Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 02 Oct '09 14:33
    I was thinking today about the number of players on the first page who's rating have plateaued. Is this a sign to look at when considering inflation? Is there a zenith to be reached? Has the number one player reached it? His rating looks like it stabilized about two years ago. In fact I would say the most stable in the top ten. This could be attributed to game load or what not, but the question I ponder is there a situation that is happens where the tops are only playing others in the top and essentially creating their own ratings pool? Then a banning happens and destabilizes it again?
  2. 02 Oct '09 15:09
    Originally posted by cheshirecatstevens
    I was thinking today about the number of players on the first page who's rating have plateaued. Is this a sign to look at when considering inflation? Is there a zenith to be reached? Has the number one player reached it? His rating looks like it stabilized about two years ago. In fact I would say the most stable in the top ten. This could be attri ...[text shortened]... essentially creating their own ratings pool? Then a banning happens and destabilizes it again?
    there's a dude in there i remember playing when i was 1200, Luther Gores, number thirty, i thought he was rated 1200, turns out he was just starting out and is now rated 2200!
  3. 02 Oct '09 21:52
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    there's a dude in there i remember playing when i was 1200, Luther Gores, number thirty, i thought he was rated 1200, turns out he was just starting out and is now rated 2200!
    In the top 30 there are maybe 5 that could be considered "flat". The rest are on the rise. Would this mean that as a group they are improving?
  4. 15 Oct '09 01:04
    Nobody is going to touch this huh?
  5. 15 Oct '09 05:06 / 1 edit
    If the top two players kept playing each other for 100 games and the highest rated player kept winning then he would achieve a score of: 2600 without playing any other high ranked players. If he kept playing 2400 rated player he would achieve: 2800.

    So I'm not saying it's a ceiling, but 2800 is about as high as you can ever expect it to go.

    Here are the tables:

    http://personalchesstraining.com/main.php?request=ceiling

    This formula follows the Elo system, and does not exactly follow the formula used on RHP.
  6. Standard member Talisman
    Time traveller.
    15 Oct '09 12:45
    Originally posted by petrovitch
    If the top two players kept playing each other for 100 games and the highest rated player kept winning then he would achieve a score of: 2600 without playing any other high ranked players. If he kept playing 2400 rated player he would achieve: 2800.

    So I'm not saying it's a ceiling, but 2800 is about as high as you can ever expect it to go.

    Here a ...[text shortened]... g

    This formula follows the Elo system, and does not exactly follow the formula used on RHP.
    My personal opinion is that as a whole this site is infested with engine using cheats! We really have no idea how often any player on this site is relying on artificial intelligence to suggest moves. Therefore the ratings on here can have no real meaning. I could point the finger at several opponents i've recently played but what's the point. Suffice to say it's probably more rife at the upper end of the scale where the ratings take on even lesser meaning. That is of course unless you want to compare the relative strength of say Rybka and Hiarcs!

    I know we have our moderators who employ a specific method for deducing if a player is cheating but it's hardly an infallable technique.

    I'm convinced i'm currently playing a lower rated player who switches on his engine in an intermittant fashion. having looked at some of his one off results against higher rated players my suspicions would appear to be confirmed.
    Of course all of this can never be proven beyond doubt and it's this very reasoning that keeps the sad individuals at it.
    The thing that makes it worse is that some of the cheats are regular posters in these very forums. They come on with their opinion about this and that and get a real kick out of the fact that for once in their sad pathetic little lives somebody will listen to something thay have to say because their (artificial) rating demands it!
    I've simply come to the conclusion that i have play my moves to the best of my ability and at times i'm going to come across cheating devils where it's never going to be good enough. as a result i no longer take my own rating seriously.
  7. 15 Oct '09 13:25
    Originally posted by Talisman
    My personal opinion is that as a whole this site is infested with engine using cheats! We really have no idea how often any player on this site is relying on artificial intelligence to suggest moves. Therefore the ratings on here can have no real meaning. I could point the finger at several opponents i've recently played but what's the point. Suffice to say ...[text shortened]... s never going to be good enough. as a result i no longer take my own rating seriously.
    I was hoping to stay off the cheating track. What I was looking at is that most players on page 1 are on the rise (have not leveled off). Why is this the case?
  8. Standard member Talisman
    Time traveller.
    15 Oct '09 13:32
    Originally posted by cheshirecatstevens
    I was hoping to stay off the cheating track. What I was looking at is that most players on page 1 are on the rise (have not leveled off). Why is this the case?
    I think it's very difficult to seperate the issue of engine use from any type of player rating graph analysis. that's why i bought it up.
  9. 15 Oct '09 13:41
    Originally posted by cheshirecatstevens
    What I was looking at is that most players on page 1 are on the rise (have not leveled off). Why is this the case?
    They keep winning

