Only Chess
09 Aug 08
09 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ivan2908in the end it naturally is. but a whole lot of things get masked by it. like for example, when I've just learned how to mate with Q vs R. it probably won't show as a single rating point right now. but when I'll some day face it in a game, I can destroy my opponent blitz speed. it makes me a better player, without showing up in my rating.
Me too but isn't the rating indicator of mastered stuff and chess understanding ? I do not play because of rating per se but how would you otherwise track your progress if not with statistical rating points ?
eventually those little things will accumulate, reach a critical mass, and I'll hit a jump in rating level. but it's more a side-effect as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in learning those specific little things than in the possible rating bump.
I'm a lot better player now than I was a year ago, but my rating is almost unchanged. the reason why my rating is not rising, is that I stopped heavy tactics training back then. I knew that would happen, and never expected anything else. but meanwhile I've come a long way in all other areas, mainly endgame & openings. the holes which I need to fill before I can really survive with the bigger dogs.
10 Aug 08
Hi Ivan,
Examining your graph you seem to be more concerned with increasing your rating than improving as a player.Why i come to this conclusion you may wonder?
1) You seemed to have completely bypassed the 1600-1700 range for opponents.
2) To bring your rating through from 1600 to 1700 most of your opponents were around 1400 ish or even lower, a couple of higher but ended premature as a draw.
3) All the games i could see against 1700+ opponents ended as a premature draw without a middle game.
In an earlier thread you mentioned wanting a more stable rating, the only way to do this is by playing opponents with a similar rating as yourself.
Maybe you should play 10+ games against 1600-1700 players and then you will know if you have an inflated rating or not.
I hope you take this as constuctive criticism rather than an attack.
11 Aug 08
Originally posted by XenpakInteresting analysis on a rating chart! You have some good points.
Hi Ivan,
Examining your graph you seem to be more concerned with increasing your rating than improving as a player.Why i come to this conclusion you may wonder?
1) You seemed to have completely bypassed the 1600-1700 range for opponents.
2) To bring your rating through from 1600 to 1700 most of your opponents were around 1400 ish or even lower, a couple of ...[text shortened]... an inflated rating or not.
I hope you take this as constuctive criticism rather than an attack.
How one scores against a given opposition Elo is, IMO, more indicative of so called playing strength than a Elo rating itself, since these can be padded. If your rating was 2000 Elo but you only scored 30% against 2000 Elo opposition, I'd be suspicious. You're probably 100-150 points inflated in my opinion.
As an aside, I wouldn't question a person's intention on ratings levels since alot players play lower rated players because they participate in tournament or clan games that involve players of all levels. As well, I play against a few buddies ranked lower than me all the time. Not to pad rating but to have fun with friends.
11 Aug 08
Originally posted by jnguyenThis is true, i just referring to Ivans case as he has started afew threads related to his progress etc.
As an aside, I wouldn't question a person's intention on ratings levels since alot players play lower rated players because they participate in tournament or clan games that involve players of all levels. As well, I play against a few buddies ranked lower than me all the time. Not to pad rating but to have fun with friends.
I noticed the same scenario when i started, i jumped up to 1500+ only playing mid 1200 players, i could have continued until 1600+ but what would be the point.
I decided to start playing only players close to my rating and hence i could get a true rating value without the padding.
Getting back to Ivan, he started a thread a while ago, complaining that nobody would play him due to his graph, the reason he resigned multiple games was to get a more stable rating.Now look, he's doing it again, this time he's going to further extremes, his original peak was due to playing lots of low rated players, he's continued where he left off.
So Ivan, to avoid falling into the same trap again and resigning loads of games, it would be better to stop playing opponents under 1500 for a while.
Again, if my writing style sounds harsh its not supposed to.
11 Aug 08
Originally posted by Xenpakagreed.
This is true, i just referring to Ivans case as he has started afew threads related to his progress etc.
I noticed the same scenario when i started, i jumped up to 1500+ only playing mid 1200 players, i could have continued until 1600+ but what would be the point.
I decided to start playing only players close to my rating and hence i could get a true ratin ...[text shortened]... ponents under 1500 for a while.
Again, if my writing style sounds harsh its not supposed to.
this isnt even real chess you might as well just use it for practice
11 Aug 08
5 edits
So Ivan, to avoid falling into the same trap again and resigning loads of games, it would be better to stop playing opponents under 1500 for a while.No, I won't repeat that, look at my games in progress, only 7 games left. Last time I was 1691 but with 15 lost games waiting for resignation.
As for my draws with higher rated opponents, I did it due to lack of time. I subscribed to Hardcore grand tournament without having any clue of how many new games in progress I will get (I thought it is knockout type tournament (😲) with 2 games in progress simultaneusly)
So I was offering draws to reduce my sudden gameload.
But I had a dozen of winning positions against 1800+ players. Why do you think they would otherwise accept draw offer from weaker opponent ? In some of them I was piece up or materialy superior. Now, when I reduce games to zero and keep my rating high, that is a good step towards stabilization. And no more hardcore grands. 😛
EDIT:
Here is a position against 1850-1900 player. I wouldn't say he has superior position, no ? So I wouldn't call my rating inflated 😛 I am white and I offered draw here.
11 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivan2908If 'how good I am' can be measured in terms of 'rating points', then I can use 'rating' instead of 'skill'.
I firstly started to play only because my friends played a lot altough I wasn't interested in the game. I soon got addicted when I bought Chessmaster 10th edition. My goal was to beat "Josh age six" personality rated 1200 and get 1200 chessmaster rating and that was pretty tough call 😛 At the same time I discovered RHP but somehow I couldn't get my rating ...[text shortened]... realize that my curernt level is not enough to enjoy immensly big potential of this game.
The higher rating I have, the more I have to defend it. If I go to 1800+ and stay there, then I have to work a lot with playing, studying, etc. So I settle with a lower rating, to preserve the fun of the game.
But, yes, I would gladly come to 2400+, but I'm not up for the hard work getting there and staing there.
But 'rating' is not the same as 'skill'. Skill is more stable than rating.
11 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasGood point. Who cares about rating graphs or rating. Show us a good game.
If 'how good I am' can be measured in terms of 'rating points', then I can use 'rating' instead of 'skill'.
The higher rating I have, the more I have to defend it. If I go to 1800+ and stay there, then I have to work a lot with playing, studying, etc. So I settle with a lower rating, to preserve the fun of the game.
But, yes, I would gladly come to ...[text shortened]... here.
But 'rating' is not the same as 'skill'. Skill is more stable than rating.
