Originally posted by LekZI agree my rating reached 2000 by consistently beating 1800 and drawing/beating 1850-1950's however since becoming over 2000 I have found myself playing more 2000+ rated players and I just can't beat them!
You think so?
You currently have the highest rating of us all..
najdorfslayer 2048
LekZ 2047
Dragon Fire 2040
Sicilian Smaug 2027
At least I made a screenshot of my 2119 rating and being in 48th place on the player tables...
Reaching 2100 isn't that hard, playing 1600s. Maintaining 2100 is another story...
Originally posted by LekZAt least you guys actually got there. I failed :'(:'(
You think so?
You currently have the highest rating of us all..
najdorfslayer 2048
LekZ 2047
Dragon Fire 2040
Sicilian Smaug 2027
At least I made a screenshot of my 2119 rating and being in 48th place on the player tables...
Reaching 2100 isn't that hard, playing 1600s. Maintaining 2100 is another story...
Originally posted by RamnedI'm too tired to talk about padding after eating air instead of crisps see Thread 68114 See Plab's opinions on padding here Thread 74546
What is "Padding?"
The post that was quoted here has been removedbut you can try and keep it up there by padding. can't you?
i.e. (z00troll definition) if you have lots of easy games and win them but don't resign your lost games then your rating is presumably padded by those easy games.
Not sure what happens when you eventually do lose those "lost" games - I presume you need to pad your rating by taking on lots more weaker opponents.
Of course this can happen which is why ratings can fluctuate dramatically but the day of reckoning always comes. In any case this happens to everyone as most people take wins quickly and spend more time trying to salvage draws from lost games. Most people do not call this padding.
The post that was quoted here has been removedBut we have been here before and as explained to z00troll (figures are indicitive only).
Lets say you have a 400 point rating difference and this gives a probability of winning of 87.5% and you play 16 games. Probability states you will score 14 points perhaps from 13 wins, 2 draws and a loss. 13 wins gains you + 26 points (great you have padded your rating) so quickly take on 16 more games. Another 13 wins, another 26 points. Quick take them and lets have another 16 games. 13 wins later your rating is 78 points higher (well padded) and you now decide its time to attend to your other 9 games.
Try as you might you just cannot salvage them so 6 draws and 3 losses later you have lost 78 rating points (sandbagging) and you are back where you started.
Forgive my ignorance but isn't this the way the rating system works. If your rating is right it doesn't matter what your opponents rating is the net effect over a reasonable number of games will be the same.
Indeed if I played Kramnik our 900 point difference might say he has a probability of winning of 99.5%. What this means is that despite our rating difference if I play him 1000 games I will score 5 points, probably from 10 draws rather than any wins and both our ratings will be back where they started before his winning spree. Inprobable! Not at all! Kramnik has been known to miss a mate in 1 and after 999 easy games he will do it again.