- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16955
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by Murchuif you played and beat 20 -1200 rated guys as a provisional you'd end up with a lower rating than if you had played 20 2000+ rated guys and lost.
Cheers 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.
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 a ...[text shortened]... onsidered as if they were 1600 rated players.
As I say, more curious than anything else 🙂
28 Jun 11
Dear Mr. Beginner:
One thing you obviously don't understand is that RHP is REVERSE chess. You really didn't know that? Reverse Hot Pawn! If you make the mistake of winning, your rating WILL drop. (DAH, as we say in America.)
That said, if you want to lose a higher percentage of your games, here's what has always worked for me. STAND ON YOUR HEAD while playing. This will afford you a unique perspective that few chess players have heretofore fully appreciated. You'll see clearly your opponent's point of view, and loads of nourishing blood will rush to your head. The blood gives you oxygen, helping you think and thereby encouraging you to lose more efficiently. Your rating will quickly drop to about MY level or perhaps even lower!
29 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SaviellyStatements like this say more about you than the subject- I don't mean to be mean-spirited, but not understanding the theory of how something works does not constitute grounds for challenging the intellect of the theorist. It might be worthwhile to read a little about ELO ratings on wikipedia.com or another source.
Sorry, but...
That's just stupid.
That sample that challenges your thinking in such a way really gives two examples where the ratings are effectively irrelevant, in that if the player won or lost every game against a single opponent, we know that they are better or worse, but really have no idea how much, so the rating is still a work in progress.
In all cases, the rating number is no more than a guide, as it tells us nothing about chess knowledge, tactical ability, strategic sense, openings knowledge, endgame knowledge, power of concentration, relative style, or anything. It merely gives us a relative performance index against other players.
The more samples we have, the more relevant the rating becomes. Even after 20 or 25 games against a number of opponents, there is still room for fine-tuning.
