Getting a bit fed up of this scenario - it's happening too frequently:
I enter a tournament, to find I'm up against an opponent whose rating has fallen like a rock in a sock from (say) 1500 -ish to 1100-ish in short order. Why? - because he/she has taken on more games than manageable and suddenly he's lost 40-odd games on timeouts in no time at all.
So now I'm up against a capable opponent on a false rating. If I win, I gain 5 points or so, and if I lose, I say adios to 30 points. 😞
Ah, so what, you say....you win some and lose some... fair enough; but the upshot is that, if I lose both games against an opponent with an inaccurate rating, then my rating becomes inaccurate too, and I have to enter lower standard tourneys.
Come on folks. Don't take on more games than you can handle.
Steve xxx
Originally posted by LarkieYou're asking for clairvoyance and no human possesses that.
Getting a bit fed up of this scenario - it's happening too frequently:
I enter a tournament, to find I'm up against an opponent whose rating has fallen like a rock in a sock from (say) 1500 -ish to 1100-ish in short order. Why? - because he/she has taken on more games than manageable and suddenly he's lost 40-odd games on timeouts in no time at all.
So now ...[text shortened]... er standard tourneys.
Come on folks. Don't take on more games than you can handle.
Steve xxx
Not really Dogg. Whereas there's lots of potential unforeseen reasons for guys to get timed out en masse, lots of players here simply take on more games than they can handle. Ratings therefore rise and fall like a whore's drawers.
Perhaps a slight tweak might be to play all matches within a tournament using your tournament entry rating throughout. Wins/losses in the tournament will of course add/subtract rating points, but only upon that entry rating.
This idea probably has a basic flaw that renders it bo***cks, but just a thought.
As things stand, players A and B enter a tournament, both with an entry rating of 1535. But when the games start, player B rating has dropped to 1200 because of a string of timeout losses. It won't make him a weaker player....
Originally posted by LarkieIt is incorrect to assume that the mass resignations is due to taking on too many games.
Not really Dogg. Whereas there's lots of potential unforeseen reasons for guys to get timed out en masse, lots of players here simply take on more games than they can handle. Ratings therefore rise and fall like a whore's drawers.
Perhaps a slight tweak might be to play all matches within a tournament using your tournament entry rating throughout. Wins/losse ...[text shortened]... has dropped to 1200 because of a string of timeout losses. It won't make him a weaker player....
Most often, in mass resignations the number of games outstanding is irrelevant. Usually is is an external "real world" event that was not anticipated.
People with too many games tend to lose the ones with the shorter time controls, but they don't suddenly lose them all. They get pruned, but not pummeled.
I remember one time when Mikelom's rating took a severe dive because of a typhoon. He joked later that he was stuck in his house and had all the time in the world, but no internet access!
Originally posted by LarkieI'm not saying that it does not happen, only that it is not the main reason why "bulk losses" occur. You have a particular example where I would agree with you, but I think it is more the exception than the rule when we see a huge number of losses all at once.
Paul, I'm tempted to show you real examples of drops of 300 points over the space of just a few days, all time-out losses entirely due to an unrealistic workload. But no names.
Rest assured I'm not just dreaming this up Paul.
I reckon it sorts itself out in the end. Just because someone has a few games on here doesn't mean they don't have a hundred going on somewhere else. Who's to really say what someone's strength actually is. I know, and have come across a number of players at all OTB levels who appear to be under performing on RHP, maybe because they don't take the time, or play simultaneous rapid games, or for any number of reasons. I have had tough games against 1300's and easy games against 2100's which just serves to remind that the rating is just a measure of the probability of a result, not the result itself. At any moment a lower rated opponent can find something that you have over looked. You can't know if a serial time-outer has fallen on hard times, fallen in love, or is just using their opponents to clean up after their latest addiction cycle, or, in the case of @McTayto making a point about some feature of the site. I came to the conclusion sometime ago when considering all the things that can potentially annoy (time outs, foot-dragging, resignations, computer cheating, vacation abuse etc) that as soon as you try to impose your own moral code beyond the rules of the game or the set up of the site you are on a hiding to nothing and it ends up just spoiling your enjoyment of the games. You have control of sixteen bits of wood (or at least their electronic representation) at the start of every game, that is all. What your opponent does with theirs is up to them.
Originally posted by LarkiePoint taken. We can't always control what happens to us, but we can control how we react to it. If you get some dufus that's taken on too many games, and has an inaccurate rating as a result, all you can do is play your very best, and move on. A chess rating is designed to be an approximation of one's playing strength, not an exact level. Many very strong players have developed and blossomed despite the dufus's in the chess world. Once the opening moves are past, you might consider printing a copy of your position, setting up your board, and taking all your allotted time to analyze your moves as deeply as you are able. That's helped me the most. Be patient with yourself. Rome wasn't built in a day! 😏
Getting a bit fed up of this scenario - it's happening too frequently:
I enter a tournament, to find I'm up against an opponent whose rating has fallen like a rock in a sock from (say) 1500 -ish to 1100-ish in short order. Why? - because he/she has taken on more games than manageable and suddenly he's lost 40-odd games on timeouts in no time at all.
So now ...[text shortened]... er standard tourneys.
Come on folks. Don't take on more games than you can handle.
Steve xxx
All of you that have got involved in this thread make very good points.
I suppose I was just making a plea to those who just bite off more than they can chew and the resultant consequences. I have no idea whatsoever how one is supposed to manage hundreds of concurrent games!
But yes, I should just do my best in the games I've got - and accept we're all different and the system isn't perfect.
Originally posted by RagwortThis is just an excellent post, and I think it is worth bumping.
I reckon it sorts itself out in the end. Just because someone has a few games on here doesn't mean they don't have a hundred going on somewhere else. Who's to really say what someone's strength actually is. I know, and have come across a number of players at all OTB levels who appear to be under performing on RHP, maybe because they don't take the time, or p ...[text shortened]... ion) at the start of every game, that is all. What your opponent does with theirs is up to them.