[fuzxi]

Overwatch briefly had a system like this, where you could mark players in your matches positively or negatively, so they'd be more or less likely to show up in your future matches. They had to remove it after a top level player could no longer find fair matches. He was waiting 10-20 minutes before getting matched with much lower skilled players. He was by all accounts a pleasant person, but he was so good at the game that many people would mark him negatively simply so they would never have to play against him.

[rglullis]

You fix that by adding handicaps. Not only it solves the problem of lower-skilled players still being interested in playing better opponents, it gives top-level players a way to continue improving their own game even when the opposition is weak.

[fuzxi]

That absolutely does not solve the problem? A grandmaster chess player is going to get tired of playing handicapped games against 1000 Elo noobs.

[rglullis]

> going to get tired of playing handicapped games against 1000 Elo noobs.

False dichotomy. What about playing 1800 players but starting with only one bishop? Or how about playing the same 1800 players get to use some assistance that warns of blunders/mistakes, but does not give away the better moves? It's only "cheating" if it is not agreed beforehand...

Also, bear in mind that your Overwatch example gave the impression that the good/honest player was so above the others that even without the opponent flagging system, the above-average player would be matching with "boring" games most of the time. Removing the opponent rating system does not solve his problem and still leaves the cheating issue open.