Subscriber Suspicion

Is it just me or do subscribers seemed to get a slighlty exaggerated rating in comparison with us non-subs? Your thoughts please

nope.

Originally posted by chessisvanity
nope.

I was hoping for a slightly more eloquent response than that

nope.

No. It is just you.

The same mathematical process is used to decide ratings between subs and non subs alike, it is just you, there is no difference in how the ratings are calculated.

What makes you think that the ratings are different?

The only reason I can think of it being different, is subscribers in general play more games.

Originally posted by HurricaneConway125
Is it just me or do subscribers seemed to get a slighlty exaggerated rating in comparison with us non-subs? Your thoughts please

Subscribers are generally more interested in chess and therefore play a bit better than a person who's just freeloading.

Originally posted by 0ddity
The only reason I can think of it being different, is subscribers in general play more games.

This in turn typically leads to a greater variance in rating.

This brings up a good point, is there a difference in the average rating of subs versus non-subs? I'll add all the ratings up and do the division, get back to you in about 20 years.

Originally posted by HurricaneConway125
Is it just me or do subscribers seemed to get a slighlty exaggerated rating in comparison with us non-subs? Your thoughts please

if anything, it's the other way around. it's far easier to make big mistakes playing 600 games simultaneously, compared to non-sub's 6 games.

Because a subscriber can play as many games as he wants, he is able to put his losing games on the back burner and play only winning games, taking on new games as he goes. This allows him to artificially reach a high rating, but eventually his rating must crash down to a reasonable level.

For an example see my rating graph 🙂

Originally posted by eertognam
Because a subscriber can play as many games as he wants, he is able to put his losing games on the back burner and play only winning games, taking on new games as he goes. This allows him to artificially reach a high rating, but eventually his rating must crash down to a reasonable level.

For an example see my rating graph 🙂

Your graph is just an example of bad time management 😛 , not putting losses on hold.

The part of the graph where my rating spiked above 1700 was me putting my losses purposely on hold.

Originally posted by eertognam
The part of the graph where my rating spiked above 1700 was me putting my losses purposely on hold.

Now what type of Lad would do a sneaky thing like that?! 🙂