Sub vs Non-Sub Ratings

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 🙂

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.

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?

Originally posted by cmsMaster
It's harder than it sounds. It really takes a long time to clear games out.

Ah, you choose longer timers. Either to enter a tournament, you pick them, etc...but still your choice.

🙂

Originally posted by RahimK
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 ...[text shortened]... ames against whoever and then play the other 10 vs lower rated players.

What do you think?

Hm, possible, but like you said, it would only work for so long. Not to mention that if this player losses even one of those games (fair chance) then his rating drops quite drastically.

Originally posted by RahimK
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 ...[text shortened]... ames against whoever and then play the other 10 vs lower rated players.

What do you think?

as a non sub i get to play 6 games.....

I play 1400's for 6 games, complete them, and now play another 4....my rating is now 1670


...i think the only way to make the rating system work is to completly redo it --- make it so that you can't choose your opanants -- and make people play 20 provisional games against server run chess engines to give them a basic rating.

if we did that, then the pool of players would all play the same computers at the start, (giving them reliable initial ratings), and as they randomly play each other, things well become even more accurate (until we factor in cheaters)

**and also, no timeouts....but admin/ mod adjudications instead

as it is, there are far too many things i can do to artifically improve my rating, from timely resignations, thematic games, taking all timeouts, and of course, playing weaker opp.....

therefore, until the changes sugested above are implemented (1st of never) consider RHP ratings as what they are:-

a) ego strokes
b) rough indicators of ability

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Hm, possible, but like you said, it would only work for so long. Not to mention that if this player losses even one of those games (fair chance) then his rating drops quite drastically.

Play carefully and you want lose those games to lower rated players.

Any only so long on here with the timers some people use could equal several months.

I seen players graphs... flat for months, years nothing much happening, they subscribe and all sudden whoosh up it goes, and you look at their games and you wonder how they got that ratings.

Originally posted by Shinidoki
as a non sub i get to play 6 games.....

I play 1400's for 6 games, complete them, and now play another 4....my rating is now 1670


...i think the only way to make the rating system work is to completly redo it --- make it so that you can't choose your opanants -- and make people play 20 provisional games against server run chess engines to give the ...[text shortened]... sider RHP ratings as what they are:-

a) ego strokes
b) rough indicators of ability

Ah but the sub always had an advantage in that area.

You playing your 6 games vs him playing 20+ games against lower opposition.

You won't catch the sub playing measley 6 games at a time 🙂

I only play 3 at time now days 🙂 Well several months ago that way.

Originally posted by Jusuh
who plays corresponde chess anyway? play blitz, and be a true man!

blitz is for kids. 🙂


I think the 'toughness' of similarly rated people depends more on the average rating of their opponents. people playing a lot against the low rated seem to be easier opponents. haven't noticed any difference between similarly rated subs and non-subs though.

you can play a big gameload and still have good quality, it just takes considerably more energy to focus enough. and sometimes such people come crashing down, if/when they hit their breaking point. I've seen people with big gameload zig zag from 1900 to 1400 and back, even without mass resignations or timeouts. they just snap.

Originally posted by wormwood
blitz is for kids. 🙂


I think the 'toughness' of similarly rated people depends more on the average rating of their opponents. people playing a lot against the low rated seem to be easier opponents. haven't noticed any difference between similarly rated subs and non-subs though.

you can play a big gameload and still have good quality, it just ...[text shortened]... zag from 1900 to 1400 and back, even without mass resignations or timeouts. they just snap.

Know thyself.

Some subs have several games going on at once, rating is approx constant.

Then they start a whole bunch of them and their rating shoots up all of sudden. I wonder how that happened?


Playing 10 games always for couple years and your rating is constant. You start playing 30 games or more and all of a sudden your rating shoots up and stays there for several months or permanently.

Improvement? I don't think so.

Originally posted by RahimK
Some subs have several games going on at once, rating is approx constant.

Then they start a whole bunch of them and their rating shoots up all of sudden. I wonder how that happened?


Playing 10 games always for couple years and your rating is constant. You start playing 30 games or more and all of a sudden your rating shoots up and stays there for several months or permanently.

Improvement? I don't think so.

I think you're the only one that has this belief and are desperately searching for a way to boost your ego.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
I think you're the only one that has this belief and are desperately searching for a way to boost your ego.

Why would I want to boost my ego?

I know where my chess stands.

I don't think i'm the only one who thinks this. There is some truth behind it as I proved before even if it only leads to higher ratings for several months.

Originally posted by RahimK
Why would I want to boost my ego?

I know where my chess stands.

I don't think i'm the only one who thinks this. There is some truth behind it as I proved before even if it only leads to higher ratings for several months.

You didn't prove this. In fact the general consensus, especially from subs, is that rating decreases or is not affected. More games, less time to think, more blunders. It's simple.

Show one user who jumps hundreds of rating points after subscribing.