Curious..

Hello.

A couple of things i've noticed that don't seem to make sense - perhaps someone could shed some light..

Firstly ratings here seem very odd. For example there are players who've played hundreds of games (with say an average opponent rating between 1500/1600) - won over 95% and their rating has barely been over 1600?

Secondly i'm sure that if you played hundreds of games of Chess, and no matter what your level (unless a complete and utter novice) you would know that if you were multiple pieces down in an end game (i'm talking queens and rooks here not just the odd Knight or pawn) in a totally lost position - you would probably want to stop wasting your life, resign and play another game but yet players play on seemingly oblivious - its as if it hasn't happened - I could understand if it was a 2 min blitz game.

Just some thoughts..

Originally posted by plopzilla
Hello.

A couple of things i've noticed that don't seem to make sense - perhaps someone could shed some light..

Firstly ratings here seem very odd. For example there are players who've played hundreds of games (with say an average opponent rating between 1500/1600) - won over 95% and their rating has barely been over 1600?

Secondly i'm sure that if ...[text shortened]... hasn't happened - I could understand if it was a 2 min blitz game.

Just some thoughts..

Could you give a few player names that fit your observation?

About people playing on in obviously losing positions: Some believe that you should never resign under any circumstance. I don't understand that logic, but it's their right to do so.

Perhaps voodoo is involved!

Originally posted by plopzilla

Firstly ratings here seem very odd. For example there are players who've played hundreds of games (with say an average opponent rating between 1500/1600) - won over 95% and their rating has barely been over 1600?

can't occur with a stabilized rating. probably mass resignations or mass timeouts crashed their rating.