So, having looked for myself I'm not a fan of this change however the way OP phrased it was needlessly rude. Just seems like arbitrary restrictions to me. I'd be curious to know what the anticipated benefit will be? It would be nice if changes that are going to impact user experience were posted on the forum in the way of patch notes so users know what changes are being implemented and the reason behind them. That said, the change isn't a deal breaker for me.
@ruzgar9543
Okay and the result is 1700-1900 in my case assuming my rating is 1800. That's not what I want.
Imagine having a bad day - you lost like 100 points so the quickest way to get it back is to play with opponents rated around the targeted rating.
The new system will now always pair now preferably with the players of similar rating - there is no more any choice here...
Very suspicious change.
If you do not want to play against someone higher/lower rated you could just limit the desired rating range, no big deal. And I agree with what has been said before - this change leads to more aborted games, nothing more.
Okay and the result is 1700-1900 in my case assuming my rating is 1800. That's not what I want.
Imagine having a bad day - you lost like 100 points so the quickest way to get it back is to play with opponents rated around the targeted rating.
The new system will now always pair now preferably with the players of similar rating - there is no more any choice here...
Very suspicious change.
If you do not want to play against someone higher/lower rated you could just limit the desired rating range, no big deal. And I agree with what has been said before - this change leads to more aborted games, nothing more.
@deviance Before the change, you could have set something like 1550-2900 range and you wouldn't have got any 1500? match, either.
@JustTraining Thank you for your very kind and well-phrased post.
@TomKeenftw You are deeply right. I agree with all your arguments.
@CalbernandHowbe I think that Thibault evidently likes it, as well as the 15 downvoters of my original post (#1), although most of them did not bother to share their point of view with us - maybe they have no arguments.
@AlexanderNiLaUsEn In the first shock after seeing this change, I was ready to leave. Now... you know, the biggest chess website has employed even much more drastic measures to destroy the playing experience of average, untitled players. Anyway, I did not write these posts in order to get people asking me to stay, I don't need such attention. About your example with the 1200 player, he/she could have always set the range of some 950-1450 in order to avoid 1500? players, so the update changed nothing from this point of view.
@Salamandra27 I'm genuinely not sure whether you understand how the new update works, but I agree with you that it has to be undone.
@JustTraining Thank you for your very kind and well-phrased post.
@TomKeenftw You are deeply right. I agree with all your arguments.
@CalbernandHowbe I think that Thibault evidently likes it, as well as the 15 downvoters of my original post (#1), although most of them did not bother to share their point of view with us - maybe they have no arguments.
@AlexanderNiLaUsEn In the first shock after seeing this change, I was ready to leave. Now... you know, the biggest chess website has employed even much more drastic measures to destroy the playing experience of average, untitled players. Anyway, I did not write these posts in order to get people asking me to stay, I don't need such attention. About your example with the 1200 player, he/she could have always set the range of some 950-1450 in order to avoid 1500? players, so the update changed nothing from this point of view.
@Salamandra27 I'm genuinely not sure whether you understand how the new update works, but I agree with you that it has to be undone.
Plus 500 is way too much to begin with. +300 should be the most. I'm above 2000 rating and when I play 1600 hundreds or lower is just a joke. I often have to berserk to feel a challenge even tho is tiny bit. I often don't play serious enough and often premove or make silly one move traps which they fell for... 500 points is way too much.
If someone low rated wants to play 600 rated points above him, he can do it in tournaments or pay that guy and he will receive whole hour lesson and games Analyzed.
If someone low rated wants to play 600 rated points above him, he can do it in tournaments or pay that guy and he will receive whole hour lesson and games Analyzed.
@Otienimous
All I am trying to say - it is now impossible to play with the players 1900-2000 EXCLUSIVELY if you are 1800. You can have only 1800-2000 and most likely most of your pairs will be only slightly above 1800.
@Cyclist1988
There was no problem before with setting your desired rating range that you will not get players rated that low.
All I am trying to say - it is now impossible to play with the players 1900-2000 EXCLUSIVELY if you are 1800. You can have only 1800-2000 and most likely most of your pairs will be only slightly above 1800.
@Cyclist1988
There was no problem before with setting your desired rating range that you will not get players rated that low.
@General0_0Advance Thank you for reinforcing my points. I don't think there is any anticipated benefit, the Thibault's post (#3) suggests that it was done just to mirror the other chess sites. And I'm deeply sorry if you perceived my original post as "needlessly rude", I just wanted to make a strong point in order to initiate the discussion and English is not my mother-tongue.
@Cyclist1988 Well, you cannot force the player rated 600 points above you to play with you, but if both of you want that, there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Before the change, being 2076, you could have set the range 2000-2150 or 2200-2400, or 600-2900 in the lobby, according to your mood on the given day. Now you can set something similar to the first option (like 1976-2126), but you have no possibility to choose the second or the third one. There are no advantages, unless you are the type of person who likes to have their freedom restricted without a chance to defend, in which case we have nothing to talk about.
@Salamandra27 Now I understand you and I totally agree. I have said something similar already in the post #1. Very suspicious change, indeed.
@Cyclist1988 Well, you cannot force the player rated 600 points above you to play with you, but if both of you want that, there is nothing objectively wrong with it. Before the change, being 2076, you could have set the range 2000-2150 or 2200-2400, or 600-2900 in the lobby, according to your mood on the given day. Now you can set something similar to the first option (like 1976-2126), but you have no possibility to choose the second or the third one. There are no advantages, unless you are the type of person who likes to have their freedom restricted without a chance to defend, in which case we have nothing to talk about.
@Salamandra27 Now I understand you and I totally agree. I have said something similar already in the post #1. Very suspicious change, indeed.
@Salamandra27 set it to -0/+200. This was done to stop padding, presumably.
@ruzgar9543
I am not interested in -0/+200 but rather +100/+200. That's the whole point of what I am saying.
I am not interested in -0/+200 but rather +100/+200. That's the whole point of what I am saying.
@Otienimous is not about if its wrong or right it's about which one is better. And it's better and respectful for higher rated not to see low rated at all. Everyone have to manually set to see +-300 at most. That's my view. Hmm but now I see you still can see all rating challenges in lobby.
@ruzgar9543 If the rating system (Glicko2 used here) is mathematically balanced, your rating will reflect your abilities, regardless whether you play people 300 points lower or 300 points higher than you. Playing only stronger people is a good way to develop your abilities and, on the other hand, there are some players who like to be matched against weaker ones. This change is meant directly to harm these groups, I only cannot understand why Thibault would like to harm them.
@Cyclist1988 If a 2700 player does not want to see 2350 players, he could have set something like 2400-2900 in the previous lobby. If he wants to play a 2000 opponent, he could have set 1900-2100. Now he still has the first option, but the second was taken away from him. Your botched concept of respect is that you respect someone by taking away his freedom. God forbid you ever get to any position of power!
@Cyclist1988 If a 2700 player does not want to see 2350 players, he could have set something like 2400-2900 in the previous lobby. If he wants to play a 2000 opponent, he could have set 1900-2100. Now he still has the first option, but the second was taken away from him. Your botched concept of respect is that you respect someone by taking away his freedom. God forbid you ever get to any position of power!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.