Sub vs Non-Sub Ratings

Originally posted by RahimK
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.

I disagree sometimes it doesn't matter how carefully you played you still will lose a few to lower rated players.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
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.

More games = more blunder is your guys fault.

I said already. Several games vs lower rated players = free points basically.

Of course Non-subs can do this also but why player lower rated opponents when you only have 6 slots?

If you look at the games subs play, you will see several against players rated below them which they can easily beat. Those lead to extra points.

Originally posted by RahimK
More games = more blunder is your guys fault.

I said already. Several games vs lower rated players = free points basically.

Of course Non-subs can do this also but why player lower rated opponents when you only have 6 slots?

If you look at the games subs play, you will see several against players rated below them which they can easily beat. Those lead to extra points.

Er, I try to avoid lower rated players. In fact, I think most subs and non-subs alike do. Lower rated players offer very few rating points (between 5-8 usually) and it just adds the game load. These games are actually more of a nuisance than anything.

Once again, show a user who's had this drastic improvement after subscribing.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Er, I try to avoid lower rated players. In fact, I think most subs and non-subs alike do. Lower rated players offer very few rating points (between 5-8 usually) and it just adds the game load. These games are actually more of a nuisance than anything.

Once again, show a user who's had this drastic improvement after subscribing.

Haha, you can try to avoid them but others do not. That's why I like Rhp. You can pick your opponents unlike OTB.

I don't see a way of telling when someone subscribed. When they initially did you can tell.

Originally posted by RahimK
Haha, you can try to avoid them but others do not. That's why I like Rhp. You can pick your opponents unlike OTB.

I don't see a way of telling when someone subscribed. When they initially did you can tell.

Well I figured you could because you claimed you saw some "whoosh" graphs....

I really don't think people use this method anyway, because after gaining some 50-100 points it'd flatten back out. Not to mention that if you gained those points and didn't deserve them the higher ranked players would spank you back down to your level. It all averages out in the end really.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Well I figured you could because you claimed you saw some "whoosh" graphs....

I really don't think people use this method anyway, because after gaining some 50-100 points it'd flatten back out. Not to mention that if you gained those points and didn't deserve them the higher ranked players would spank you back down to your level. It all averages out in the end really.

In the end it averages about yes, but for several months it won't neccessary. Lots of you use 7/7 for some reason. I don't know how you can stand playing that way.

Playing 40 games at 7/7 and you blunder sometimes? No excuse, you got 7 days.

Playing 40 games at 1/7 fine...

I would rather play less games like 10 at 1/7 then 40 at 7/7.

By the time the 7/7 games are done you could have played a lot of 1/7 games. From my previous forum, the subs who commented said their chess doesn't improve much from 3/7 to 7/7 so why bother playing 7/7 besides tournaments and stuff.

I'll send some PM's out. See if I can guess when they subcribe and that would explain the whoosh 🙂

Originally posted by RahimK
In the end it averages about yes, but for several months it won't neccessary. Lots of you use 7/7 for some reason. I don't know how you can stand playing that way.

Playing 40 games at 7/7 and you blunder sometimes? No excuse, you got 7 days.

Playing 40 games at 1/7 fine...

I would rather play less games like 10 at 1/7 then 40 at 7/7.

By the time ...[text shortened]... d some PM's out. See if I can guess when they subcribe and that would explain the whoosh 🙂

Well maybe if all I did was play RHP it wouldn't be a big deal. But add into RHP 5 days of school ( appx. 7 hrs. ) plus 3 hours of homework a night (avg. and not an exaggeration) + 2 days of work (Saturday and Sunday) + other activities, and 7 days seems suddenly like a lot less when you have 40 of those being played simultaneously.

The point of CC is to have plenty of time to think, 7/7, 7/14, and 14/21 all offer this time.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Well maybe if all I did was play RHP it wouldn't be a big deal. But add into RHP 5 days of school ( appx. 7 hrs. ) plus 3 hours of homework a night (avg. and not an exaggeration) + 2 days of work (Saturday and Sunday) + other activities, and 7 days seems suddenly like a lot less when you have 40 of those being played simultaneously.

The point of CC is to have plenty of time to think, 7/7, 7/14, and 14/21 all offer this time.

