Hi Enrico.
Your estimate is too low.
Grades of 3500 & 4000 are on the horizon and in
5 years time the 5000 barrier will be passed.
These players will only marry women graded over 3000 and their children
will only play with other children whose father is over 5000.
They will all live on an isolated island and only play each other forever.
Iinbreeding will be rife and soon every one of them of their offspring
will have webbed feet.
Originally posted by greenpawn34With webbed feet they will then be able to swim off the isolated island.
Hi Enrico.
Your estimate is too low.
Grades of 3500 & 4000 are on the horizon and in
5 years time the 5000 barrier will be passed.
These players will only marry women graded over 3000 and their children
will only play with other children whose father is over 5000.
They will all live on an isolated island and only play each other forever.
Iinbreeding will be rife and soon every one of them of their offspring
will have webbed feet.
On the first page I posted a club that has what you're explaining happening. Not intentional losses though.
Originally posted by wormwoodif we took a group of players, each with a legitimate rating of 1800, and had them each play a never-ending stream of players rated at 1600. In all likelihood, the 1800 players as a WHOLE would win about 75% of their games -- however:
if A wins 1600s [b]every time, he's not 1800 but MUCH stronger (infinitely strong). a 200 point difference in elo system corresponds to scoring 0.75, that's how the rating formula is rigged. it's the fundamental idea behind elo rating systems.
if you score better, your rating WILL rise. if you score worse your rating drops. if you score 0.75 you'll b ity'.
(and yeah, magnus probably doesn't give a rats ass about his rating...)[/b]
there would probably be some who would be able to beat up on the 1600 players - winning perhaps 85% or more of those games -- even though they might still only win half the time against fellow 1800s and almost never when they play 2000s -- perhaps they always choke when they know they're playing strong opponents who don't make mistakes in the first 15 moves.
and there would probably be others would might only win 60% of their games against 1600s, but they also can win 40% against those who are 2000 -- perhaps they have a high-risk approach that allows them to score brilliant wins while also often making terrible blunders.
as a rule of thumb, you're real rating cannot be higher than the best players that you can beat with some regularity. If you have a 2000 rating and the best player you've ever beaten is an 1800, you're not really a 2000 player.
Another factor -- if a person was to ALWAYS play as white, they would win more frequently than the ratings formula would predict and would thus be able to greatly inflate their rating over time. Perhaps the rating formula needs to find a way to take this into account.
Taking the colours into consdieration has been tossed about in the past.
I remember about 5-6 years ago reading a chief national grader explaining
it could be possible to compute but getting the accuracy involved would be a hassle.
He then went on to explain that a lot of grading reuslts are sent in
with names spelt wrong and the results missing etc....etc.
Getting TC's or league sec's to send in the colours as well would cause chaos.
Up piped loads and loads of players (me included) saying we score
better with Black than with White.
Which prompted the question.
Who is actually winning with the White pieces?
Originally posted by greenpawn34It doesn't make any logical sense that a player should be able to score better playing black over the long run. Why should skipping the first move of the game ever give you an advantage?
Taking the colours into consdieration has been tossed about in the past.
I remember about 5-6 years ago reading a chief national grader explaining
it could be possible to compute but getting the accuracy involved would be a hassle.
He then went on to explain that a lot of grading reuslts are sent in
with names spelt wrong and the results missing with White.
Which prompted the question.
Who is actually winning with the White pieces?
Perhaps psychological factors play a role? - the "disadvantage" of playing black might make some players a bit sharper - or the "advantage" of playing white might make some people prone to reckless play?
Originally posted by Melanerpes"at the beginning of the game, white is in zugzwang!"
It doesn't make any logical sense that a player should be able to score better playing black over the long run. Why should skipping the first move of the game ever give you an advantage?
Perhaps psychological factors play a role? - the "disadvantage" of playing black might make some players a bit sharper - or the "advantage" of playing white might make some people prone to reckless play?
Think this is a case of threads merging.
Another thread approached this subject why some score better with Black than White.
I'm of the opinion it is because we tend to put more work into our
Black openings defences/gambits than we do with our White's.
I play 1.e4 and have no idea what I am going to face.
A KP opening and one of it's many branches, a Sicilian, Pirc, Caro, French,
Scandinavian, Alekhines....
Against 1.e4 I know exactly what I am going to do.
Originally posted by greenpawn34greenpawn is completely correct in pointing out the scammish-ness of the rating system, and he isnt alone in his point of view.
Yes but it's the same basic scam the current top lot are pulling
by organising and playing in these 'closed shop' tournaments.
GM Alexander Khalifman pointed out in 1999:
"I was not invited (in the past), probably I played rather unstable in recent years. Rating system
works perfectly for players who play only in round robin closed events. I think most of them
are overrated. Organizers invite same people over and over because they have the same rating and their rating stays high. Morozevich, he is age 20, moved from 2610 to 2720
in one year, but being older I can not imagine being so consistent, scoring 8.5/9 in event after
event."
Originally posted by greenpawn34I play 1.Nf3 specifically because it is like playing black but with the first move. Black is obliged to give a hint of which system they prefer, thus allowing white to transpose into something else. eg.. 1.Nf3 ..c5 might suggest black would like to play the Sicilian, thus 2.c4 transposes into an symmetrical English and hopefully puts black into unfamiliarly territory. Obviously black can play 2..Nf6, but even here his options are reduced, as the e5 pawn move requires preparation and generally speaking white has a comfortable number of systems to chose from.
Think this is a case of threads merging.
Another thread approached this subject why some score better with Black than White.
I'm of the opinion it is because we tend to put more work into our
Black openings defences/gambits than we do with our White's.
I play 1.e4 and have no idea what I am going to face.
A KP opening and one of it's many br ...[text shortened]... o, French,
Scandinavian, Alekhines....
Against 1.e4 I know exactly what I am going to do.
Tiwaking posted:
"greenpawn is completely correct ...."
I'm always correct.
The last time I made mistake was in June 1977.
I was standing next to this woman in a church, a man with his shirt on
back to front asked me if I would take this woman to to be my lawful
wedded wife.
I said, "I do." 😳
Originally posted by Tiwakinghe's just having a laugh as usual, the conspiracy required for top level rating manipulation absolutely doesn't exist. and khalifman, as good a player as he was, was never on par with the top guys. so he blamed the rating system instead of himself.
greenpawn is completely correct in pointing out the scammish-ness of the rating system, and he isnt alone in his point of view.
No joke.
I had wandered into this 15th century church to look at the interesting
architecture and perhaps take some rubbings of the commemorative
brass plaques often found in these ancient churches.
I was rather tired as I had spent the morning chasing the yellow
snub-nosed blue horned butterfly across field and meadow.
I did so want it for my collection. Alas it evaded my efforts and I lost it.
So when asked this question I may not have had my wits about me
and answered in the positive.
Then the strangest thing happended.
Her entire family started cheering wildy as if a huge burden,
or a bitter curse had been lifted from them.
I was then asked to kiss the bride. She lifted her veil and.....
.....my heart jumped for joy.
She had the exact same facial features of the
yellow snub-nosed blue horned butterfly.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Hahaha, you married Magnus Carlsen? 😛
No joke.
I had wandered into this 15th century church to look at the interesting
architecture and perhaps take some rubbings of the commemorative
brass plaques often found in these ancient churches.
I was rather tired as I had spent the morning chasing the yellow
snub-nosed blue horned butterfly across field and meadow.
I did so want it for ...[text shortened]... y.
She had the exact same facial features of the
yellow snub-nosed blue horned butterfly.