Originally posted by Dragon Firedoing the math, what you say does make sense.....however, I do think there is a difference between getting to 2000 by playing 2000+ players, and by playing 1500's.
but 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 ...[text shortened]... end more time trying to salvage draws from lost games. Most people do not call this padding.
If you played 100 games against 1500's with great care, and with each game you played as if you were playing a master chances are, i think, you will end up winning more games than what you statistically should. --- this could be especially true if you cherry-pick the 1500's ensuring that they are not just sandbagging, etc.
if I could be bothered, I would go over several of the 2000+ banned players and try to calculate thier performance against 1500's.
the reason being is that computers do not improve, or have a bad day - thier strength, unlike humans remains constant. so it would be a good place to start
-- anyone got the figures for bot users vs. 1500's? whats the winning average?
You know what, i am impressed with you four, its true that its one thing to reach a maximum rating, but its another thing to keep it constant. I think I am playing some of the best chess ever, and im still lossing games, and no matter what, im probably never going to be a consistent 2000+ player because of my game totals, i am in major revision right now, trying to work my game load down. Nonetheless, even with the game load down, it will still be incredibly hard for myself to maintain a rating over 2000. Its like working out, you see those super buff guys who do like 6 reps of 400 lbs, while you can do 20 reps of 150 lbs, which one of you is actually doing yourself the best good? an individual with a large load of games, who only finishes winning games, or an individual who just plays out all games, and gains something consistent, whether lower or higher then the guy with the huge game load. Personally Id like to get where you guys are soon, and try and stay around that range, it will be interesting to see how things go in the future, now that i have lowered my game totals!
1 edit
Originally posted by ShinidokiIt doesn't work that way although I wish it did.
doing the math, what you say does make sense.....however, I do think there is a difference between getting to 2000 by playing 2000+ players, and by playing 1500's.
If you played 100 games against 1500's with great care, and with each game you played as if you were playing a master chances are, i think, you will end up winning more games than what you o start
-- anyone got the figures for bot users vs. 1500's? whats the winning average?
No matter how carefully I pick 1500s, no matter how carefully I play I eventually get hasty, careless and make that bad move, so I lose another game to a 1500.
That always happens to me - if it did not I would be rated 2300.
It does not matter what your rating is it will find the correct level against any strength od opposition and would be the same if I played 100, 1500s 2000s or 2300s with scores of (say) 87%, 50% and 20%.
Of course whereas I could play (say) 50 games against 1500s that would drop to about 25 against 2000s and only 10 against 2300s as (in my case anyway) games against tougher opponents are harder and take more out of me.
actually I think this is preatty true for my case: playing lower opponents somehow gives you safer wins and points
BUT
I noticed that usually high level GMs prefer to play themselves(against other high rated GMs) as the probability of loosing points when playing lower rated players is higher(maybe a reason here is also the higher draw probability at higher levels....but still...)
Probably the system is after all balanced (maybe a bit better is FICS style that is having a more accurate rating deviation which is more difficult to implement with few games)
Originally posted by Dragon FireI used to share the same opinion. Mathematically, the rating should award/penalise each game proportionally in terms of rating differences and hence arrive at the same outcome.
It does not matter what your rating is it will find the correct level against any strength od opposition
But I now believe that there is more to it. For example, I believe it is possible to find a 1700 rated player who is prone to losing to lower rated players, but can also regularly beat higher rated players on a good day. At the same time, another 1700 player may be more consistent in terms of beating those below while losing to those above. Put these two 1700s in a long match against 1400s and the more consistent 1700 will do better. But use 2200 rated opponents and the first 1700 will do better.
By-the-way, I'm not implying that you are better at playing any particular level of opposition. I've not even looked at your results.
Originally posted by Dragon Firemy thinking is on the lines of what Varenka posted above....
It doesn't work that way although I wish it did.
No matter how carefully I pick 1500s, no matter how carefully I play I eventually get hasty, careless and make that bad move, so I lose another game to a 1500.
That always happens to me - if it did not I would be rated 2300.
It does not matter what your rating is it will find the correct level aga ...[text shortened]... 300s as (in my case anyway) games against tougher opponents are harder and take more out of me.
while two players may have the same rating the way they got it maybe different, and therefore, when playing 2000's one may do better than the other.
