In all tournaments I've joined, my opponents have on average been way better than me. For example, in the ongoing Winter marathon tournament, my average opponent was rated 1750, and my own blitz rating is only 1350. In other words, it is overwhelmingly likely that I lose. In practice, I only have a good game with opponents within 200 points of my rating.
Everyone should be matched with players closer to their skill level in tournaments. This would make games more fair; I've seen 1700-rated players who faced an average opponent of 1500 in tournaments, so they won more. Making fairer matches would also mean that a player with a lower rating can still score highly in a tournament by doing very well relative to their peers.
its very few of us (below 1500 rating) sometimes its hard to match us up with each other and results also affect it so some one with low rating may meet higher ones because of victories . so you might as well just take it as a challenge and just try to focus on improving your play instead of focusing on the overall placement in this tournament it will be more tournaments where you can shine ^^
I have won a few matches on time because my opponent has berserked, and sometimes in tournaments I draw with good players, but I have a win rate in the 2015 Winter Marathon of 25%. My average opponent rating is 1616, now at 20:22 CET. I have had at least two matches against above-2000-rated players. How can I even manage a good result against these players with a rating of around 1350?
i got 8 losing streak cus high rated opoosition
but it was fun anyway, i beat some 2000+ (not on time, but on position)
Several times, I have been matched up with players over 2100 rating. With a rating of 1350, when I lost, my rating did not change. Those were not very fun games, despite the fact that I lost nothing.
But still, I have no idea why I should be matched against a 2100. In the similar ELO system, a player 670 points better than you should win 99% of the time. (A player 800 points better would win 100% of the time.) By contrast, a player 200 points better should win 76% of the time: unbalanced but still playable and fun.
I'd rather spend more time in the lobby to find a good game rather than spend only a few seconds and get an 1800 player. The threshold for matches, in my opinion, should be +/- 400 or 500 (so no matches between players more than 400 or 500 points apart).
#5 There are not too many people who participate in tournaments with ratings similar to yours, so the only remaining choices are high-rated people like the ones you faced.
Interesting perspective OP. I personally covet the opportunity to play opponents much more highly rated than I am. In the marathon my best game was with Lance550, a master, who was the leader and a much stronger player than I am. I hung in for the best part of the game before making a mistake he capitalized on. I tend to think of it as a moral victory to give them a good fight and show them I've got grit and won't surrender just because they're stronger than I am. Fight 'em tooth and claw and every once in a while you'll actually win one too.
you're paired against ppl with similar points as you have. if you played way more games you could be paired against better performing opponents.
from my personal experience in this tournament: i usually played around 1200-1400 the last 5 months and had similar results against 1600-1800s in the tournament as against people on my level. no idea why.
#7: Good point. Still, my rating is so low that I wouldn't even hang on until the game becomes good. I do agree that playing a much better player, casually and especially over the board, can be a good experience.
Perhaps a +/- 600 limit would be more reasonable, since I still find the chance to play an 1800 or 1900 somewhat exciting. However, because I'm only a 1350, playing a 2200 (850 point difference) would still be no fun, at least in a tournament.
