- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
The stronger players isn't always guaranteed the win. With about a 524-719 rating difference the stronger player gets 1 point and risks losing 31. As long as one of those 31 guys can put together a decent game it's not worth it. I actually tried to play only 1200-1300 rated plays back in 2011 when I was rated 1800. My rating didn't change much, I lost a game and got a draw or two, all the experience did was make me play worse.
A 2050 rated player only gets 4 points for a win and risks losing 28 against a 1700 rated who is no pushover.
Also once you get over 2100 the rating formula changes the K value to 24. Which means lower rated players give even less points. I get a big fat zero for anyone less than about 1500.
Strong players make big mistakes sometimes they're just less frequent.
Originally posted by @nevareTheir are some highly rated chess players who play much weaker opponents. I will try to keep mine accurate.
Your true online rating is your "opponent average rating"... look in your profile and you might be surprised. Their are some highly rated chess players who play much weaker opponents. I will try to keep mine accurate.
Good point. JMHO - People who play against folks below their level just to puff up their rating are little different than engine hacks who use a computer program to do the same thing. What have they gained besides an inflated number next to their name? They are pathetic and insecure creatures.
17 Jun 18
Originally posted by @knightstalker47Exactly - one misstep in the score of weaky-killing erases all reading points gain.
The stronger players isn't always guaranteed the win. With about a 524-719 rating difference the stronger player gets 1 point and risks losing 31. As long as one of those 31 guys can put together a decent game it's not worth it. I actually tried to play only 1200-1300 rated plays back in 2011 when I was rated 1800. My rating didn't change much, I lo ...[text shortened]... less than about 1500.
Strong players make big mistakes sometimes they're just less frequent.
17 Jun 18
Originally posted by @nevareMeh - just play good chess and let the rating worry about itself.
Your true online rating is your "opponent average rating"... look in your profile and you might be surprised. Their are some highly rated chess players who play much weaker opponents. I will try to keep mine accurate.
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemAmen. As a rule I will accept a game from anyone on the site, as long as the time control is OK. I consider online ratings to be almost valueless, so I don't really care.
Meh - just play good chess and let the rating worry about itself.
All that said, I do value my OTB USCF rating, and I have won games OTB based on ideas I have learned here as practice. And I can learn from anyone here.
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @mchillWow, you sure drew some pretty heady conclusions from a small and nebulous data set.
Their are some highly rated chess players who play much weaker opponents. I will try to keep mine accurate.
Good point. JMHO - People who play against folks below their level just to puff up their rating are little different than engine hacks who use a computer program to do the same thing. What have they gained besides an inflated number next to their name? They are pathetic and insecure creatures.
I am one of the Welcome Game players on the site, and as a rule I always have 5 games going on from players new to the site, with "p1200" ratings. Some are very good, but many barely know how to move the pieces. I don't care, the game is fun, and I just try to help the newbies get acclimated.
I also play a few real world friends (lower rated) who now live farther away, and I pretty much accept any challenge regardless of rating, as long as the time control is reasonable. The vast majority of those challenges are from lower-rated players. I suppose I could be a rating snob, but I don't care enough about an online rating to bother.
As the numbers go, that has you classifying me as a pathetic and insecure creature. Oh well!