As I'm fairly new here, but I wanted to ask about ratings.
How closely do RHP ratings relate to other, OTB, ratings systems? I was reading on the net that International Masters usually have a rating of 2200 or above, yet no-one on RHP has a rating above 2000.
Does this mean there are no master level players on here?
Thanks.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by VargNot necessarily.
As I'm fairly new here, but I wanted to ask about ratings.
How closely do RHP ratings relate to other, OTB, ratings systems? I was reading on the net that International Masters usually have a rating of 2200 or above, yet no-one on RHP has a rating above 2000.
Does this mean there are no master level players on here?
Thanks.
If International Masters and Grandmasters had to start with ratings of 1200, like we do at Red Hot Pawn, not many of them would climb above 2000!
Perhaps the RHP rating system needs a teeny-weeny bit of tweaking (anyone got a hammer?)
Dave😠😀
Originally posted by David TebbI'm confused. 🙄 I thought they started just like everyone else who plays OTB. Unrated - then provisional - then their standard rating. I believe they did climb up the ladder like we are trying but I believe that the ratings calculation may be different in the USCF system.
[b]Not necessarily.
If International Masters and Grandmasters had to start with ratings of 1200, like we do at Red Hot Pawn, not many of them would climb above 2000!
Then again I could be very wrong! 😛
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by ChessNutThat's right. With the Elo system, everyone is unrated until they play a minimun number of games. A person's rating is calculated from their score against rated players. There is no ladder. Only an objective measurement of performance.
I'm confused. 🙄 I thought they started just like everyone else who plays OTB. Unrated - then provisional - then their standard rating. I believe they did climb up the ladder like we are trying but I believe that the ratings calculation may be different in the USCF system.
Then again I could be very wrong! 😛
The average male player who obtains an Elo rating for the first time will be about 2000 (lower for females). If they are extremely strong, they may go on to reach 2400 and become an International Master, or even 2500 and become a Grandmaster.
But if that player joined RHP, they would be given a rating of 1200, the same as everyone else.
Clearly this is absurd.
Dave
Originally posted by David TebbSo the RHP ratings are inaccurate for the higher rated players, what about the lower ratings?
That's right. With the Elo system, everyone is unrated until they play a minimun number of games. A person's rating is calculated from their score against rated players. There is no ladder. Only an objective measurement of performance.
The average male player who obtains an Elo rating for the first time will be about 2000 (lower for females). If the ...[text shortened]... uld be given a rating of 1200, the same as everyone else.
Clearly this is absurd.
Dave
Is ELO the same rating system used by USCF tournaments? For my first USCF tournament I was unrated yet my change in rating based on my performance was benchmarked as if I was at 1200 to begin with.
For a first time player to be rated 2000 seems silly to me as that would place them at a level to get thoroughly crushed. 🙂
I think what we have here is similiar to discussing if we should use inches or centimeters. It seems that the ELO system may be a European rating scale and that RHP is using a USCF based scale. I don't really think either is wrong. To me ELO ratings appear inflated because it is not what I'm used to seeing and vice versa.
What do you think David?
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by ChessNutGood analogy. All rating systems have their good points and their downsides, and work in their own ways. The problem occurs when people attach significence to the numbers they use.
I think what we have here is similiar to discussing if we should use inches or centimeters. It seems that the ELO system may be a European rating scale and that RHP is using a USCF based scale. I don't really think either is wrong. To me ELO ratings appear inflated because it is not what I'm used to seeing and vice versa.
What do you think David?
A rating in the Elo system appears inflated against a RHP rating, simply because it's a higher number! But they use different scales. Elo's used to start at 2200!
This may seem ludicrously high to a RHP member, but the Elo system was originally designed to measure the performance of serious OTB tournament players, a large percentage of which were professionals.
Players had to acheive a level of performance equivalent to a National Master before they were able to get an Elo rating. Nowadays, less strict standards are applied, and it's much easier for a good OTB player to gain an Elo rating.
Dave
(thinking of a new career as a lecturer)
😉
You're absolutely correct! My USCF rating is 1141 but what does that really mean? I've only played in 2 tournaments. One when I first started playing chess and one last year. I lost all of my games in the first tourney and won 6 of 9 in the recent tourney. But even knowing that doesn't help a great deal when it comes to knowing my strength.
I think RHP has done an admirable job in creating a system that will give players a 'guide' in determining how good someone is. Just look at the rankings and you will see, except for some exceptions, (Schlieman is one), the top 20 strongest players here at RHP. It doesn't mean that they are necessarily the best. To me it means that these are the players who play seriously and apply themselves to every game and are winning more than the rest of us. Some players just want to play a lot of games and don't take much time to analyze the game and therefore their rating suffers. It doesn't mean that they aren't strong, they are just not strong in the way they play here.
That's just my humble opinion. 😉
I would agree. Although, for players with enough games, rating and strength are probably closely correlated (you've seen David Tebb's game with Kasparov-he's obviously a very strong player). However, it is very interesting to see some anomalies, specifically in the amount of effort people put into their game. I, for example, am one of those people you mentioned. I like to have a couple games against strong players going, and I analyze these and play a strong game. I also like to have a few games against players with <1200 ratings, aginst whom I limit my moves to about 10 seconds and generally let things flow. consequently, I do stupid things. But you are right. People do tend to rise (or fall) to the occasion when playing aginst stronger or weaker players, and this is probably reflected in their rating.
Originally posted by royalchickenI am definitly in the same "boat" with you, but I have been critisized for it so I am trying to play "better" chess, but this has made it very boring for me. I actually don't might loosing, enjoying it actually when a player who might be weaker tham I am and when he or she beats me. I believe that keeps them interested in the game. I do apologize if I have offended some of you because I did not take my time B4 my moves!
I would agree. Although, for players with enough games, rating and strength are probably closely correlated (you've seen David Tebb's game with Kasparov-he's obviously a very strong player). However, it is very interesting to see ...[text shortened]... or weaker players, and this is probably reflected in their rating.
For me when my rating goes up, the games are not so fun any longer because most of the really highly rated players are too serious, of course there are exception like Sintubin and Donnel who I like to play!
There are a lot of other "funny" players, I just mentioned a pair!
Harri / Luck😳😳:'(😞
Originally posted by LuckAs with royalchicken and Luck I follow a similar "system". To Harri though I would say to not worry about what people think!!! You've paid your money to get a star, it's up to you how you use the site. I play 50 or so games, around 15 of which I take my time over, and the rest I blitz, pausing at certain key times. Make no mistake, I try to win every game I play, I just take less time on some games,and more time on others. If I tried to take my time and analyse etc etc 50 games I'd go mad (and wouldn't have time to eat nor sleep). I'd love to play only 15 games at a time and focus on these, but I need the other 35 partly to chat with friends who I wouldn't otherwise play if I limited myself to 15, but mainly to give me an escape from certain things and to avoid the dreaded 0 games waiting feeling.
I am definitly in the same "boat" with you, but I have been critisized for it so I am trying to play "better" chess, but this has made it very boring for me. I actually don't might loosing, enjoying it actually when a player who might be weaker tham I am and when he or she beats me. I believe that keeps them interested in the game. I do apologize if I h ...[text shortened]...
There are a lot of other "funny" players, I just mentioned a pair!
Harri / Luck😳😳:'(😞
So Harri, it's up to you how you "use" RHP, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. You're in control, just try and find the system that gives you maximum enjoyment from RHP. If, after finding what works best for you, you're still not enjoying it then there's no point hanging around.
T1000