No, this is not another 'my rating is x points more/less than my USCF rating so this system needs fixing' rant.
I just noticed something interesting about how the ratings work. Perhaps others have but I didn't see any posts on this.
I got my rating up to about 1591 and then entered a 1400-1599 tourney thinking I had a chance. I quickly found that people in the 1500-1550 range were regularly cleaning my clock with embarassing ease.
After examining my record, I found that I had built up my ranking by playing a lot of players that were 150-200 pts below me. Not by choice, they just happened to be the ones I got matched up with for some reason. As it turns out, all you need to do is average wining 74% of your games against players 200 pts below you to break even. So, I figure I could probably get my ranking up to close to 1650 by playing people in that range. The problem is, I'm not a 1650 player! I'm probably not even a 1550 player based on my recent results.
So the point of all of this is, that playing people well below your ability will artificialy inflate your score. So if that's your goal, great. But it won't make you a better player which is what I'm trying to do and what I think most of us want. A player with a legitimate 1550 rating earned by playing people in his range will probably beat a player with an inflated 1650 rating.
IMHO.
Originally posted by MavraamAmen... Ratings mean nothing! I have scalps of people rated much higher than me. I don't even look at that number anymore but consciously try to play people whose game is interesting, and stronger than mine. I also look at the percentage of wins whenever I agree to play someone and his/her opposition.
No, this is not another 'my rating is x points more/less than my USCF rating so this system needs fixing' rant.
I just noticed something interesting about how the ratings work. Perhaps others have but I didn't see any posts on this.
I got my rating up to about 1591 and then entered a 1400-1599 tourney thinking I had a chance. I quickly found that ...[text shortened]... y playing people in his range will probably beat a player with an inflated 1650 rating.
IMHO.
The big difference between playing here and playing otb is that here you can pick your opponents.
When you play a rated OTB tournament you will be playing in your own rating class so you will always play people of about equal strength.
Here I could probably get to 2000 only playing people rated below my strength, but a real 2000 player will still kick my @s.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardOTB I play the reserve section whenever I need money 🙂 Otherwise I try to play in the open section and have no choice but to play higher rated players. It depends on what goals you have...
The big difference between playing here and playing otb is that here you can pick your opponents.
When you play a rated OTB tournament you will be playing in your own rating class so you will always play people of about equal strength.
Here I could probably get to 2000 only playing people rated below my strength, but a real 2000 player will still kick my @s.
Whenever I need to review a theoretical line I try to find the strongest exponent here at rhp. Despite quite a few defeats, I have learned a lot and it has saved me points in OTB practice.
However, I shall go back to the statement that nobody should be intimidated by a number and play hard no matter what. By the same token, you shouldn't be cocky and take for granted your lower rated opponent.
Originally posted by MavraamOne of the natural balances to this is occurs in tournaments where early success leads to more difficult play in later rounds.
So the point of all of this is, that playing people well below your ability will artificialy inflate your score. So if that's your goal, great. But it won't make you a better player which is what I'm trying to do and what I think most of us want. A player with a legitimate 1550 rating earned by playing people in his range will probably beat a player with an inflated 1650 rating.
IMHO.
Mavramm I think I might have the same problem.
When I was a little (p) player I usually played 1200 type players and that was what most of my games were. Im at 1561 right now but I feel that might be a bit inflated. I guess I need to set my goals higher!
It sucks knowing that my rating is going to go down but I had better pony up soon and play some harder players.
peace.
Chuck
Originally posted by MavraamThe ratings are not perfect, no. However this effect you're describing only goes so far.
No, this is not another 'my rating is x points more/less than my USCF rating so this system needs fixing' rant.
I just noticed something interesting about how the ratings work. Perhaps others have but I didn't see any posts on this. ...[text shortened]... will probably beat a player with an inflated 1650 rating.
IMHO.
I guess this might be the advantage the CC is attempting to use to win clan challenges more than 50% of the time...deliberately and methodically stacking the odds in their favor while appearing on the face of things to have the matches be 'even' (or 'fair' as rauder calls it). This could allow them or anyone else to beat the statistics which predict even rated people will have an even win/loss ratio by adding in a hidden variable that favors them; artificially keeping their ratings low by avoiding playing lower rated people. Interesting.
