challenge for only players rated above 2000? Why would such a player accept this challenge? If my understanding of the rating system is correct, even if they win, their rating will go down.

I think subscribers should be able to set rating limits, but non-subscribers (like myself) should not be able to set the minium rating of open invites to 400 points higher than their current rating.

Originally posted by UncleRobb
Where do 1200 players (like myself) get off setting limits to their challenge for only players rated above 2000? Why would such a player accept this challenge? If my understanding of the rating system is correct, even if they win, their rating will go down.

I think subscribers should be able to set rating limits, but non-subscribers (like myself) sho ...[text shortened]... be able to set the minium rating of open invites to 400 points higher than their current rating.

Do you think it would be fair if non-subscribers couldn't play people at the rating they preferred?
Also, I don't think a person [other than provisional] loses rating points if they win, regardless of their opponents rating. I think they just wouldn't gain anything for a win though.

I do agree with you that it's stupid to do that.

Originally posted by UncleRobb
If my understanding of the rating system is correct, even if they win, their rating will go down.

If a high-rated player wins against a much lower-rated player, he gains nothing.
If a low-rated player loses against a much higher-rated player, he loses nothing.
However, if a higher rated player loses or draws, he loses lots of points, and if a lower rated player wins or draws, he gains lots of points.

EG:

Whiskeyjack (932) win= +32; loss = +0; draw = +16;
mtthw (1910) win = +0; loss = -32; draw = -16.

I think a win should always gain at least one rating point, regardless of rating differences.
And in the same spirit - a loss should always decrease at least one one rating point, regardless of rating differences.

Why?
Else there is no point at all for the better player even to consider to play with a far more inexperienced player.

This is my humble opinion.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think a win should always gain at least one rating point, regardless of rating differences.
And in the same spirit - a loss should always decrease at least one one rating point, regardless of rating differences.

Why?
Else there is no point at all for the better player even to consider to play with a far more inexperienced player.

This is my humble opinion.

Some of the better players are also humble enough to encourage, teach and talk to us unhumble losers.

They sometimes get their rocks off in strange ways...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think a win should always gain at least one rating point, regardless of rating differences.
And in the same spirit - a loss should always decrease at least one one rating point, regardless of rating differences.

Why?
Else there is no point at all for the better player even to consider to play with a far more inexperienced player.

This is my humble opinion.

Creating a possiblity only of failure for the highly rated player must add a bit of a zing into the game and make them sharpen up their skills. Its good for both players and even the best can falter.