Beatlemania has broke 2000

Was just fumbling through RHP tournaments, seeing who's entered each one etc.,
when I saw a familiar name with a higher rating than I remember.

Congrats to @Beatlemania, who has obviously improved in recent times!

Beatle is also approaching nearly 20k games played on RHP,
often playing hundreds of games simultaneously.

From Beatle's profile:

Edit 2/13/2023* I have finally broken the 2000 barrier on RHP! My life is now complete as I ride the roller coaster back down to where I belong. (It took me 3580 days to go from breaking 1900 to 2000... that's sad...)

Opponent Average Rating is the same as mine.

1550ish 🙄

@EndLame

Your point being?

@64squaresofpain

He's only as good as the people he is beating.
Inflating his rating to 2000 by beating 1500's doesn't mean he is rated 2000.

It means he's beating up on bums.
His opponent average rating should be 2000 also.

@EndLame

I still wouldn't take the achievement away from him,
especially when it's been several years in the making.

Can't even publicly acknowledge someone for their efforts without a critic it seems.

@64squaresofpain

Just keeping it real.

😉

@endlame said
@64squaresofpain

He's only as good as the people he is beating.
Inflating his rating to 2000 by beating 1500's doesn't mean he is rated 2000.

It means he's beating up on bums.
His opponent average rating should be 2000 also.

The ELO system is designed so that if a player faces opponents of a given rating and consistently achieves 7 wins, 1 draw, and no losses for every 8 games ( 93.75% ), that player's rating will gravitate to 350 points higher than the rating of those opponents. This means that attaining this percentage against a series of opponents rated 1500 would eventually bring a player's rating to 1850.

It's true that if the strength difference is so great that the higher-rated player literally always wins, that player's rating would eventually exceed the player's actual level of performance. But the strength disparity between 1500 and 2000 doesn't seem remotely close to being large enough for such "inflation" to occur.

It is possible for one's "performance rating" to vary somewhat according to strength of opposition. For example, one might perform at 2000 against 1500s but at only 1900 against 2100s.

Surveying Beatlemania's recently completed games indicates that the strength of his opposition has spanned a wide range, including some players over 2200. So, to characterize his record as "beating 1500s" isn't accurate.

........................................90 days 1 year 5 years
Opponent Average Rating 1536 1589 1521

He's not playing opponents at his rating level.
No amount of mumbo jumbo explanations will change his profile.

The 90 days and 1 year stats should be a lot higher if he was consistently playing people at his rating level. He is not. I've looked at his games and he's playing people at my level and below...with a few strong opponents.

I only play in class tournaments.
As my rating goes up my opponents get harder.

To each his own I guess 😉

I went through the two most recent summary pages of Beatlemania's completed games to find all of the ones against players over 1600. Below is the result.

1600s. Average rating: 1643. Record: +3 -0 =0. Performance rating: 2043.
1700s. Average rating: 1747. Record: +7 -0 =1. Performance rating: 2097.
1800s. Average rating: 1874. Record: +1 -2 =0. Performance rating: 1741.
2000s. Average rating: 2048. Record: +1 -0 =1. Performance rating: 2248.
2200+. Average rating: 2258. Record: +0 -2 =0. Performance rating: 1858.

Overall performance rating against opponents over 1600: 2019.

Not a large sample size, but still it would seem that Beatlemania performed at roughly the same level against 1600+ opponents as against those below 1600.

The Defendant... @Beatlemania

Does not wish to take the stand.

The prosecution rests your Honour.

More debates about ratings.
In the grand scheme of things, do they really matter?
There's no rewards or penalties on here.
Couldn't we all just enjoy playing correspondence chess and meeting other people on line without all the moaning about ratings, position on the clan net points list and how points and ratings are calculated?
So I get beaten by a player whose latest current rating is 1200.
So what?
I've enjoyed a game of chess I wouldn't have had otherwise.
I get beaten by a player whose rating is 2000
I've still had a game and might even have learned something.
Forget about it and go on to the next game.
We're not professional players and nothing is at stake.
End of whinge

@venda

So why do you play rated games then?

Just play unrated.

Exactly...

Ratings are a part of chess.

Why do sports teams keep score? Why not just play the game?

@EndLame

Frankly, if your so called charges are to stand then you should be in the Dock together. Once you hit your rating ceiling you close your account and begin another. Working your way up each time means you will always play a larger proportion of opponents below your actual level as your own current stats demonstrate. @Beatlemania typically has 300+ games going and as I type this is 208 in the rating list. Of those above him many are not subscribers entering tournaments so he will, of necessity, be facing many more players rated lower than he. He loses and draws occasional game to players lower than he and I am aware of no rule that says the higher rated player always wins as FMDavid has already alluded to in his posts regarding ratings and win expectancy.
I regard your ( "manufactured" ) outrage with @Beatlemania as nothing more than hypocritical trolling. Lame by name, lame by nature. 😛

@Ragwort

...said the guy who is 300 points above his average opponents...🙄