rating category

Originally posted by woadman
Yes the statistics can get complicated but NOT here on RHP. Russ simply needs to establish any class categories that he deems fit. Class A 1800--2000. Expert 2000--2400, Master 2400 + . Regardless of what any off-site rating systems might imply--the RHP categories are for RHP only.

No, he really doesn't. We're doing fine without them.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
No, he really doesn't. We're doing fine without them.

So it's OK for to be assigned a rating, but not told what the rating represents? Most all the players here want to know what "class" they are playing in. I need to know , so that I'll be playing only Masters..

Originally posted by woadman
King Tiger--I just found your rating at the bottom of page one---2337. OK-- so what Category player are you? Does 2337 represent the title of Master? What about Expert--what number starts the Expert class? N0-one here seems to know what the ratings mean.

woadman-

The ratings on RHP mean nothing. Fake, cartoon, meaningless points. I'm sure you can understand why this is the case.

-The ability to manipulate ratings by choosing wisely who you play
-zero accountability to methods of play
-numbers of games played simultaneously affect too (I can think of caissad4 who has an OTB rate roughly similar to mine-yet, I'm ranked 400 points higher than her on this site-I have 6 games in progress while she has over 1,000. In all likelyhood we would probably be about an equal match over a longer more focused game. In fact, I think she has a slightly higher OTB rate than me).

These are just a few factors that come quickly to mind that make these ratings meaningless.

Originally posted by woadman
So it's OK for to be assigned a rating, but not told what the rating represents? Most all the players here want to know what "class" they are playing in. I need to know , so that I'll be playing only Masters..

You've been a very interesting user to watch post on this forum. Honestly, you seem like an adolescent. Concerned with where the titled players are and what these ratings mean. If you were a true Master I highly doubt you'd bother to play on this site. Actually, I think it is only you who wants to know what class they are playing in. Frankly, I don't care and I suspect most don't care. I play here to play friends just as I play on chess.com. I like the format of this site more for correspondence chess but chess.com for blitz or bullet.

You seem like a lot of talk to me. I once offered you a game (unrated and 3/7) but you declined to play or even declined to respond. Apparently Ulf T deserves unmitigated respect but not a lowly toward the bottom of page one player 🙄 .

Data Fly seems convinced you are an computer user per your profile and games on chess mail. I looked at only one of your games and compared stats-you played over 70% of Top choice picks 1-4. A small data sample for sure but still.

Just saying, I don't think you are a true legit player-and I know I'm not alone here in this opinion.

Well according to McTayto the ratings do impact the results of Clan tournaments....

Originally posted by woadman
Well according to McTayto the ratings do impact the results of Clan tournaments....

And you take anything that this sandbagging clown says seriously??? lol

Originally posted by King Tiger
You've been a very interesting user to watch post on this forum. Honestly, you seem like an adolescent. Concerned with where the titled players are and what these ratings mean. If you were a true Master I highly doubt you'd bother to play on this site. Actually, I think it is only you who wants to know what class they are playing in. Frankly, I don't care ...[text shortened]... saying, I don't think you are a true legit player-and I know I'm not alone here in this opinion.

You are correct that I have played a very small sample pool . However this was NOT of my choosing...I am provisional..a lot of players I tried to challenge don't accept provisional opponents. I am now playing mostly 2000+ opponents....please get your facts in order before casting innuendos...

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The situation is too complicated for a simple subtraction to suffice. FIDE ratings have inflated more than RHP ratings, for one. When the highest player in one pool is 2400+ and in the other it is 2800+, with perhaps 10 people or more able to reach 2700+, this is made clear.

I'm not claiming that it's particularly precise, but I think it's as good a guide as you're going to get. I don't think looking at the outliers in each player pool is any use for criticising the rule.

You got it all wrong. Rating has nothing to do with the progression system RHP uses. Here on RHP it's all about moving fast, the colour of the star next to your name is your rank, or designation. Notice how it shows how many moves you have made next to all your posts. No sign of rating anywhere.

Clans are all about moving quickly. If you win 50/50, play 1000 games, you are way more valuable to the team than one who goes 70/30 and only plays 100. The clan leagues which offers the most competitive environment offers exactly zero points for the clans competing.

That's just the way RHP works.

Originally posted by KnightStalker47
You got it all wrong. Rating has nothing to do with the progression system RHP uses. Here on RHP it's all about moving fast, the colour of the star next to your name is your rank, or designation. Notice how it shows how many moves you have made next to all your posts. No sign of rating anywhere.

