Sub vs Non-Sub Ratings

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?

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.

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....

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.

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...

maybe it just me. No other non-subs think this?

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 🙂

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.

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.

Originally posted by RahimK

I just think more games = higher rating.

Agree, disagree and why?

Not if you don't win......😀

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.

who plays corresponde chess anyway? play blitz, and be a true man!