Originally posted by dottewell The point is that if you don't play - and your rating was rising before you stopped - then of course you can't claim your rating is "accurate".
I'm not saying my rating is accurate. It will probably go up if I start playing again.
If your rating is still going up, and you play someone whose rating is higher than yours and feel you were at least as good...
Well, that's perfectly natural.
If you don't keep playing here, you'll never know what your "true" RHP rating is. (And of course once you have "levelled off", you can still get better, or worse.)
Originally posted by dottewell If your rating is still going up, and you play someone whose rating is higher than yours and feel you were at least as good...
Well, that's perfectly natural.
If you don't keep playing here, you'll never know what your "true" RHP rating is. (And of course once you have "levelled off", you can still get better, or worse.)
This wasn't really about my rating. I just thought subs had an advatage over rating then non-subs but apperently i'm the only one who thinks this.
But yes my rating probably influenced that opinion although i know my rating isn't stable yet.
The more games, the more "erosion" in my play.
I like RHP for the long term development, that means 6 games are for me enough; to think about solid opening, strategy, plans etc. I also get the impression that some opponents, who have more than 100 games active, don't have the time to look at each game thoroughly. You see it at the momentum of there moves
So I state: lesser games active, more quality in the game!
Originally posted by RahimK This wasn't really about my rating. I just thought subs had an advatage over rating then non-subs but apperently i'm the only one who thinks this.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ Could it be that stronger players tend to be players more commited to chess and more willing to spend money on a place to play chess?
This conclusion makes sense. I think Rahim's just looking for an ego boost. (I could be wrong, but what's the point of this thread if not?)
Originally posted by XanthosNZ Could it be that stronger players tend to be players more commited to chess and more willing to spend money on a place to play chess?
No way! I'm know my rating hasn't flatten out yet and i'm not trying to brag
but subs more commited = higher rating?
Perhaps but when I beat players subs, I hear this over and over again.
You are no oridinary 1600 player or 1700. I take my chess seriously unlike a lot of you on here.
Sub vs Non-Sub Ratings
09 Sep '06 20:22
Back to Top