    But there is a potential ceiling delivered by the formula as Petrovich points out above.
  10. 15 Oct '09 13:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Talisman
    I think it's very difficult to seperate the issue of engine use from any type of player rating graph analysis. that's why i bought it up.
    Why?
    Whether the internet identities in the top thirty are chess players, "advanced chess" players or "postmen" the graph reflects the identity's results : not how they were achieved.
  11. 15 Oct '09 14:00
    Originally posted by Talisman
    My personal opinion is that as a whole this site is infested with engine using cheats! We really have no idea how often any player on this site is relying on artificial intelligence to suggest moves. Therefore the ratings on here can have no real meaning. I could point the finger at several opponents i've recently played but what's the point. Suffice to say ...[text shortened]... s never going to be good enough. as a result i no longer take my own rating seriously.
    If the curve plotted by all the RHP ratings showed two peaks instead of the usual one, this perception about the prevalence of engine assistance might have some statistical backing. You could see this in some of the old postal chess clubs a few years ago where there was a bulge of players (away from the average peak) at a higher rating (say 2100) which represented engine assistance.
  12. Standard member Talisman
    Time traveller.
    15 Oct '09 15:15
    Originally posted by Quiet Interlude
    Why?
    Whether the internet identities in the top thirty are chess players, "advanced chess" players or "postmen" the graph reflects the identity's results : not how they were achieved.
    My point was merely that not all of the players in any given pool are going to be cheats. Therefore any comparison of whatever type is liekly to be very different than if everyone played by the book.
  13. 15 Oct '09 15:49
    Originally posted by Talisman
    My point was merely that not all of the players in any given pool are going to be cheats. Therefore any comparison of whatever type is liekly to be very different than if everyone played by the book.
    I can't really see how it makes a difference. The rating formula delivers the rating increase based on a win expectancy derived from the difference in rating between the two players. It cannot measure how the result was obtained or how many engine users are in a pool.

    Eventually every on line player has to confront the issue of engine use whether playing on a site that allows it or not. You can adopt a "if I can't beat them join them" attitude and hope that on sites where engine use is forbidden, that you can avoid detection. You can play casually and allow the engine users to pass through on their way to the top. You can give up on line chess. You do not have to subscribe. You can adopt the attitude (a la Tim Krabbe) that if an internet identity rated 2100 exposes the weaknesses in your game does it ultimately matter how the winning moves were derived?
    Human beings invent tools to make things easier - chess is a difficult game.
    Draw your own conclusions.

    Nevertheless you can also argue that a site like RHP is a great resource. One that allows us to make moves whenever we want, gives us positions to analyse every day, hides our blushes with anonymity, explores openings, endgames and ideas through the practical challenge of playing a game and at a fairly reasonable price. The rating system delivers opponents of an appropriate level to test our mettle however they derive their moves. All that is required is to set up the position on a board and think. What could be simpler?
  14. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    15 Oct '09 16:03
    Originally posted by Talisman
    My personal opinion is that as a whole this site is infested with engine using cheats! We really have no idea how often any player on this site is relying on artificial intelligence to suggest moves. Therefore the ratings on here can have no real meaning. I could point the finger at several opponents i've recently played but what's the point. Suffice to say ...[text shortened]... s never going to be good enough. as a result i no longer take my own rating seriously.
    I have to confess that I am a little paranoid, but from the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't think any of my opponents have cheated at all, and that is why my win/loss record is so skewed (it's also partly skewed because I don't care about ratings, so I will accept any game, and I've played mostly lower-rated players).

    I haven't played what I would call spectacular chess, and in some cases I have made some poor moves. There have been several games I should have lost where I won or drew, and more than a few that were draws but my opponent played the ending horribly, and I won simply because they lost and I was the guy on the other side.

    My peak USCF over the board rating was 1848, and I have just passed that on the site here. I am curious as to where I will plateau in the academic sense, but I am mostly playing to try out and learn some openings, and to really polish my endgame technique, since time is not really an issue when working out a position.

    I also have another idea, but I think it would be more appropriate in another thread, so I will post there.

    Paul