Originally posted by WulebgrNo, I don't think folks are cheating. I get the feeling as the community changes over time the average rating might change also. My high rating was from 1995, so who knows how the pool of players has changed.
Do you think they're cheating, or have they gotten better?
I also sucketh at blitz, but it was a bit stunning to be playing 300 or so points below my real elo strength.
If anyone wants a game, I am SteveB on FICS.
Originally posted by Wulebgrgood point, the training effect should probably be visible on ICC as well if it was the reason...
I'd prefer to believe that deflation is due to improved training. However, my experience at FICS suggests serious deflation over the past several years, while inflation seem to be the case at ICC and playchess. The critical difference between FICS and the others, as earlier noted, is the lack of controls at FICS.
I should say however, that the 5 0 pool at ...[text shortened]... 0 players exhibit endgame skills that are almost wholly absent among many 1600 players at FICS.
the ICC 5-minute pool is really tough. you see a lot of low rated players who obviously know their theory and are probably pretty decent slow players... I've barely made it past 1300 so far, and I don't even think I can hold that yet...
Originally posted by wormwoodI hit just over 1640 in 5-minute at the end of August on a day that I achieved my best in each of the four sorts I play there (my blitz was over 1900), but I'm hard pressed to keep my 5-minute rating over 1500.
the ICC 5-minute pool is really tough. you see a lot of low rated players who obviously know their theory and are probably pretty decent slow players... I've barely made it past 1300 so far, and I don't even think I can hold that yet...
When I played on ICC a few years ago, I often played 5-minute exclusively. The challenge of a tough pool keeps me focused on it once again.
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrIs it a tough pool or maybe it just takes time to adjust to different openings and styles of play?
I hit just over 1640 in 5-minute at the end of August on a day that I achieved my best in each of the four sorts I play there (my blitz was over 1900), but I'm hard pressed to keep my 5-minute rating over 1500.
When I played on ICC a few years ago, I often played 5-minute exclusively. The challenge of a tough pool keeps me focused on it once again.
It just seems really strange that my blitz, like yours, is around 1600 but at standard rated games the same opponents, who are a nightmare in blitz, aren't that great.
Edit: seems we are the wrong way about as your blitz is 1900.
Originally posted by ShinidokiI played a few standard games there when I registered (and that was some time ago) but now I play only blitz, but rarely. I prefer playing on a real board rather than on a virtual one.
how on earth are you only 1500? -- most 1500's know little more than how not to hang peices.
Originally posted by demonseedwas, not is
Edit: seems we are the wrong way about as your blitz is 1900.
it fell back under 1700, but I pushed it back over 1800 this morning.
5-minute does take adjustment to the long thinks in which my opponents often solve the problems that I've given them. Some of the smoke and mirrors that succeeds in 3 0 fails at the longer time control.
2 edits
Originally posted by demonseedthe 5-minute variant on ICC is a special type of blitz with it's own separate rating, automatic selection of roughly equally rated opponent, automatic forfeit on time and disconnection. laggers are also discarded automatically. -if you set up a 5 0 game with exactly the same conditions, its rating will be part of the general blitz rating. but the 5-minute players, for some reason, are a lot tougher than equally rated regular blitz players. like, if I understood correctly, wulebgr's ICC blitz was 1900 and ICC 5-minute 'only' 1640 (which is pretty good there, really). that's quite a difference, but describes the difference well.
Is it a tough pool or maybe it just takes time to adjust to different openings and styles of play?
It just seems really strange that my blitz, like yours, is around 1600 but at standard rated games the same opponents, who are a nightmare in blitz, aren't that great.
Edit: seems we are the wrong way about as your blitz is 1900.
naturally it depends a lot on what kind of time controls you use in ICC blitz (I play mostly 2 12 on regular blitz), but generally the rating difference seems to be 100-200 pts between the two variants.
Originally posted by wormwoodAll that explains why I like it. It was the aspect of ICC I missed most during my four years away. In particular, the strict anti-lag policy prevents a constant source of frustration at FICS. I also rarely need to refuse a rematch. Of course I see the same players day after day, and play lots against the regulars, but it is rare (usually 2:00 am) that I play two successive games against one opponent.
the 5-minute variant on ICC is a special type of blitz with it's own separate rating, automatic selection of roughly equally rated opponent, automatic forfeit on time and disconnection. laggers are also discarded automatically. -if you set up a 5 0 game with exactly the same conditions, its rating will be part of the general blitz rating. but the 5-minute p ...[text shortened]... pretty good there, really). that's quite a difference, but describes the difference well.
Peaks both. My regular blitz runs in the high 1700s to low 1800s; my 5-minute bounces through the 1500s with one good streak that pushed it over 1640 and several ba dones that drop it into the high 1300s.
Any time any of my ratings fall below 1500, it generates feelings that I am a complete putz. But in the 5-minute group at ICC, I've seen decent play from players in the low 1300s. (I've played very few games against anyone below that.)
Originally posted by z00tArpad Elo's system is rooted in an average of 1500. When below average players are substantially above this, or above average players below, the entire rating system is compromised.
How can anyone compare online ratings on different servers and then link this to OTB or RHP? The 8th wonder of the world?
On the other hand, ratings make sense only as closed systems, not compared one to the other.
Still, as I've noted earlier in this conversation, the ratings on some sites seem to be going up, while ratings on others are going down. Here the comparisons help expose certain potential problems, viz., the relative lack of regulation of lag and suspected computer abuse on a chess server that relies entirely upon volunteer labour.