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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 30 Jul '11 11:31
    Hello. I'm somewhat intrigued by some patterns I'm consistently seeing in opponents ratings, and wonder if this has been discussed before - if not, then I'd appreciate comments. Two particular patterns I'm seeing are good players having very low ratings, and when you investigate, a pattern of resignations and timeouts follows a peak in the rating, bringing it back down to a totally unrealistic value. Is this an attempt to manipulate tournament ratings? I see similar patterns with many players going through peaks and troughs, where a win is _likely_ to be followed by a win, and a loss by a loss, but with resigning/timeouts not being the cause of losses. I did suffer one such episode where I was away from a computer for a while & simply forgot to move, but this was just a few games.

    So, in summary, are players manipulating their ratings other than by winning.
    Oh, and why do people bother taking up the challenge of a player rated much lower who insists on offering games only to much higher rated players - eg a 1450 rated player offers challenges with a range of 1800+ ?

    Thanks
    Graham
  2. 31 Jul '11 16:03
    Originally posted by Graham Nicholls
    Hello. I'm somewhat intrigued by some patterns I'm consistently seeing in opponents ratings, and wonder if this has been discussed before - if not, then I'd appreciate comments. Two particular patterns I'm seeing are good players having very low ratings, and when you investigate, a pattern of resignations and timeouts follows a peak in the rating, ...[text shortened]... k down to a totally unrealistic value. Is this an attempt to manipulate tournament ratings?
    Either that, or (let's not be entirely discrediting), a very variable home (or work) life. It happens. In fact, it once happened to me, although, being the non-sub that I am, it only cost me four games.

    I see similar patterns with many players going through peaks and troughs, where a win is _likely_ to be followed by a win, and a loss by a loss, but with resigning/timeouts not being the cause of losses. I did suffer one such episode where I was away from a computer for a while & simply forgot to move, but this was just a few games.

    Same reason, possibly. Or fluctuating health. You wouldn't believe how much an episode of the dreaded lurgy can affect your chances of spotting a hung piece .

    So, in summary, are players manipulating their ratings other than by winning.

    Yes, they are. But perhaps not as frequently as certain blog posters (and I don't mean you) prefer to believe.

    Oh, and why do people bother taking up the challenge of a player rated much lower who insists on offering games only to much higher rated players - eg a 1450 rated player offers challenges with a range of 1800+ ?

    A sense of duty, perhaps? We were all provisional at one time.

    Richard
  3. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    03 Aug '11 03:42
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue


    Oh, and why do people bother taking up the challenge of a player rated much lower who insists on offering games only to much higher rated players - eg a 1450 rated player offers challenges with a range of 1800+ ?

    A sense of duty, perhaps? We were all provisional at one time.

    Richard[/b]
    I never turn down a challenge from a lower-rated player precisely for that reason, as long as the time control is reasonable.

    When I was a new player, there were several much stronger players who played me regularly, and I learned from them. I feel obligated to pay it forward.