Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 24 Aug '06 19:18
    Well...? How are they worked out? Is it purely results, or does the calibre of the opposition count? ie what's to stop me inflating my rating by playing loads of low ranked opposition? Also is it consistent between different chess sites? (eg I seem to find that players become scarier at lower ratings here than on other sites).
  2. 24 Aug '06 19:20
    Quality of opposition counts.
    Ratings differ from site to site.It's due to the quality of the player pool.
  3. 24 Aug '06 19:21
    look around post 12ish and beyond here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=50455
  4. 24 Aug '06 19:34
    i've played many players on this site that are a high 1600 player and will just beat up on 1400 and 1500 people and their ratings are like 1867 and stuff like that. before playing someone see if they are playing higher rated players or lower ranked players to see what their playing strength really is.
  5. 24 Aug '06 20:01 / 1 edit
    They don't mean squat. You could be a master, but you'd start out here at 1200, and since nobody wants to play a 1200 provisional player, you would not end up with a very high established rating. Once you get over 2000 you'll be a suspected engine user.
  6. 24 Aug '06 20:09
    Originally posted by masscat
    They don't mean squat. You could be a master, but you'd start out here at 1200, and since nobody wants to play a 1200 provisional player, you would not end up with a very high established rating. Once you get over 2000 you'll be a suspected engine user.
    Seems like if you were a master, you ought win against other 1200 players, thus moving your rating up. Over time, your rating will increase to the point you can easily entice worthy competition.
  7. 24 Aug '06 20:11
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Seems like if you were a master, you ought win against other 1200 players, thus moving your rating up. Over time, your rating will increase to the point you can easily entice worthy competition.
    to add to that if you are a master you will kill other 1200 rated players and people might notice and challenge you. also you can message players that are higher rated to play them.
  8. 24 Aug '06 20:14
    Originally posted by kmac27
    i've played many players on this site that are a high 1600 player and will just beat up on 1400 and 1500 people and their ratings are like 1867 and stuff like that. before playing someone see if they are playing higher rated players or lower ranked players to see what their playing strength really is.
    If they are truly a high 1600 player (say 1675), they should beat 1500 players about 75% of the time and 1400 players roughly 83% of the time. If they perform better than that, then they are by definition better than a high 1600 player. If they perform as expected, then their occassional loss will drop their rating far enough to offset any gains by their frequent wins and they won't likely reach 1867.
  9. 24 Aug '06 20:47
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Seems like if you were a master, you ought win against other 1200 players, thus moving your rating up. Over time, your rating will increase to the point you can easily entice worthy competition.
    How many games would you have to play to get to 2200? I really have no idea. I do know most masters don't want to piddle around playing people they can beat blindfolded. They prefer to play their own kind.
  10. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    24 Aug '06 21:22
    Originally posted by masscat
    How many games would you have to play to get to 2200? I really have no idea. I do know most masters don't want to piddle around playing people they can beat blindfolded. They prefer to play their own kind.
    well, five first games against, say, 1500's will give you initial rating of 1900p. shouldn't be too hard to get tougher opponents after that. I think your rating will quickly converge close to your final strength, if you just always take as high rated opponents as you can.
  11. 24 Aug '06 21:27
    Originally posted by masscat
    How many games would you have to play to get to 2200? I really have no idea. I do know most masters don't want to piddle around playing people they can beat blindfolded. They prefer to play their own kind.
    Well there is a downside from starting over.

    My first opponent in my first OTB, who was also unrated, beat me so bad my ego still hasn't fully recovered (and that was 20 years ago). He had been much further along in another country and was just starting out in the USCF.

    If you play equally rated opponents each game (which is a little unrealistically hard to manage exactly that, but just for the sake of discussion), you would advance 16 points for each win. To go from 1200 to 2200 pretending like you're not provisional to start with would take 62 games.

    You could play many games at once, but regardless of the time, at least it shouldn't require much intellectual effort to go from 1200 to say 1700 if you are truly a 2200 player.

    If you enter open tournaments you are paired with random opponents regardless of your rating. If you advance to the second and third rounds, you should be playing people that can give you a challenge.