No, my name isn't really Savielly, just as most of the "Kasparovs" on here probably aren't really Kasparov. It is just a reference to a great chess player, given that this is a chess site and all..
One question: Why does my rating keep dropping even when I win games?
Originally posted by Savielly No, my name isn't really Savielly, just as most of the "Kasparovs" on here probably aren't really Kasparov. It is just a reference to a great chess player, given that this is a chess site and all..
One question: Why does my rating keep dropping even when I win games?
Originally posted by Eladar I suppose I should have said formal training or exposure to good players. People don't play good chess without seeing others do it.
I suck, so my definition of good may be a bit low.
i think there's a point everyone can get to without study, for me that's my current rating, for others in could be higher. on the other side i've had conversations with people around the 1300 mark who have said to have completed more chess puzzle and read more book than i have completed games, it really does vary from person to person.
Originally posted by trev33 i think there's a point everyone can get to without study, for me that's my current rating, for others in could be higher. on the other side i've had conversations with people around the 1300 mark who have said to have completed more chess puzzle and read more book than i have completed games, it really does vary from person to person.
My point was that you wouldn't get better if you only played others your strength.
Sure there are the extreme few who can naturally pick up the game with little or no help, but the rest of us have got to have examples.
By no means am I to say that all chess players are created equal. Some people have talent and others don't. Just because a person with talent can achieve more than people who work at it and don't have the talent, that does not negate my point.
Of course it is also possible that the people who are spending their time on books and puzzles are wasting their time doing the puzzles wrong, doing the wrong puzzles and reading the wrong books. It may not be simply a lack of talent.
Originally posted by Savielly No, my name isn't really Savielly, just as most of the "Kasparovs" on here probably aren't really Kasparov. It is just a reference to a great chess player, given that this is a chess site and all..
One question: Why does my rating keep dropping even when I win games?
When I first started playing chess I didn't even know who Kasparov was. I still get him confused with that other K guy, Karpov. I had heard of Fischer.
Originally posted by Savielly No, my name isn't really Savielly, just as most of the "Kasparovs" on here probably aren't really Kasparov. It is just a reference to a great chess player, given that this is a chess site and all..
Compare the number of numpties who don't even know how the horsie-shaped one moves, yet know who Kasparov is, with the number of "beginners" who know the personal name of Tartakower.
Hmm.. what I want to know is how a new player can take on a beat a bunch of players mostly rated around 1200 (with the odd 1400-rated player), and end up with a 1600 plus rating after a dozen games.. perhaps we should all create new usernames, and beat up on some lower rated players. Seems to work a charm..
Originally posted by Murchu Hmm.. what I want to know is how a new player can take on a beat a bunch of players mostly rated around 1200 (with the odd 1400-rated player), and end up with a 1600 plus rating after a dozen games.. perhaps we should all create new usernames, and beat up on some lower rated players. Seems to work a charm..
Says the guy whose opponent's average rating is 1261! 🙄
The reason my opponents are all lower rated (and the reason I'm still undefeated) is that all my open invites are accepted by lower rated players, and I can't set a rating limit on who accepts my games. I challeged several 1600ish players, and all but one of them deleted the games.
Originally posted by tomtom232 Says the guy whose opponent's average rating is 1261! 🙄
Have a look again. I have a friend rated 1000 (reason I joined the site), who skews the average. Most of the players I play are around the 1350/ 1400 mark, which as someone with 2 dozen games under my belt, is pretty much not too far from where I was until recently.
Now that's sorted, perhaps you might give a shot at answering the actual question I asked, which is as much a curiosity about the rating system as anything else.
Originally posted by Murchu Have a look again. I have a friend rated 1000 (reason I joined the site), who skews the average. Most of the players I play are around the 1350/ 1400 mark, which as someone with 2 dozen games under my belt, is pretty much not too far from where I was until recently.
Now that's sorted, perhaps you might give a shot at answering the actual question I asked, which is as much a curiosity about the rating system as anything else.
Sorry couldn't resist. 😉
He is only provisionally rated. After 20 games his rating will quit increasing if he continues to only play sub 1300 opponents. Pretty much his rating will end up where it should be based on the win % combined with the average rating of his opponents.
Originally posted by Murchu Hmm.. what I want to know is how a new player can take on a beat a bunch of players mostly rated around 1200 (with the odd 1400-rated player), and end up with a 1600 plus rating after a dozen games.. perhaps we should all create new usernames, and beat up on some lower rated players. Seems to work a charm..
Easily explainable. According to the FAQ, "Until you complete 20 games, you will have a provisional rating. This rating is calculated as the average of all the games you have played. Each game is scored as being your opponent's rating (for a draw), your opponent's rating plus 400 (for a win), or your opponent's rating minus 400 (for a loss). If your opponent is also on a provisional rating, then the 400s above become 200s. If your opponent has played fewer than five games then their rating is treated as 1200 when calculating your rating."
Originally posted by Mad Rook Easily explainable. According to the FAQ, "Until you complete 20 games, you will have a provisional rating. This rating is calculated as the average of all the games you have played. Each game is scored as being your opponent's rating (for a draw), your opponent's rating plus 400 (for a win), or your opponent's rating minus 400 (for a loss). If your opponen ...[text shortened]... d fewer than five games then their rating is treated as 1200 when calculating your rating."
Cheers Mad Rook, that explains it quite clearly. I'm afraid I didn't have the appetite to delve into the fineries of the rating system again, after a few previous excursions there which left me more confused than where I start.
In any case, so if you just sign up and play a bunch of non-provisional 1200 rated players, any wins within your first 20 games are considered as if they were 1600 rated players.
20 Jun '11 17:21
New to chess
Back to Top