Originally posted by rickgarelWhat gets me is these are the people always complaining that we don't need so many banded tournaments. They love opponents who are hundreds of points lower than they are. You often find these people in many clubs because do you realize just how MANY games like this they need to win to get that rating up?
One thing that sticks in my craw is someone with a rating 2000+ whose average opponents rating is 1500 - 1600. Is their rating of 2000+ really such an accomplishment?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186394
Originally posted by SuzianneRatings are overrated.
What gets me is these are the people always complaining that we don't need so many banded tournaments. They love opponents who are hundreds of points lower than they are. You often find these people in many clubs because do you realize just how MANY games like this they need to win to get that rating up?
I am not crazy about playing much weaker opponents. I imagine they don't like it either to play me. But when restarting here ( I was full member of RHP long ago) no high rated ppl would ever have accepted my challenge. Of course not. I wouldn't have neither. So if there's any clan leader who would grant me that I never had to play lower rated opponents in their matches I'd love to join. Well responding to your complaint about those preferring to play much weaker opponents: those are pitiable ppl cause they they will never know that you only get stronger by competition. And chess is intellectual competition and challenge.
Originally posted by rickgarelA single lost game cancels out 10+ wins in that case. Factor in the occasional underrated player, and you have an accomplishment maintaining the high rating.
One thing that sticks in my craw is someone with a rating 2000+ whose average opponents rating is 1500 - 1600. Is their rating of 2000+ really such an accomplishment?
Originally posted by rickgarelI've never played in a chess tourney so I've never been a rated player, but at one time I played someone who did have a rating. He had a rating of 1650 (probably higher now, this was back in the 80's). I became his unofficial sparing partner for a few years because my ability eventually climbed to match his. If I began winning most of the games he would hit the books and start winning more games again, so this arrangement was mutually beneficial... I got better playing with him and he got better playing with me. At that time I assumed if I had a rating, it would probably be (more or less) about the same as his.
One thing that sticks in my craw is someone with a rating 2000+ whose average opponents rating is 1500 - 1600. Is their rating of 2000+ really such an accomplishment?
Since I started playing at sites with their own in house rating systems, I've wanted to know if they work in the same way when comparing strength of players, and how are those numbers comprable to established and recognized ratings? For instance, if a rated player at a game site subtracts 400 or 500 points from his site rating, would that number come anywhere close to what his actual rating might be if he played in tourneys? I understand it depends on the strength of players at any particular site, but I was just curious if there was a rule of thumb I could apply if I play enough games here to establish a rating.
Originally posted by rickgarelHow about, "Well reasoned, definitive" with the possibility of glaring exceptions?
It was well reasoned but I don't agree that it was definitive. Objectively if this 2000+ person only played players of a lower rank, his rating does not reflect his actual strength. Therefore the 'accomplishment' is illusory.
Rick, several years ago (maybe early 2010) I started a General Forum thread to present an alternative or additional site chess rating; its intent was to enhance chess rating integrity. The simple equation was applied to the Top Ten Highest Rated RHP Chess Members. There were considerable pro and con positions taken in support of or opposition to my presentation (greenpawn34's posts, I recall, as particularly entertaining). Obviously the status quo remained intact. Highest Rating was ignored as either a fluke spike or inflated and, therefore, non-representative. Lowest Rating, also dismissed as irrelevant.
Equation: 1) Opponent Avg. / Your Average Rating= [%]; 2) [%] x Your Rating (for any or all of the Historical 90 days, 1 Year and/or 5 Years time frames)= Your "Opponent Adjusted Site Chess Rating", which would virtually always be lower.
Originally posted by rickgarelA single lost game cancels out 10+ wins in that case. Factor in the occasional underrated player, and you have an accomplishment maintaining the high rating.
It was well reasoned but I don't agree that it was definitive. Objectively if this 2000+ person only played players of a lower rank, his rating does not reflect his actual strength. Therefore the 'accomplishment' is illusory.