I hear you. I'm a student as well at Univ.

That's why I don't subscribe. I am more then happy with my 6 game limit. I don't even play that much at once anymore.

The only annoying thing is the 10 PM limit every 24 hours but I manage.

I don't get why people play that many games and play poorly unless if they are playing just for fun.

I take my chess very seriously. O wells, people do what they like.

Originally posted by RahimK
I hear you. I'm a student as well at Univ.

That's why I don't subscribe. I am more then happy with my 6 game limit. I don't even play that much at once anymore.

The only annoying thing is the 10 PM limit every 24 hours but I manage.

I don't get why people play that many games and play poorly unless if they are playing just for fun.

I take my chess very seriously. O wells, people do what they like.

I'm serious, but I like my fun also. There are times when I just don't think thoroughly and make poor moves. What can I say, when you have that many games mistakes are likely to occur. Why do you think the top players don't seem to play very many games?

Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
It doesn't work like that though. Say a 1600 player plays ten 1400 players.
He will not win them all, more than likely he will win between 5 and 7 of them, draw 1 or 2, and lose 2 or 3 of them. Net gain - very little,

yeah, 200pts difference still gives pretty tough game. one slip and the game is gone. you have to be very careful against a player rated 200 points lower.

and it's all about being careful. -if you play against weaker players more careful than people in general do, you will gain higher rating for it. of course it can be said that more careful play is stronger, but that doesn't really translate to playing against higher rated opponents, as people already focus more and play with special care against them.

I believe you can get 100-200 extra points playing against low rated opponents, if you just take special care. but it doesn't make the player stronger against his peers or higher. a 1400 drops a piece in almost every game. winning those games against him is not an achievement, but you still get the points for it. a 1200 could've won those just as well. (no, I'm not going to play all you 1200-1400's who now, once again, want to "kick my ass". leave the challenge button be. it was not an insult.)

I'm not worried about facing the guy with the 80% winning ratio, I'm worried about the one with 40% and keeping the same rating. the latter plays only against people that are stronger than him, the former around 250-300 lower rated. at least for me, the 40% guys are a lot harder to handle.

I personally think playing players rated 100-300 points higher is the best way to improve ones rating. not only that, it is also much more beneficial to play against stronger players.

Originally posted by RahimK
I hear you. I'm a student as well at Univ.

That's why I don't subscribe. I am more then happy with my 6 game limit. I don't even play that much at once anymore.

The only annoying thing is the 10 PM limit every 24 hours but I manage.

I don't get why people play that many games and play poorly unless if they are playing just for fun.

I take my chess very seriously. O wells, people do what they like.

You haven't moved for more than 100 days.

I am rated at four different sites, and the only thing in common is my won-lost percentage, which is around 75%. Here at RHP I’ve never played anyone over 1600 and have a 1550 or so rating. Almost the same scenario at Playchess gives me a 1900+ rating. I attribute the difference to the way the initial ratings are set else why would the same percentage against players of the same rating range result in such a big spread?

On the other two sites I set my own initial rating at 1800 and have had opponents between 1400 and 2400. The same 75% record results in ratings of 2025 and 2300+.

If this proves anything, I think it’s you will not gain significant points by beating hordes of low rated players. You have to be able to at least hold your own against the higher rated players for it to go up and stay there regardless of what rating system is being used. In ANY system, playing much lower rated players can be dangerous to your rating. An amusing example: Back in the late 60’s I was playing (postal) a guy rated in the top 10 correspondence players in the US and managed, by some miracle, to hang on for a draw which he didn’t want to give me because I was a lowly “A” player. Trying to force the win, he lost…not only the game but so many rating points it took him years to get his position back.

I understand that the better the player is the more games he will win, no mater how is his opponent rated, he will increase his rating acordingly to his ability.

Of course, if you play fewer games this implies that if in the end you are suposed to get a 2200 rating, you will reach it slower, but you eventually will reach it.

Then if you are to play 100 oponents to gain a rating of 2000, if you play this opponents in one month or in one year, only varies the time you took to reach the final game but your rating is the same, so the only advantage subs have is to reach their raing sooner by playing more games at a time than a non-sub.

This could explain the sudden rating increase.