Obviously if this factor is deliberately manipulated, matching only ratings fails to achieve the goal that people claim to have; making sure the two players are equally skilled in chess.
Originally posted by Mavraam
....... After examining my record, I found that I had built up my ranking by playing a lot of players that were 150-200 pts below me. Not by choice, they just happened to be the ones I got matched up with for some reason. As it turns out, all you need to do is average wining 74% of your games against players 200 pts below you to break even. So, I figure I could probably get my ranking up to close to 1650 by playing people in that range. The problem is, I'm not a 1650 player! I'm probably not even a 1550 player based on my recent results. ........
i do not see what you are talking about.
when i look at your ratings graph it looks as though you built your ratiung up to 1601 by beating players rated:
1534, 1555, 1490, 1609, 1457, 1408, 1558, and 1451.
i think you should consider yourself to be a 1600 player!
your rating is presently 1577.
you can still expect to lose sometimes to 1430 players.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardhmmmm, i would like to see you try.
......... Here I could probably get to 2000 only playing people rated below my strength, but a real 2000 player will still kick my @s.
Game 867525
Game 826200
Game 813741
you might find it just as easy: Game 843389
Originally posted by flexmorelol, ....Aspviper is very underrated and he has not played a lot of games here. He easily plays at A class strength (1800-2000)
hmmmm, i would like to see you try.
Game 867525
Game 826200
Game 813741
you might find it just as easy: Game 843389
I could have won the game against the chess express but he really wanted a draw (I don't remember why)
And the game against brakolak does not need an explanation. I had a won possition there but gave it away because I did not take enough time.
Those aren't excusses, just look at aspvipers rating in a couple of months and you can ask the Chess express, im also willing to finnish that game.
Anyway maybe I can't get to 2000 but I can definitly inflate my rating, anyone can.
Rtg is not a perfect measure of your realy power, of course, but can show your range, with some borders. 100 pts more or less can be casual, but 200 pts is enoguh to say it is another class. When Elo-system was introduced by FIDE, at the begining of 1970s, 200 pts was drafted as an level: 2600 for GM, 2400 IM, 2200 master.
My personal rtg here is real. I won my first 15 games, mostly against oponents <1600 pts, and my rtg arose >1700. Then, I start to play agaist much stronger oponents, mostly 1600-1800 pts, and in the nxt 18 games my result is +8-6=5. So, around 1750 is my real rtg.
I find my rating oscillates around a certain point mainly because of clan match ups, which are reasonably even with whatever rating I had at the time.
When I go down a bit, I get matched against players I'm capable of beating (on average), so I rise again, but after a while I'm therefore assigned matchups against higher people which (again, on average) I lose, pushing me back down a bit...
I'd like to thing I'm improving a bit though, because I managed to sustain a rating above 1200 for quite a while before a recent dip, which I recovered from the other day by beating 2 players ranked above me.
I am new to chess and this site, so I looked up how ratings are calculatated (can't help it...once a mathematician, always a mathematician). Surprisingly, the formula given shows that when two relatively equal players play each other repeatedly, both players ratings will go up over time, assuming each wins his share of games:
Assuming both players are rated at 1600:
For a win, New Rating = 1629
For a loss, New Rating = 1597
For a draw, New Rating = 1613
Regardless of what Greenspan says, it appears that inflation has returned! What am I missing here?
Camilli
Originally posted by camilliInteresting.
I am new to chess and this site, so I looked up how ratings are calculatated (can't help it...once a mathematician, always a mathematician). Surprisingly, the formula given shows that when two relatively equal players play each other repeatedly, both players ratings will go up over time, assuming each wins his share of games:
Assuming both players are r ...[text shortened]... Greenspan says, it appears that inflation has returned! What am I missing here?
Camilli
Well, both players are getting a lot of practice in, so it does kind of make sense...
Originally posted by camilliSome thing has gone awry with your cal here (probably a miss placed bracket in this confusing equation).
Regardless of what Greenspan says, it appears that inflation has returned! What am I missing here?
Camilli
The mechanics of the cal means that the winner's rating will always go up the by the number of points that the loser drops.
With a maximum win/loss of 32 points, but only 16 points when the two player have equal ratings.
Here try puting this formula into excel for the new rating (rounding not included):
new rating =rating_mine+32*(score-(1/(10^((rating_op-rating_mine)/400)+1)))
Regards, Dave