20 Jun 11
No, my name isn't really Savielly, just as most of the "Kasparovs" on here probably aren't really Kasparov. It is just a reference to a great chess player, given that this is a chess site and all..
One question: Why does my rating keep dropping even when I win games?
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by SaviellyFAQ
No, my name isn't really Savielly, just as most of the "Kasparovs" on here probably aren't really Kasparov. It is just a reference to a great chess player, given that this is a chess site and all..
One question: Why does my rating keep dropping even when I win games?
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16959
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by Eladari think there's a point everyone can get to without study, for me that's my current rating, for others in could be higher. on the other side i've had conversations with people around the 1300 mark who have said to have completed more chess puzzle and read more book than i have completed games, it really does vary from person to person.
I suppose I should have said formal training or exposure to good players. People don't play good chess without seeing others do it.
I suck, so my definition of good may be a bit low.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by trev33My point was that you wouldn't get better if you only played others your strength.
i think there's a point everyone can get to without study, for me that's my current rating, for others in could be higher. on the other side i've had conversations with people around the 1300 mark who have said to have completed more chess puzzle and read more book than i have completed games, it really does vary from person to person.
Sure there are the extreme few who can naturally pick up the game with little or no help, but the rest of us have got to have examples.
By no means am I to say that all chess players are created equal. Some people have talent and others don't. Just because a person with talent can achieve more than people who work at it and don't have the talent, that does not negate my point.
Of course it is also possible that the people who are spending their time on books and puzzles are wasting their time doing the puzzles wrong, doing the wrong puzzles and reading the wrong books. It may not be simply a lack of talent.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by SaviellyWhen I first started playing chess I didn't even know who Kasparov was. I still get him confused with that other K guy, Karpov. I had heard of Fischer.
No, my name isn't really Savielly, just as most of the "Kasparovs" on here probably aren't really Kasparov. It is just a reference to a great chess player, given that this is a chess site and all..
One question: Why does my rating keep dropping even when I win games?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12473
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by SaviellyCompare the number of numpties who don't even know how the horsie-shaped one moves, yet know who Kasparov is, with the number of "beginners" who know the personal name of Tartakower.
No, my name isn't really Savielly, just as most of the "Kasparovs" on here probably aren't really Kasparov. It is just a reference to a great chess player, given that this is a chess site and all..
Likely? Not greatly.
Richard
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SmittyTimeHmm.. what I want to know is how a new player can take on a beat a bunch of players mostly rated around 1200 (with the odd 1400-rated player), and end up with a 1600 plus rating after a dozen games.. perhaps we should all create new usernames, and beat up on some lower rated players. Seems to work a charm..
Now he's 11-0!
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by MurchuSays the guy whose opponent's average rating is 1261! 🙄
Hmm.. what I want to know is how a new player can take on a beat a bunch of players mostly rated around 1200 (with the odd 1400-rated player), and end up with a 1600 plus rating after a dozen games.. perhaps we should all create new usernames, and beat up on some lower rated players. Seems to work a charm..
21 Jun 11
The reason my opponents are all lower rated (and the reason I'm still undefeated) is that all my open invites are accepted by lower rated players, and I can't set a rating limit on who accepts my games. I challeged several 1600ish players, and all but one of them deleted the games.
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Have a look again. I have a friend rated 1000 (reason I joined the site), who skews the average. Most of the players I play are around the 1350/ 1400 mark, which as someone with 2 dozen games under my belt, is pretty much not too far from where I was until recently.
Says the guy whose opponent's average rating is 1261! 🙄
Now that's sorted, perhaps you might give a shot at answering the actual question I asked, which is as much a curiosity about the rating system as anything else.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by MurchuSorry couldn't resist. 😉
Have a look again. I have a friend rated 1000 (reason I joined the site), who skews the average. Most of the players I play are around the 1350/ 1400 mark, which as someone with 2 dozen games under my belt, is pretty much not too far from where I was until recently.
Now that's sorted, perhaps you might give a shot at answering the actual question I asked, which is as much a curiosity about the rating system as anything else.
He is only provisionally rated. After 20 games his rating will quit increasing if he continues to only play sub 1300 opponents. Pretty much his rating will end up where it should be based on the win % combined with the average rating of his opponents.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by MurchuEasily explainable. According to the FAQ, "Until you complete 20 games, you will have a provisional rating. This rating is calculated as the average of all the games you have played. Each game is scored as being your opponent's rating (for a draw), your opponent's rating plus 400 (for a win), or your opponent's rating minus 400 (for a loss). If your opponent is also on a provisional rating, then the 400s above become 200s. If your opponent has played fewer than five games then their rating is treated as 1200 when calculating your rating."
Hmm.. what I want to know is how a new player can take on a beat a bunch of players mostly rated around 1200 (with the odd 1400-rated player), and end up with a 1600 plus rating after a dozen games.. perhaps we should all create new usernames, and beat up on some lower rated players. Seems to work a charm..
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by Mad RookCheers Mad Rook, that explains it quite clearly. I'm afraid I didn't have the appetite to delve into the fineries of the rating system again, after a few previous excursions there which left me more confused than where I start.
Easily explainable. According to the FAQ, "Until you complete 20 games, you will have a provisional rating. This rating is calculated as the average of all the games you have played. Each game is scored as being your opponent's rating (for a draw), your opponent's rating plus 400 (for a win), or your opponent's rating minus 400 (for a loss). If your opponen ...[text shortened]... d fewer than five games then their rating is treated as 1200 when calculating your rating."
In any case, so if you just sign up and play a bunch of non-provisional 1200 rated players, any wins within your first 20 games are considered as if they were 1600 rated players.
As I say, more curious than anything else 🙂