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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 08 Sep '06 16:43
    I believe that some subs have a higher rating because they can play more games compared to non-Subs.

    I know my rating hasn't stopped rising yet and probably will go up some more but I see some of these sub ratings and their rating is greater then mine but I think we are about the same.

    I've played several subs around my rating or higher and either they are over rated or I am under rated.

    I just think more games = higher rating.

    Agree, disagree and why?
  2. 08 Sep '06 16:50
    Originally posted by RahimK
    I know my rating hasn't stopped rising yet and probably will go up some more
    Not if you never play.
  3. 08 Sep '06 17:07
    if I was a suscriber, I would claim the opisite is true, seeing as I may have 20-100 concurrent games the chances are I will blunder in many.


    perhaps your just spending more time each move thinking....
  4. 08 Sep '06 17:17
    Originally posted by RahimK
    I just think more games = higher rating.

    Agree, disagree and why?
    (1) If you play more, you reach your true level quicker.
    (2) If you play more, you get more practice, your skill will grow and this reflects in your rating.

    But it is *not automaticly* so that your rating will rise *only* if you play a lot. There is a lot of players that play a lot but their rating doesn't get better a lot. Or even a bit.
  5. 08 Sep '06 17:35
    Originally posted by RahimK
    I believe that some subs have a higher rating because they can play more games compared to non-Subs.

    I know my rating hasn't stopped rising yet and probably will go up some more but I see some of these sub ratings and their rating is greater then mine but I think we are about the same.

    I've played several subs around my rating or higher and either the ...[text shortened]... or I am under rated.

    I just think more games = higher rating.

    Agree, disagree and why?
    I think it's slightly different from this - how about:

    there is one pool of players here - mixed subs & non-subs

    I'd suggest there is some sub-grouping within this - some subs play only other subs; some non-subs never/rarely play a sub.

    In my own experience, i'd suggest (cue me getting flamed) that non-subs have slightly inflated ratings...
  6. 08 Sep '06 18:49
    maybe it just me. No other non-subs think this?
  7. 08 Sep '06 18:52
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    if I was a suscriber, I would claim the opisite is true, seeing as I may have 20-100 concurrent games the chances are I will blunder in many.


    perhaps your just spending more time each move thinking....
    Ah yes, always have to see the threat
  8. 08 Sep '06 19:26
    Originally posted by RahimK
    I believe that some subs have a higher rating because they can play more games compared to non-Subs.

    I know my rating hasn't stopped rising yet and probably will go up some more but I see some of these sub ratings and their rating is greater then mine but I think we are about the same.

    I've played several subs around my rating or higher and either the ...[text shortened]... or I am under rated.

    I just think more games = higher rating.

    Agree, disagree and why?
    Nope, my rating takes a hit with the more games I play. Quite simply, more games equals less time, equals more blunders. For this reason I am reducing my game load to around 20. So therefore, I'd say subs do have the advantage IF they can keep their games down to 20.
  9. 08 Sep '06 19:35
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    I'm trying to reduce mine down to near 0, then start a fresh, only take on 20-30 games and think much longer over each move. I hope to hit 2000 by doing so.
    Well I hope to hit 1700 by doing the same. Good luck to you.
  10. 08 Sep '06 19:46
    Originally posted by RahimK

    I just think more games = higher rating.

    Agree, disagree and why?
    Not if you don't win......
  11. 08 Sep '06 20:13
    When I was a subscriber I usually had around 30 games at a time, as many as 50 at one point. I definitely missed alot of things due to making rapid moves. I don't think that having mroe games going did anything to make my rating higher.
  12. 08 Sep '06 20:19
    who plays corresponde chess anyway? play blitz, and be a true man!
  13. 08 Sep '06 23:34
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    Non subs have it easier. All the time in the world to think of their move and analyse it as much as they want. Most subs have far more games on the go, many including myself until very recent, have over 100 games on the go, and switch between up to 40 of them in a single night and still keep up with plans and developments in all of them. But that causes the habit of moving quickly, and can make mistakes that gives the non sub the edge.
    Nothing is stopping you from cutting down your games and playing better chess
  14. 08 Sep '06 23:36
    Originally posted by RahimK
    Nothing is stopping you from cutting down your games and playing better chess
    It's harder than it sounds. It really takes a long time to clear games out.
  15. 08 Sep '06 23:42
    Let's try a different approach. Say you are at 1600 and you are playing 10 games only. All of them are verse 1400. You win them all. So you get 8 points for each victory. I know the rating is calculated at the end so after your first victory your rating would be 1608 and then for you next victory it would use 1608 but just to simplify.

    So you get 80 points for your 10 victories. 1680 is your new rating and lets minus say 10 points because of the above calculation thing I mentioned. So you are at 1670 or so.

    Now pretend you keep doing this over and over again for couple of month. Eventually this won't work and you will have to play higher rated opponents each time but depending on your time setting for a couple of months you should have a higher rating.

    Now I know that subs don't all do this but you do play several games against lower oppositions as part of your 40+ games or whatever amount you play.

    I just think that this gives you a rating edge. So if you like playing 20 games at onces, you play 10 games against whoever and then play the other 10 vs lower rated players.

    What do you think?