Clans are all about moving quickly. If you win 50/50 ...[text shortened]... nvironment offers exactly zero points for the clans competing.

That's just the way RHP works.

That's an interesting slant..and it makes a lot of sense....but if you're right I wonder why the webmasters here initiated ratings in the first place....It is a wee bit confusing to have ratings with no class designation. Then to hear that the number of moves is vital... a bad player can have 100's of games while a good player may have only a handful. Odd....

Originally posted by woadman
That's an interesting slant..and it makes a lot of sense....but if you're right I wonder why the webmasters here initiated ratings in the first place....It is a wee bit confusing to have ratings with no class designation. Then to hear that the number of moves is vital... a bad player can have 100's of games while a good player may have only a handful. Odd....

The ECF didn't introduce titles until a couple of years ago. Really there is no reason to introduce categories, master titles or any of that stuff. The only real justification for titles like IM and GM is to prevent charlatans from taking money off people as chess trainers. Since no one off the site is going to regard RHP master as worth anything there is absolutely no point in introducing it. There's benefits for the site in not doing it as it makes the site look less elitist and unimposing to the average punter.

Originally posted by woadman
You are correct that I have played a very small sample pool . However this was NOT of my choosing...I am provisional..a lot of players I tried to challenge don't accept provisional opponents. I am now playing mostly 2000+ opponents....please get your facts in order before casting innuendos...

Interesting that this was the only thing you responded to on my post-I even alleged it was a small sample that I looked at-not your pool. And what facts are those-that you talk a lot, speak a lot of nonsense, deny games from good players (like data fly and myself) and then come on saying you only intend to play master level players???

This is becoming a joke that anyone with any ounce of sense can see right through. Perhaps one day I'll take the time to analyse your chess mail games and see what matchup rates you have with houdini there are. That won't be a small sample-I suspect they will be largely the same as the one data sample I looked at.

I get things wrong at times, sure, but quite often it isn't me getting my facts out of order. You don't know me very well and I find it amusing that you, a new comer to the site, start off instantly trying to jostle against a senior player here. Where is that respect you were talking about again???

🙄

I'm done engaging you. No reason to engage you further as nothing of sense will come of it I suspect. The fact alone that you were willing to call honor upon Ulf T who is perhaps the most obvious cheat on the site (not hard to figure out an average 1400 player is cheating when they have a meteoric rise to 2400+ in less than a year). IF you were a master and someone with sense that fact would not have escaped you! Also, your reference to mctayto-a sandbagging clown who resigns games to lower his rating when he is one move from checkmating his opponent-just confirms my belief that you are trying to take us for fools on here when the evidence is plain who the fool really is.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Try 7 months ago. Not sure why you begrudge him his well-earned respect. It's entirely feasible to gain 1000 rating points in less than one year. 😵

Edit: and this after being a 1400 player for 6 years. It's like one day he just woke up and said, "time to stop sucking and be [b]awesome instead!"[/b]

His success at chess should be worthy of a book I'm sure. Perhaps he'll call it, Mein Besseres System. I'm sure current GMs and the WC would love to improve their rating in less than a year by 1/10 that he has. 😉

Originally posted by King Tiger
Interesting that this was the only thing you responded to on my post-I even alleged it was a small sample. And what facts are those-that you talk a lot, speak a lot of nonsense, deny games from good players (like data fly and myself) and then come on saying you only intend to play master level players???

This is becoming a joke that anyone with any ou ...[text shortened]... t you are trying to take us for fools on here when the evidence is plain who the fool really is.

Hi King Tiger, just wondered if you ever thought about getting over 2200 OTB? You are pretty close as it is, 90 odd points away.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hi King Tiger, just wondered if you ever thought about getting over 2200 OTB? You are pretty close as it is, 90 odd points away.

I've put on the back burner the idea/desire to get titled-however, every game I've ever played against a titled player I've lost. I was 2138 back in 2011-4 years ago. At the moment, the prospect of getting back into serious OTB play is just not really there. Career, marriage, and just life in general have become more important. I've even considered taking a hiatus away from chess altogether. I haven't played on chess.com in several weeks and I get on here only a couple times a week anymore. So I guess all this is to say, while getting a title would have been fun and rewarding I don't see it happening at least in the near future. I'm out of practice. But thanks for the question. The thought might gnaw away at me now and make me want to get back out there lol

An addendum: I've actually found I've been losing my interest in chess since the summer. Not sure why, just is. I come on rhp mainly to play cardinalal and kingaroo honestly.

P.S. Trying to get over 2200 hasn't really been a goal-the title was at one point in time.