I for example, play blitz here (eg, I spend at most a minute a move 99% of the time), and I manged to get to 1700 -- another player may have got to 1700 through paintaking analysis (eg, a lot of hard work)
as a 2000 player, you may find one of these 1700's much harder to beat than the other.
Now, if you cherrypick your 1500's and then manage to catorgize them (eg, as a hard worker, or lazy man [me]) I think you can win more than you statistically should.
for example, lets say you play white in two games against 1500's, with a long time control.
one of them is lazy, the other a worker.
you may find that playing duboius openings (eg. 1.g4) works well against the lazy man: because he isn't the type of person to go off and reasearch the matter -- because you have taken him out of his pet openings his lazyness becomes a great weakness as the positions start to require careful play.
the hard working 1500 may fair much better, he doesn't make a move for weeks -- he has just bought a book about the grob and how to refute it.
and so, he comes out of the opening with a good position -- maybe even going on to win the game....
you lost to the secound 1500 because you made moves that favour his style of play --- had you of opened with much more sound opening you are very familiar with you reduce his hard-work advantage.
(seeing as you play the grob, I wonder if you have an example of this?)
so in short, all 1500's are not the same, and if you play them as if they are all the same, and will all make the same errors you are doomed to failure.
1 edit
Originally posted by Shinidokinot to mention that people have very different styles of playing, and the same opponent can be very hard to deal with for one player, but easy to another. it's not that I woudn't disagree about careful playing against lower rated yielding higher ratings, but it's very hard to cherry pick your opponents. there are just too many variables you can't control. I personally feel I can perform better against higher rated players, but it's more a sign of what kind of guy I am mentally, not just a side effect of the rating system.
so in short, all 1500's are not the same, and if you play them as if they are all the same, and will all make the same errors you are doomed to failure.
1 edit
Originally posted by ShinidokiFirst of all my style of play is better against stronger opponents as I take them seriously whereas I get lazy against 1500s often losing because I don't take them seriously.
my thinking is on the lines of what Varenka posted above....
while two players may have the same rating the way they got it maybe different, and therefore, when playing 2000's one may do better than the other.
I for example, play blitz here (eg, I spend at most a minute a move 99% of the time), and I manged to get to 1700 -- another player may hav s if they are all the same, and will all make the same errors you are doomed to failure.
Now you mention the Grob. I have played it here 83 times and lost only once in Game 3119448.
There have been 5 draws. In Game 3675512 I got lazy going for a quick win and missing elementary tactics;
In Game 3419381 my 1612 rated opponent got a well deserved draw;
In Game 3078054 I agreed a draw against my 1562 rated opponent despite there being more play as he deserved it;
In Game 2946196 the best I could do was a perpetual against 1830 rated opposition;
In an early Grob in Game 2274208 my 1148 rated opponent should have beaten me.
77 games I won.
Who remembers our friend rated about 1700 or 1800 who would have gazillions of open invites all targeting 1400s and below? Because some of those he played were provisionals rising or even people whose game load has made their rating drop but are still stronger than 1400, he would lose. Our friend would immediately accuse his 400 rated player below him of cheating not knowing that his rating is artificially inflated and if he played 1600s to 1800s he would be whacked.
Originally posted by z00tWell that's obvioulsy how he got his rating up from 1800 to over 2000 by losing to 1400's! wait a moment? doh!
Who remembers our friend rated about 1700 or 1800 who would have gazillions of open invites all targeting 1400s and below? Because some of those he played were provisionals rising or even people whose game load has made their rating drop but are still stronger than 1400, he would lose. Our friend would immediately accuse his 400 rated player below him of cheati ...[text shortened]... ng that his rating is artificially inflated and if he played 1600s to 1800s he would be whacked.
Originally posted by stevetoddSadly our friend did not progress above 1800 but he left the site (after a very interesting thread was posted). He may have returned as a player who was 3c'ed but the original nick remains unused.
Well that's obvioulsy how he got his rating up from 1800 to over 2000 by losing to 1400's! wait a moment? doh!
Originally posted by z00tOh I thought you were having another go at Dragon Fire
Sadly our friend did not progress above 1800 but he left the site (after a very interesting thread was posted). He may have returned as a player who was 3c'ed but the original nick remains unused.