The default strategy

[Joey Stewart]

So I was thinking of a GOOD idea to run by the forum. As we all know the fide rating system is still pretty broken, even after the minor injection of points last year, and anyone seeking the threshold for a master title has serious problems progressing as there's plenty of players rated hundreds of points below you who will give you an extremely difficult game with basically zero risk to their own.

Well, what about this, just default any game against such opponents and avoid the risk - if you are chasing a goal there's no point playing a zero reward game anyway, and anyone who can afford to play tournaments these days are going to be so wealthy that the chance of a couple of hundred prize money is nothing worth winning. As long as you did it without making any moves then I think I am right in thinking that the game cannot be rated and you can simply cherry pick opponents with "appropriate" ratings to be worthy of playing.

[Ian Thompson]

Well, what about this, just default any game against such opponents and avoid the risk

Do that once in a tournament and you might get expelled from the tournament; do it twice and you probably will be expelled. Do it repeatedly in different tournaments and you might find your entry to future tournaments being declined.

What you could do if you suspect you'll get such an opponent in the next round is to take a half point bye if the tournament allows it.

[Joey Stewart]

Rather then "expelling" players from tournaments one would think it maybe will get organisers thinking about the idea of grade restricted opens if they thought that would encourage more disenfranchised players back into the fold - for 99.9% of chess players who will never see titles or prize money the only thing they are playing for is their rating points so it would make sense to ensure there is ample supply available

[NickFaulks]

Do that once in a tournament and you might get expelled from the tournament; do it twice and you probably will be expelled. Do it repeatedly in different tournaments and you might find your entry to future tournaments being declined.

You would like to think so. However, there have been cases of transparently tactical "zero point byes", achieved by simply not turning up to the game, and I do not believe there were any consequences.

[NickFaulks]

the only thing they are playing for is their rating points

Is it possible that there are still a few left who just want to play chess?

[Ian Thompson]

one would think it maybe will get organisers thinking about the idea of grade restricted opens if they thought that would encourage more disenfranchised players back into the fold

I'm all in favour of minimum rating limits in tournaments. Questions for organisers to think about are whether the player rated 1600 who wants to play in the Open would play in the Minor instead, and whether players who are of 1600 playing strength would want to play if some of their opponents are rated 1600 but playing at 1900 strength.

[NickFaulks]

Questions for organisers to think about are whether the player rated 1600 who wants to play in the Open would play in the Minor instead, and whether players who are of 1600 playing strength would want to play if some of their opponents are rated 1600 but playing at 1900 strength.

I don't see how forcing rapidly improving players who are of 1900 playing strength to play only against opponents 300 points weaker than themselves helps anyone.

[Paul Cooksey]

I don't think underrated players are a new problem and they were always the people who hurt your grade the most.

I think the issue is more about people disliking deflation in the rating system. It does annoy me a bit too. But the same level of performance is simply a lower rating now than 10 years ago. Then as now you can game the system by avoiding underrated players. Or by seeking them out if you want to win rating prizes.

Hopefully ratings stabilise.

[MJMcCready]

So I was thinking of a GOOD idea to run by the forum. As we all know the fide rating system is still pretty broken, even after the minor injection of points last year, and anyone seeking the threshold for a master title has serious problems progressing as there's plenty of players rated hundreds of points below you who will give you an extremely difficult game with basically zero risk to their own.

Well, what about this, just default any game against such opponents and avoid the risk - if you are chasing a goal there's no point playing a zero reward game anyway, and anyone who can afford to play tournaments these days are going to be so wealthy that the chance of a couple of hundred prize money is nothing worth winning. As long as you did it without making any moves then I think I am right in thinking that the game cannot be rated and you can simply cherry pick opponents with "appropriate" ratings to be worthy of playing.

You are placing far too much emphasis on results. If you're aware that, like everyone else you can teachyourself much about your own chess than anyone else can and put good effort into if, and your over 1900 to, you should be able to at least give them a good game, maybe draw, very occasionally win. Results are nothing more than those things that correlate to improving yourself or not improving yourself, whatever the case my be.