Beatlemania has broke 2000

@bigdogg said
Maybe he likes to play lots of games at once. If so, the opponents won't all be 2000s because there aren't enough of them to do that.

Some people like to play a few tougher games; some like volume so there are always moves waiting when they have a bit of time to kill. To each his own.

Agreed and understandable.

@EndLame

It is much harder to do so, as there are fewer of them.

In addition, I doubt he seeks them out. I don't ever challenge lower rated players, but I get challenges FROM them all the time.

I almost never decline them. We're playing for fun, after all, and no one gives a $%^#$ what my rating is here. I've also met some cool people along the way.

I'd recommend that you consider looking past the numbers, and play whatever challenges come your way. Your rating will gravitate to wherever it deserves to be, regardless of the ratings of your opponents.

The formula already accounts and adjusts for rating differences, so your concerns are unfounded anyway- just relax and play.

@Paul-Leggett

Do you have any idea how many players here inflated their stats and went to real tournaments and got crushed?

@mchill is a current example.

Convincing yourself online by playing weak opponents only brings heartache.

Listen all you people who want success at chess...

Play tougher opponents or people at your level.

@endlame said
@Paul-Leggett

Do you have any idea how many players here inflated their stats and went to real tournaments and got crushed?

@mchill is a current example.

Convincing yourself online by playing weak opponents only brings heartache.

And how exactly has mchill “inflated” his stats?
Your incorrect surmisation that playing lower rated opponents achieves this clearly does not apply to mchill, as a quick check of his profile page will show.
There is just a 31 point difference between his and his opponents’ average ratings over the last year, and a 115 point difference over the last five years.
If you’re going to make false accusations, at least be consistent.
FMDavidHLevin gave a clear explanation of how the rating system works, which you dismissed as “mumbo-jumbo.”
I’m sorry you were not able to understand this.

Another 300 point deficit player triggered ⬆️

If his rating explanation was true then everyone would be 300 points above their opponent average rating.

Cannot seen why people are looking at average ratings of opponents.
Mines is 1450ish. I only played in the hardcore which attracts
a lot of players below that rating and few over 1900.
I cannot beat these 1900+ guys anymore as I blunder far too often.
Against the lower rated lads I still blunder but get away with it.

My current rating here (1900 something) is very close to my current OTB rating.

I think the saddest thing I did regarding rating here is when I was
1899 and lost in a game I should resign. I explained to my opponent
that I expect to win a few other games and it would be good to see
me over 1900 again and then I'll resign.

I have good days where I can see everything. but the numerous bad
days, which I do not recognise till after I've seen what I've played,
are more frequent. I don't mind losing but losing how I've been losing
in the past few years is frustrating.

But enough of the self pity. The top rated player cenerentola (2570)
his average opponent is 1740 so I'm not sure why it makes a difference
and why it should be an eye raising topic.

(Congrats to Beatlemania)

@endlame said
Listen all you people who want success at chess...

Play tougher opponents or people at your level.

I do agree that playing stronger opponents will most likely improve your chess.
But I think we all eventually reach a level we can’t get beyond.

@tommovich said
I do agree that playing stronger opponents will most likely improve your chess.
But I think we all eventually reach a level we can’t get beyond.

Alekhine said your skill level is decided at birth.

Achieving your max level is up to you.

I guess that explains why some people stay at a low level no matter the studying or coaching.

I have improved about 20 rating points per year over the last 20 years, which is ok, but I also think that might be just rating inflation over time...I dunno.

@greenpawn34

I thought you were a Master, no?

No, just a hacker who had a good run.
If they gave titles for the love of the game I'd be a GM
and in that respect I suspect we all are.

@greenpawn34 said
No, just a hacker who had a good run.
If they gave titles for the love of the game I'd be a GM
and in that respect I suspect we all are.

Yes, you certainly would be, sir. And YOUR love of chess is reflected in your excellent blog. It as brought me much enjoyment during my time at RHP.

@endlame said
@64squaresofpain

Excuse me if I come from the land of people who play against people as close to their rating, or higher, my apologies 🙄

The tournament you won says otherwise 😜

Not my fault the site starts you at a low rating.

I've balanced out now.

And 1545 is only 70 points below my rating.
Hardly as bad as these guys beating up on people 300 points below them. 🙄

@endlame said
Not my fault the site starts you at a low rating.

I've balanced out now.

And 1545 is only 70 points below my rating.
Hardly as bad as these guys beating up on people 300 points below them. 🙄

On another note, I find it great that they would play lower rated players. It’s a great opportunity for chess growth, fun, and see how someone that truly knows the game plays. Not to mention humbling and inspirational for growth that you just don’t get from watching a game. I know in my case they get no points, and risk playing a cheater that could take away many points in return. I would say thank you to all true non cheating players that do so.

Now in clan games, this sucks.