That sounds frustrating and tedious. If I get better I want to win more often.
The win or loss is ancillary to the experience for me.
Maybe because I primarily play sports and not chess but this attitude is completely foreign and mystifying to me.
Don't you feel bad when you lose? Why would you purposely engage in an ELO system that results in you feeling bad after 50% of games, and never gives you a sense of progress?
Isn't that profoundly discouraging?
Do you think Tiger Woods or Leo Messi wish they won fewer matches? Like I just can't get myself into a headspace where you're out for competition but are satisfied with a 50% win rate.
Do you think professional athletes like Woods and Messi are stupid because they could be playing in Farm League and winning every time against scrubs?
By definition it does not, unless your definition of progress is "number go up".
>Do you think professional athletes are stupid because they could be playing in Little League and winning every time against kids?
So let me get this straight: are you seriously suggesting that you don't understand the difference between e.g. the format of the NHL or the FIFA world cup, and playing against literal children to pad one's win rate?
Because I think you're probably not arguing in good faith with that last comment. Time for me to duck out of this conversation.
If you have a major skill gap, games become boring. Try playing Martin bot for 3 hours.
All he's saying is it's boring to win all the time.
Winning half the time is better because each of those wins means far far more than winning against bad players.
Playing down is only fun for insecure, unambitious people. If winning is the fun part, just cheat, don't seek out bad players to play against. Playing against bad players makes you bad at chess.