working out ratings

can anyone explain ,i had a rating of 1500 ,lost my game against imetfischer his rating was on 1416 ,i lost 20 rating points ,does that seem right ,?

Originally posted by robhamer
can anyone explain ,i had a rating of 1500 ,lost my game against imetfischer his rating was on 1416 ,i lost 20 rating points ,does that seem right ,?

FAQ

A harsh but annoying reality of playing players below your rating

Originally posted by robhamer
can anyone explain ,i had a rating of 1500 ,lost my game against imetfischer his rating was on 1416 ,i lost 20 rating points ,does that seem right ,?

Yep, 20 points is right.

You can calculate it from the equation in the FAQ. Or use the chart mentioned by pawne4 in this thread, Thread 137917. Or use the spreadsheet I linked to in the same thread.

Without the maths it goes like this. When I play much stronger opponents and lose my grade goes down. When I play much weaker opponents and win my grade goes up. Neither of which seems in fact appropriate. Or in simpler terms, when my grade goes up it comes back down; when it goes down it comes back up. Maybe I need to do more maths?

A good idea is to really stretch out games against anyone graded over 2000. There is a good chance they will get banned before the game ends and your grade will rocket for a while. Not sure why it happens but it has turned out like that quite a few times for me.

that was good to know ,lucky you ,i played a top 20 player three times ,lost them all ,soon after he was banned ,but i only went down three points ,

Originally posted by robhamer
that was good to know ,lucky you ,i played a top 20 player three times ,lost them all ,soon after he was banned ,but i only went down three points ,

My peak grade of 1972 arose when two such opponents got banned in succession. Happines at the time but it leaves a long term illusion of my potential. When I returned to the game after a 25 year gap, my grade quickly reached its current average and has not shifted over three long years of learning and improving. Which suggests learning without improving? Post game analysis confirms that whatever clever or foolish openings are used, there is enough opportunity across the whole game for the better player to win and the lesser player (despite every advantage) to fail.